Do the following Violate Universally Preferable Behaviour?

[RichardY]

Do the following Violate Universally Preferable Behaviour?

 

Being a modern day Roman Style Gladiator.
A Formula One Driver.
A Jihadist Fighter.

 

I'm thinking in terms of competing Gene-sets.

 

 

From Pg 42 UPB

<quote>

 

Since man is the most successful species, and man’s most distinctive organ is his mind, it must be man’s mind that has aided him the most in making successful choices. The mind itself, then, has been selected as successful by its very ability to make successful choices. Since the human mind only exists as a result of choosing universally preferable behaviour, universally preferable behaviour must be a valid concept.

 

1. Organisms succeed by acting upon universally preferable behaviour.

2. Man is the most successful organism.

 

<end quote>

 

The Gladiator

If the participant willingly signs a contract to take part in lethal or potentially lethal combat against other willing participants could this be considered to not violate UPB? From the points of view that 1)The participants Agreed 2)Participants with inadequate combat ability and Intelligence would be removed from the gene-pool, potentially Universally Preferable Behaviour for the Gene-set 3) The participants that survived could be recognised as possessing at the very least superior physical fitness and an ability to manage severe psychological pressure, or not be effected compared to the general population and therefore potentially desirable breeding stock. 4) The participants could be rewarded with a chest of blood money, minus Stadium fees. 5) The high turnover rate could allow more people to compete if they want to.

 

A Formula One Driver

Still potentially deadly, not so much now. Maybe more people watched the sport when the occasional car went up in a fireball, kind of boring now unless you like the technical aspects. Might be more interesting if they had a little less emphasis on health and safety and regulations. Point being that “everyone” loves a racing driver, unless your an Astronaut, like the lynx/Ax deodorant advert.

 

A Jihadist Fighter

Could a Jihadist Fighter be said to be engaging in UPB for his one “True” Religion” if it benefits his or her ability to reproduce? If he accepts the Religion is BS, if no one opposes his march of terror or Religion/Insanity/Ideology when he says behead those who insult the prophet, oh and by the way here is a video link.... He could reasonably conclude that those who do not oppose him are insane and therefore not subject to UPB. If he finds that most people do not follow UPB to any great extent, might he conclude that his way of thinking is clearly superior, maybe even that he himself is superior. Makes me think of the second original Planet of the Apes film, with one group the mutants worshipping “The Bomb” and the other group the Apes following their “Prophet” Cemos.

 

In the end is what survives Universally Preferable even if it is partially insane and has vestigial habits passed down from mysticism. Could having and believing in a religion be UPB in someway "Every sperm is sacred, Monty Python".   

 

 

What are the implications in UPB if UPB can not be understood or communicated?

 

Ayn Rand, Man's life as a standard of value. (I think she specified somewhere providing he was sane)

Other than “possibly” sanity is there any standard of value or success in UPB?

Is UPB Sanity + Will to Power?

 

Also, “1. Organisms succeed by acting upon universally preferable behaviour.”

What if one organism eats another or poisons the ground for other organisms? How far can universality be applied within the same species? If an Alligator (A) eats the young of another Alligator (B) is that Universally Preferable Behaviour for the geneset of Alligator (A), due to less future competition.

[dsayers]

Theft, assault, rape, and murder are immoral. The end.

[Will Torbald]

What you quoted isn't UPB itself, only an argument that tries to establish UPB as a valid concept to even think about. Everything else that you're asking stems from that misconception, which frankly doesn't make a lot of sense.

[Mister Mister]

UPB and morality have nothing to do with evolutionary success.  I may have misunderstood, but I thought you were implying they were.

[John Sambrook]

In podcast #70, "How to control a human soul," Stef describes a situation where the parents of a small child work to create a fundamental contradiction in the child's mind.

His example in this case is asserting the existence of a "Golden Apple."

Would UPB consider the parent's actions moral or immoral?

[RichardY]

In podcast #70, "How to control a human soul," Stef describes a situation where the parents of a small child work to create a fundamental contradiction in the child's mind.

 

His example in this case is asserting the existence of a "Golden Apple."

 

Would UPB consider the parent's actions moral or immoral?

An Excellent podcast, should be in Stef's Top 10 if he had one, Thank you.

 

The parent's actions would be immoral, asserting the existence of something without evidence, like the reference to the "Emperor's new cloak" contained in the podcast. Lots of useful Information, very clarifying.

[John Sambrook]

An Excellent podcast, should be in Stef's Top 10 if he had one, Thank you.

 

The parent's actions would be immoral, asserting the existence of something without evidence, like the reference to the "Emperor's new cloak" contained in the podcast. Lots of useful Information, very clarifying.

