Thoughts and Questions about UPB

[Nick900]

I just finished reading through the UPB book, it was thoroughly enjoyable but I have a few comments, concerns and questions.

 

First of all, to me, UPB felt more generalised than a "rational proof of secular ethics", it felt more like the correct application of logic to moral statements and I finished the book still unconvinced that ethics is anything more than just personal preference. 

 

The first concern I had was that it all seems very theoretical in the sense that it's a great tool for using in debates where both parties accept universal principles. If both parties accept universal principles have to apply to everyone without exception regardless of costume, race, location, etc ... then it's a great logical tool for validating theories. For example, if someone puts forward the theory it's moral for soldiers to kill, UPB is great for shooting that down in a debate where logical consistency is required.

 

However, I wasn't quite convinced when moral rules were being proposed instead of refuted. For example, on page 121 (Lulu paperback version) murder gets defined as "killing intentionally and with premeditation, not in self-defence" which defines murder in such a way that it has to be a moral evil. UPB is about abstract principles and not individual instances, for example, it says that when a soldier puts on a uniform, the uniform cannot change the moral nature of the man. The principle being put forward here is that UPB has to be applied to the abstract concept "man" and not "man in a uniform". With the definition of murder as killing with premeditation and not in self-defence, UPB isn't being applied to the abstract concept "killing" but instead killing in a particular circumstance. Is this not comparable to the soldier and the uniform? If UPB is all about analysing concepts in the abstract, should we not be asking is just plain old "killing" immoral without the caveats?

 

In the above example, it seems that UPB is only applied to instances where by definition the act is considered wrong. For instance, applying UPB to rape is no great feat since rape is already defined as "bad" or "evil". We already know rape is unwanted because it's defined as unwanted. Likewise trying to show that fraud is considered evil in UPB is pointless since it's considered unwanted by definition.

 

I fully see the benefit of UPB in combating false moral theories but I don't see how it takes the place as the correct moral theory. As I said earlier, it seems to just be the correct application of logic to moral situations. However, throwing around the "moral" tag seems to be somewhat pointless. Showing that someone is internal consistent is great, I can see the immediate value in that, but labelling something immoral seems like a waste of time. It seems to be a secret handshake used by people who have come to the same conclusions - you both agree that X is immoral and you don't like it, therefore, you can both get along together happily. But are "moral" and "immoral" not just labels used to express preference for what you find acceptable behaviour to be?

 

To be clear, I think UPB is a great book, it will do wonders in combating false moral systems, but I'm still not convinced about use the use of moral labelling.

 

1. Does labelling something immoral have any more power other than to express your dislike of something? 
2. Is UPB anything more than taking your personal preferences and putting them forward as universal and logically consistent statements for consumption? 

[Koroviev]

UPB is a system of deciding whether or not something is moral. It is a rational proof in that it is rational arguments in support of a theory (of universal secular ethics). The examples you point out are specific examples showing that UPB would consider rape, murder, and stealing immoral since, as Stefan points out, a moral theory cannot be valid if it concludes that those things are moral. Those examples also serve to show how UPB can be applied. 

 

Part of the theory is that morality is universal (stemming from our inherent property rights) thus anything that is not applied universally would fall under aesthetics.

 

1. Morality is not simply like or dislike, morality is questions of right and wrong. I may dislike when people are late but that doesn't mean someone is immoral for being late. 

2. Morality, historically, has been nothing more than taking personal preferences and putting them forward as a way to judge others. UPB is a framework that moves morality out of the realm of aesthetics (subjectivity), in an attempt to fill the moral gap left by atheism.

 

It took me a couple reads through to understand UPB.

[Nick900]

1. Morality is not simply like or dislike, morality is questions of right and wrong. I may dislike when people are late but that doesn't mean someone is immoral for being late. 

2. Morality, historically, has been nothing more than taking personal preferences and putting them forward as a way to judge others. UPB is a framework that moves morality out of the realm of aesthetics (subjectivity), in an attempt to fill the moral gap left by atheism.

 

1. You're the one defining immorality, it just appears to be a negative judgement of someones actions. 
2. I do not see how this makes it objective though, sure a moral judgement might be logically consistent and it might be able to be made into a universal rule, but so what? Stating that murder is immoral under UPB says nothing but you think murder is bad and you are internally consistent in that belief. It's still just your subjective opinion of the action.

[jpahmad]

Watch this and see if this helps clarify things:

[Will Torbald]

 

1. Does labelling something immoral have any more power other than to express your dislike of something? 
2. Is UPB anything more than taking your personal preferences and putting them forward as universal and logically consistent statements for consumption? 