 

Thank you, RY.

 

Why is this action immoral, as against being an aesthetic preference on the part of the parents?

[EclecticIdealist]

Thank you, RY.

 

Why is this action immoral, as against being an aesthetic preference on the part of the parents?

While this is a matter of debate, it is my opinion that it is immoral (according to UPB) because the children cannot avoid the lie of the parents, thus it is unavoidable behavior. That it is unavoidable is the general distinction between immoral and aesthetically negative.

[dsayers]

In podcast #70, "How to control a human soul," Stef describes a situation where the parents of a small child work to create a fundamental contradiction in the child's mind.

 

His example in this case is asserting the existence of a "Golden Apple."

 

Would UPB consider the parent's actions moral or immoral?

When parents have a child, they are creating a positive obligation to that child to nurture and protect them until such a time as they are able to do so without their parents. Since correctly identifying things is paramount to survival, this would be a violation of that obligation and therefore immoral.

[Will Torbald]

When parents have a child, they are creating a positive obligation to that child to nurture and protect them until such a time as they are able to do so without their parents. Since correctly identifying things is paramount to survival, this would be a violation of that obligation and therefore immoral.

 

Nothing has the obligation to live. In effect, you are saying that the child is enslaving their parents by existing. No, this doesn't follow. Children are indefense and cannot provide for themselves - but the obligation to take care of them doesn't exist neither rationally nor empirically - because living is not necessary, nor obligatory, nor enslaving.

[dsayers]

you are saying that the child is enslaving their parents

Show me where.

[Will Torbald]

Show me where.

 

When you say that an obligation exists between a parent and a child.

[dsayers]

"the child is enslaving their parents" and

"an obligation exists between a parent and a child" look the same to you? (I arranged them vertically so you can see that character for character, they're nothing alike).

 

"When parents have a child, they are creating a positive obligation to that child" (<- what I actually said; try copy/pasting and see for yourself) and

"an obligation exists between a parent and a child" are not the same.

 

You're deliberately leaving out the voluntary aspect so you can erect your enslavement straw man. Why?

[Will Torbald]

"the child is enslaving their parents" and

"an obligation exists between a parent and a child" look the same to you? (I arranged them vertically so you can see that character for character, they're nothing alike).

 

"When parents have a child, they are creating a positive obligation to that child" (<- what I actually said; try copy/pasting and see for yourself) and

"an obligation exists between a parent and a child" are not the same.

 

You're deliberately leaving out the voluntary aspect so you can erect your enslavement straw man. Why?

 

It is the same thing in practice. The child didn't ask to be conceived, born, or raised. Life is entirely given out of choice, not obligation. You say parents are obligated towards a child, and then say it's voluntary - a clear contradiction. Choose one and only one. Parenting is a choice in every step of the way as no one is owed life at any point of existence.

[dsayers]

It is the same thing in practice.

Nice deflection. If it were the same thing in practice, then you wouldn't need to erect a straw man to knock it down. You could just knock it down. The fact that you have to twist words to make it the opposite of what was said is proof that you understand that it's not the same thing. How very slimy of you.

 

You say parents are obligated towards a child, and then say it's voluntary - a clear contradiction.

Where is the contradiction? People voluntarily create obligations to others every day. If you and I agree to trade my X for your Y, I am voluntarily creating an obligation to you for my X. The term "obligation" does not denote (lack of) consent, so is ineligible for contradiction of a term that denotes consent.

 

I wonder why taking responsibility away from parents is so important to you that you would just make stuff up like this and triple down to maintain it.

[Will Torbald]

Nice deflection. If it were the same thing in practice, then you wouldn't need to erect a straw man to knock it down. You could just knock it down. The fact that you have to twist words to make it the opposite of what was said is proof that you understand that it's not the same thing. How very slimy of you.

 

Where is the contradiction? People voluntarily create obligations to others every day. If you and I agree to trade my X for your Y, I am voluntarily creating an obligation to you for my X. The term "obligation" does not denote (lack of) consent, so is ineligible for contradiction of a term that denotes consent.

 

I wonder why taking responsibility away from parents is so important to you that you would just make stuff up like this and triple down to maintain it.

Children are not in voluntary contracts with parents. Voluntary obligation is an oxymoron.

[EclecticIdealist]

The only obligation parents truly have to children they have procreated is to ensure that someone takes care of them until the point that they can take care of themselves. Everything beyond that is voluntary.

[dsayers]

Voluntary obligation is an oxymoron.

Define oxymoron then. Because while I am not aware of your vehicle, domicile, or job situations, I do know that you're posting on these forums. Which means I can say without fear of contradiction that you have voluntarily created an obligation to adhere to the forum's rules. And I'll bet your every day is full of obligations you satisfy because you voluntarily created them.

 

"4.

the act of binding or obliging oneself by a promise, contract, etc."

source: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/obligation?s=t

[Will Torbald]

Define oxymoron then. Because while I am not aware of your vehicle, domicile, or job situations, I do know that you're posting on these forums. Which means I can say without fear of contradiction that you have voluntarily created an obligation to adhere to the forum's rules. And I'll bet your every day is full of obligations you satisfy because you voluntarily created them.

 

"4.

the act of binding or obliging oneself by a promise, contract, etc."

source: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/obligation?s=t

I am not obligated to follow the forum's rules, the forum is obligated to enforce them. If they don't enforce the rules, they are suggestions, not rules. I can break them any time I want.

 

On the other hand, no such contract exists with children. It isn't written anywhere in the universe that parents must tend to their offspring. As an analogy, you see children as customers of parents who demand a service to them with their mere existence since they haven't voluntarily signed any contract - which is why I said that under that parameter what you advocate is equal to enslavement from a child to a parent. On the other hand, my argument is that children are the products of the company called parents, not the customers. Parents produce children while children are subject to their rule. Nobody has the right to claim an obligation to others for merely existing - which is a rather Marxist/communist thing to believe.

[Troubador]

If parents do not hold a positive obligation to nurture, keep safe and love thier children, society from even it's most primal tribal expression to the largest, and most advanced civilization collapses. The cornerstone of the whole human race is measured by how well (or how badly) we meet this obligation.

[vahleeb]

It is the same thing in practice. The child didn't ask to be conceived, born, or raised. Life is entirely given out of choice, not obligation. You say parents are obligated towards a child, and then say it's voluntary - a clear contradiction. Choose one and only one. Parenting is a choice in every step of the way as no one is owed life at any point of existence.

Will, say one cold rainy evening you pick up a cat off the street and bring it into the house. You feed it for about a week and then you leave for vacation for two weeks somewhere else, while leaving the cat locked in the home with no food. Would you consider that moral/immoral/morally neutral? Have you broken any obligations?

[Will Torbald]

If parents do not hold a positive obligation to nurture, keep safe and love thier children, society from even it's most primal tribal expression to the largest, and most advanced civilization collapses. The cornerstone of the whole human race is measured by how well (or how badly) we meet this obligation.

 

"Out of obligation" is the worst, if not near the worst way of raising children. The ideal is to do it out of love, compassion, and philantropy. None of those are forces upon adults which only create resentment, nihilism, and material adherence - but no spiritual bonds between parents and children. In no way can it ever been called virtuous to instill in children the guilt of enslaving their parents to them. Mothers who leave careers for the family, fathers who work to bring home money and food, families who struggle - these are choices, not obligations. For a child to grow thinking that he or she was a burden to their family is highly morbid to their happiness.

[dsayers]

"Out of obligation" is the worst, if not near the worst way of raising children.

Other way around. I WANT for a parent who has the thought of assaulting a child to understand that they have created an obligation to do the opposite. That's why I won't let your bullshit stand unopposed: You are perpetuating the cycle of violence. I noticed too that you are not expressing curiosity or otherwise behaving with any integrity.

[Troubador]

Will you are automatically attaching a negative connotation to the word obligation where none is implicit. I embrace my obligation to my son because I love him. The idea of instilling some sort of guilt because I choose to be a father would be abusive. However, and I don't think I am speaking falsely here not everyone is cut out for parenthood. It is a significant undertaking, both in terms of time, resources and commitment. If you aren't willing to invest those things the outcome is unlikely to be positive for anyone.

 

The obligation if any exists is to pay it forward. I'm actually pretty stoked and grateful to be alive. I know the world can be a bit rubbish in places but on balance I've known some good people, been to some beautiful places and had some great times. I'd definitely recommend being alive to anyone, and I'm happy to bring another soul into the world. If my son chooses an obligation it should be to his sons or daughters and not to me. My job is to carry the family baton as far as I can and pass it on...

[Will Torbald]

Other way around. I WANT for a parent who has the thought of assaulting a child to understand that they have created an obligation to do the opposite. That's why I won't let your bullshit stand unopposed: You are perpetuating the cycle of violence. I noticed too that you are not expressing curiosity or otherwise behaving with any integrity.

I say I want parents to do it out of love, not pretend it is an obligation. You say that perpetuates violence. Yeah, I'm done with you.