 

 

1- If you can convince people that they shouldn't be immoral just because, it can affect their behavior. Otherwise morality needs enforcers, with which it would be neutered ideology only.

2- If you make a logically consistent argument, I think it can be said to be more than a personal preference. I think it goes beyond a subjective opinion, because an opinion on murder would be "I love murder, I like doing it, it feels great!" and I'm sure there are people like that somewhere. But to say "murder is an immoral action because of this argument" then you're not really saying wether you think it's fun or boring or disgusting or cool. 

 

[Koroviev]

 

1. You're the one defining immorality, it just appears to be a negative judgement of someones actions. 
2. I do not see how this makes it objective though, sure a moral judgement might be logically consistent and it might be able to be made into a universal rule, but so what? Stating that murder is immoral under UPB says nothing but you think murder is bad and you are internally consistent in that belief. It's still just your subjective opinion of the action.

 

 

1. No the point of the framework is to define universal morality. In christianity the bible defines morality. UPB is a way to define morality. UPB fills the moral gap left by religion.

2. It is objective in that if an action fails the UPB test you know it is immoral. As opposed to something like political correctness where whatever you feel to be offensive could be considered immoral. It is an objective framework arrived at through rationality thus unlike the bible (or any other moral framework) it does not need someone (preachers/god) or something (bibles) to tell you whether it is right or wrong. 

[EclecticIdealist]

I just finished reading through the UPB book, it was thoroughly enjoyable but I have a few comments, concerns and questions.

Good for you.

 

First of all, to me, UPB felt more generalised than a "rational proof of secular ethics", it felt more like the correct application of logic to moral statements and I finished the book still unconvinced that ethics is anything more than just personal preference.

s

The first concern I had was that it all seems very theoretical in the sense that it's a great tool for using in debates where both parties accept universal principles. If both parties accept universal principles have to apply to everyone without exception regardless of costume, race, location, etc ... then it's a great logical tool for validating theories. For example, if someone puts forward the theory it's moral for soldiers to kill, UPB is great for shooting that down in a debate where logical consistency is required.

Yes, that is one axiomatic premise of UPB that must be assumed/presumed/mutually agreed upon without warrant. It is not the only one. Can you identify another primary axiomatic premise of UPB? I have identified three fundamental assumptions and one corollary.

 

However, I wasn't quite convinced when moral rules were being proposed instead of refuted. For example, on page 121 (Lulu paperback version) murder gets defined as "killing intentionally and with premeditation, not in self-defence" which defines murder in such a way that it has to be a moral evil. UPB is about abstract principles and not individual instances, for example, it says that when a soldier puts on a uniform, the uniform cannot change the moral nature of the man. The principle being put forward here is that UPB has to be applied to the abstract concept "man" and not "man in a uniform". With the definition of murder as killing with premeditation and not in self-defence, UPB isn't being applied to the abstract concept "killing" but instead killing in a particular circumstance. Is this not comparable to the soldier and the uniform? If UPB is all about analysing concepts in the abstract, should we not be asking is just plain old "killing" immoral without the caveats?

That is an interesting question. Can an act be moral under one set of circumstances, and immoral under a different set of circumstances? If so, what is it about the circumstances that makes the action moral or immoral? (hint: this relates to one of the three fundamental premises I referred to above)

 

In the above example, it seems that UPB is only applied to instances where by definition the act is considered wrong. For instance, applying UPB to rape is no great feat since rape is already defined as "bad" or "evil". We already know rape is unwanted because it's defined as unwanted. Likewise trying to show that fraud is considered evil in UPB is pointless since it's considered unwanted by definition.

Is there a different way of describing these acts which removes the moral judgement? Might this also point to a fundamental assumption?

 

I fully see the benefit of UPB in combating false moral theories but I don't see how it takes the place as the correct moral theory. As I said earlier, it seems to just be the correct application of logic to moral situations. However, throwing around the "moral" tag seems to be somewhat pointless. Showing that someone is internal consistent is great, I can see the immediate value in that, but labelling something immoral seems like a waste of time. It seems to be a secret handshake used by people who have come to the same conclusions - you both agree that X is immoral and you don't like it, therefore, you can both get along together happily. But are "moral" and "immoral" not just labels used to express preference for what you find acceptable behaviour to be?

As I see it, Stefan has created a framework for evaluating moral systems and simultaneously evaluated a specific moral system (perhaps without realizing he had built into his framework some fundamental assumptions). I contend that the "beast" as he refers to it, is alive and well.

 

To be clear, I think UPB is a great book, it will do wonders in combating false moral systems, but I'm still not convinced about use the use of moral labelling.

• Does labelling something immoral have any more power other than to express your dislike of something? 
• Is UPB anything more than taking your personal preferences and putting them forward as universal and logically consistent statements for consumption? 

1 - This is one of the great questions of moral philosophers including Hume. I share the opinion of Hume that morality is inherently a non-rational sentiment; and therefore ultimately subjective, although it is certainly informed by certain objective facts and principles.

2 - Yes. It is substantially more than that. UPB is the collective, subjective preferences of society. A moral claim or assertion can be evaluated to determine whether it conforms with the preferences of the collective and whether such a prescription or prohibition rationally conforms to such preferences universally. This is the primary strength of Stefan's UPB framework. His framework readily exposes the contradictions in certain behaviors which are presumed to be moral, but are not rationally consistent with our collective preferences or moral sentiments. These are what he describes as frequently being in the "null zone" where morality is stood on its head by the religion, family, the state, etc. in order to exercise control or otherwise exert its will under the pretense of morality.

 

UPB is a system of deciding whether or not something is moral. It is a rational proof in that it is rational arguments in support of a theory (of universal secular ethics). The examples you point out are specific examples showing that UPB would consider rape, murder, and stealing immoral since, as Stefan points out, a moral theory cannot be valid if it concludes that those things are moral. Those examples also serve to show how UPB can be applied.

It is only determining whether a moral proposition conforms to the standards which Stefan has established for moral behavior.

 

1. Morality is not simply like or dislike, morality is questions of right and wrong. I may dislike when people are late but that doesn't mean someone is immoral for being late. 

2. Morality, historically, has been nothing more than taking personal preferences and putting them forward as a way to judge others. UPB is a framework that moves morality out of the realm of aesthetics (subjectivity), in an attempt to fill the moral gap left by atheism.

 

It took me a couple reads through to understand UPB.

The problem is: UPB does not move morality out of the realm of subjectivity. The fact that it rests on the subjective preferences of society leaves it firmly in the subjective realm, no matter how well the collective moral sentiments of society might conform to the Libertarian Ideals and principles such as Property Rights and the Non-Aggression Principle.

 

• You're the one defining immorality, it just appears to be a negative judgement of someone's actions. 
• I do not see how this makes it objective though, sure a moral judgement might be logically consistent and it might be able to be made into a universal rule, but so what? Stating that murder is immoral under UPB says nothing but you think murder is bad and you are internally consistent in that belief. It's still just your subjective opinion of the action.

You are exactly correct. It is not objective. The beast yet lives. And yet there is still an argument that may be made about the superiority of various ideals or moral systems which conform to the collective moral sentiments of the vast majority of society.

[Koroviev]

The problem is UPB does not move morality out of the realm of subjectivity. The fact that it rests on the subjective preferences of society leaves it firmly in the subjective realm, no matter how well collective moral sentiments might conform to the Libertarian Ideals and principles such as Property Rights and the Non-Aggression Principle.

 

Because some people might disagree or use a different standard that makes UPB not objective??

[EclecticIdealist]

Because some people might disagree or use a different standard that makes UPB not objective??

Because all moral standards and ideals are inherently subjective, just like truth is inherently objective.

[Nick900]

Because some people might disagree or use a different standard that makes UPB not objective??

This is my problem with it, even if everyone agrees, I don't see how that makes it objective or binding. I can see how it's culturally relative or democratic or something but I don't understand how a preference could ever said to be objective? Pointing out that your preference has logically consistent parallels with objective reality doesn't make it objective.

 

Don't get me wrong, the only two ways to convince me to abide by your preference is to be logically consistent and rational or use force but that's only because I have a preference for logic, many don't. In the market place of moral theories UPB wins, however, the concept of morality appears to be no more than an opinion. I personally want my opinions to be logically consistent, but so what? It's all just subjective preference, not objective, not binding (I think?)

[Koroviev]

Because all moral standards and ideals are inherently subjective, just like truth is inherently objective.

 

couldn't you also say that about methods for finding the truth? there are many different methods for finding the truth (prayer, reading the bible, reading tea leaves) and lots of different people think those are the best ways of finding the truth does that make reason and evidence and the scientific method subjective?

 

 

This is my problem with it, even if everyone agrees, I don't see how that makes it objective or binding. I can see how it's culturally relative or democratic or something but I don't understand how a preference could ever said to be objective? Pointing out that your preference has logically consistent parallels with objective reality doesn't make it objective.

 

Don't get me wrong, the only two ways to convince me to abide by your preference is to be logically consistent and rational or use force but that's only because I have a preference for logic, many don't. In the market place of moral theories UPB wins, however, the concept of morality appears to be no more than an opinion. I personally want my opinions to be logically consistent, but so what? It's all just subjective preference, not objective, not binding (I think?)