Will you are automatically attaching a negative connotation to the word obligation where none is implicit. I embrace my obligation to my son because I love him. The idea of instilling some sort of guilt because I choose to be a father would be abusive. However, and I don't think I am speaking falsely here not everyone is cut out for parenthood. It is a significant undertaking, both in terms of time, resources and commitment. If you aren't willing to invest those things the outcome is unlikely to be positive for anyone.

 

The obligation if any exists is to pay it forward. I'm actually pretty stoked and grateful to be alive. I know the world can be a bit rubbish in places but on balance I've known some good people, been to some beautiful places and had some great times. I'd definitely recommend being alive to anyone, and I'm happy to bring another soul into the world. If my son chooses an obligation it should be to his sons or daughters and not to me. My job is to carry the family baton as far as I can and pass it on...

If it isn't true that obligations exist, the negative connotation is one you have against that fact. Facts are neither negative nor positive. Obligations are by definition enforceable. You can't force parents to parent, and children do not force parents to parent them. It's not hard to understand.

[dsayers]

I say I want parents to do it out of love

Most parents abuse their child despite--or sometimes BECAUSE--claiming to love them. Also, it is a false dichotomy to speak of love and obligation as if they are mutually exclusive. I feel the MOST obligation to the people I love BECAUSE of my voluntarily created obligations to honesty, virtue, and integrity and the ways in which seeking out others with those values draws that love from me involuntarily.

 

I am so sorry that you were abused to this extent.

[Will Torbald]

Most parents abuse their child despite--or sometimes BECAUSE--claiming to love them. Also, it is a false dichotomy to speak of love and obligation as if they are mutually exclusive. I feel the MOST obligation to the people I love BECAUSE of my voluntarily created obligations to honesty, virtue, and integrity and the ways in which seeking out others with those values draws that love from me involuntarily.

 

I am so sorry that you were abused to this extent.

Love is abuse. Choices are obligations. The double think is astounding.

[dsayers]

Love is abuse. Choices are obligations. The double think is astounding.

The only double think I see is "I'm done with you... except that I'm not."

[Will Torbald]

The only double think I see is "I'm done with you... except that I'm not."

 

When I say that parents should love their children instead of looking at them as obligations you claim that leads to abuse. The one making strawmen is you. I said I was done in the sense of expecting any reason from you as you always made statments, not arguments.

[dsayers]

When I say that parents should love their children instead of looking at them as obligations you claim that leads to abuse.

Show me where.

[Will Torbald]

Show me where.

 

I don't take orders from you. You can read back my arguments and your posts if you're so inclined.

[dsayers]

I don't take orders from you. You can read back my arguments and your posts if you're so inclined.

More double think. When you make an objective claim, YOU are saying that truth is preferable to falsehood. So you would be "taking orders (poisoning the well)" from yourself. I didn't say what you say I said and you know this.

[vahleeb]

Will, can you go back to my cat question? I feel ignored

[Will Torbald]

Will, say one cold rainy evening you pick up a cat off the street and bring it into the house. You feed it for about a week and then you leave for vacation for two weeks somewhere else, while leaving the cat locked in the home with no food. Would you consider that moral/immoral/morally neutral? Have you broken any obligations?

 

Sorry for ignoring this, it may have been delayed for review and I missed it. Ok, while I understand you are making an analogy in order to make a case, all analogies are flawed to a degree, but the degree to which this is different does make a difference. Children are not picked from the street. A couple first chooses to mate, then chooses to follow through pregnancy and birth, then to raise it. The amount of inertia, psychological and emotional inertia, that goes through the entire process makes the case that for parents to stop and abandon the entire process in a whim, for no reason, highly improbable. It would take a catastrophic trauma for that to happen. Irresponsible parents do forget, or neglect, but that level of idiocy is perhaps beyond the aspect of describing a proposed ideal situation.

 

 

I'm coming from the position hat life is not an obligation to experience for the living individual - that life isn't owed to anyone - that offspring are the product of choices, not obligations - and that offspring are receiving life as a gift, not taking life from the parents as if it was owed to them for merely existing.

 

 

 

With all those premises, which everyone who argued with me ignored and started yelling falacies like parrots, it then follows that the ideal parenting is one born from love and voluntary gifting of care. Parenting from obligation is possible, not evil, but not ideal. That is my argument.

[Will Torbald]

Will, can you go back to my cat question? I feel ignored

 

 

I wrote a response after reading this, but it might take a while to get approved or it could have gotten lost and broken in the process since I wrote it on mobile and sometimes it doesn't work. If it doesn't show up I'll rewrite it.