 

I was asking a question to clarify what @EclecticIdealist Why would people agreeing on something make it objective? why would people disagreeing with something make it subjective? What does "binding" have to do with anything? UPB is not a preference it is a methodology like the scientific method. As I mentioned above some people may prefer to read the bible rather than use the scientific method, that does not make the scientific method subjective.

[EclecticIdealist]

This is my problem with it, even if everyone agrees, I don't see how that makes it objective or binding. I can see how it's culturally relative or democratic or something but I don't understand how a preference could ever said to be objective? Pointing out that your preference has logically consistent parallels with objective reality doesn't make it objective.

Yes, That is my biggest issue with UPB as well--the claim that it is objective.  As to the notion of socially or culturally defined morals being "binding", they're only binding if one wishes to be considered moral by that society or culture.

 

Don't get me wrong, the only two ways to convince me to abide by your preference is to be logically consistent and rational or use force but that's only because I have a preference for logic, many don't. In the market place of moral theories UPB wins, however, the concept of morality appears to be no more than an opinion. I personally want my opinions to be logically consistent, but so what? It's all just subjective preference, not objective, not binding (I think?)

Your are correct that it is all just subjective preference; however, not objective, and only binding to the extent that violations of it may result in the use of force in self-defense or self-defense by proxy.

 

couldn't you also say that about methods for finding the truth? there are many different methods for finding the truth (prayer, reading the bible, reading tea leaves) and lots of different people think those are the best ways of finding the truth does that make reason and evidence and the scientific method subjective?

The preference is subjective. The methods are objectively rational or irrational, reliable or unreliable, objectively falsifiable or unfalsifiable (and in most instances subjective), etc. What individuals consider best is subjective preference based on their preferred standard for determining what is best. Which method conforms most closely or consistently to a particular standard is in many cases objective.

[Koroviev]

The preference is subjective. The methods are objectively rational or irrational, reliable or unreliable, objectively falsifiable or unfalsifiable (and in most instances subjective), etc. What individuals consider best is subjective preference based on their preferred standard for determining what is best. Which method conforms most closely or consistently to a particular standard is in many cases objective.

 

exactly! UPB is a method not a preference 

[EclecticIdealist]

exactly! UPB is a method not a preference 

Actually, UPB is nothing more or less than the collective preferences of society for or against certain behaviors. The method or framework which Stefan uses to evaluate those preferences is not UPB (although one might wish that it were); however, it is a rationally objective method in the sense that anyone may apply it and achieve the same results against the same axiomatic or fundamental ideals. In his book, Stefan builds his framework around the libertarian ideals of universal, individual liberty and private property. Aesthetic and ethical propositions are then tested against these ideals to determine whether the aesthetic and ethical propositions are universal, rational, consistent, and support these propositions for all persons under all circumstances. Naturally, the prohibitions against rape, assault, murder, and theft stand, under all circumstances as immoral, whereas things like tardiness, breaking wind, or simply being rude are not immoral but merely frowned upon as undesirable or aesthetically negative, thus validating the preferences against such things by nearly all members of society.

[Koroviev]

If UPB was, as you say, the collective preferences of society wouldn't you be able to lay it out in one or more thou shall/thou shall not statements? Then you would have to change those statements over time, and it would be invalidated by any group who did hold those statements as true. Also wouldn't UPB the book just be those statements maybe with each chapter explainin how/why those statements are true?

[Nick900]

exactly! UPB is a method not a preference 

 

So could it be said that IF you have a preference to think about moral ideas, and IF you have a preference for those moral ideas to be rational, logical and consistent, then UPB is the best framework for validated said ideas? and regardless of if people follow it, agree with it, value or care about it - UPB is just a really cool framework for thinking logically about moral ideas?

 

Likewise, IF you have a preference to think about moral ideas, and IF you have a preference for those moral ideas to be irrational, illogical and inconsistent, then religion is the best framework for daydreaming about said ideas? and regardless of if people follow it, agree with it, value or care about it - religion is just a really cool framework for thinking illogically about moral ideas?

 

Unless you can say being logically consistent is objective? Then you can say UBP = objective, religion = subjective. However the gap from subjective to objective is a big one, and I'm not sure that UPB makes it. UPB seems more like subjectivity masquerading as objectivity by trying to be as similar as possible to get some of its binding powers (Just thinking out loud ...)

[Koroviev]

Again I'm not sure what "binding" has to do with anything?

 

You could say the exact same thing about the scientific theory. If you have a preference for testing hypotheses. If you have a preference for those hypotheses to be rationally consistent and empirically proven. The scientific method is the best method for doing science. Regardless of how people follow it agree with, value or care about it.

 

Likewise if you have a preference for signs from the universe and if you have a preference dor those signs to be in the form of chicken entrails then consulting chicken entrails is the best method for discovering whether or not your hypothesis is valid regardless of etc, etc....

 

Religion is different from UPB as a moral system because it is not rationally consistent and relys on the interpretations of others to decide whether or not something is true it is also often heavily reliant on having a heirarchy where someone else has power over you. You could say that the bible is a moral framework however again it is not rationally consistent and is more a (poorly constructed) list of shall/shall nots rather than a framework of how to come to those conclusions for yourself.

 

As i said above UPB is objective the same way the scientific method is objective. It doesnt matter what your opinions are you always come to the same conclusions. Religion, lets just say christianity for arguments sake, is subjective because the bible can be interpreted in many different ways and especially in sects like catholicism is continually changing.

[Nick900]

Again I'm not sure what "binding" has to do with anything?

 

You could say the exact same thing about the scientific theory. If you have a preference for testing hypotheses. If you have a preference for those hypotheses to be rationally consistent and empirically proven. The scientific method is the best method for doing science. Regardless of how people follow it agree with, value or care about it.

 

Likewise if you have a preference for signs from the universe and if you have a preference dor those signs to be in the form of chicken entrails then consulting chicken entrails is the best method for discovering whether or not your hypothesis is valid regardless of etc, etc....

 

Religion is different from UPB as a moral system because it is not rationally consistent and relys on the interpretations of others to decide whether or not something is true it is also often heavily reliant on having a heirarchy where someone else has power over you. You could say that the bible is a moral framework however again it is not rationally consistent and is more a (poorly constructed) list of shall/shall nots rather than a framework of how to come to those conclusions for yourself.

 

As i said above UPB is objective the same way the scientific method is objective. It doesnt matter what your opinions are you always come to the same conclusions. Religion, lets just say christianity for arguments sake, is subjective because the bible can be interpreted in many different ways and especially in sects like catholicism is continually changing.

 

Ok, so much like the scientific method thinks up scientific theories, we think up a moral idea, we use UPB to validate that it's rational, logical and consistent - do we then consider it objective?

 

At this point, we only have an idea that we know is rational, logical and consistent - how do you get people to abide by it? If people want to abide by the rule, they will, if they don't, they won't. It's not binding in the same way gravity is. You won't have a hard time convincing people it's a bad idea to murder but even if your moral theory of theft for example is rational, logical and consistent, most people don't really care when they are downloading music off piratebay.

 

I'm just left thinking that you've proved your moral idea is rational, logical and consistent - what's next? 

[Koroviev]

Ok, so much like the scientific method thinks up scientific theories, we think up a moral idea, we use UPB to validate that it's rational, logical and consistent - do we then consider it objective?

 

At this point, we only have an idea that we know is rational, logical and consistent - how do you get people to abide by it? If people want to abide by the rule, they will, if they don't, they won't. It's not binding in the same way gravity is. You won't have a hard time convincing people it's a bad idea to murder but even if your moral theory of theft for example is rational, logical and consistent, most people don't really care when they are downloading music off piratebay.

 

I'm just left thinking that you've proved your moral idea is rational, logical and consistent - what's next? 

 

I think I know what you meant but just in case, the scientific method doesn't think anything up, scientists come up with a theory and use the scientific method to validate that theory.

 

Why do you have to "get" people to abide by it? you don't have to "get" people to abide by the scientific method do you? And yes you are correct if people want to use UPB they will and if they do not they wont. Just like if people want to use the scientific method they will and if they don't they won't. That doesn't make either any more or less valid and it does not make either more or less subjective. Just because a lot of people smoke cigarettes does not make cigarettes good for you.

 

What do you mean "what's next?" What's next is people make a choice they either do what is moral or what is immoral, and either way there are consequences to their actions. We're not talking about the law of gravity, we're talking about the theory of gravity. Just like you have to test the theory of gravity using the scientific method you test a moral theory (is X immoral) using UPB. Whether or not people believe it, or what they do with that knowledge is irrelevant. 

[EclecticIdealist]

UPB is relative to the society. What is UPB for the world as a whole may not be UPB for the Papuans of New Guinea. What is UPB for 18th Century American Colonists may not be UPB for 19th Century Americans occupying the same land. What is UPB for Jews is not UPB for Muslims, is not UPB for Christians, in not UPB for Atheists, etc.
 
Stefan sought to discover an objective standard of ethical behavior that is both universally preferred by all as well as universally applicable to all; a rational standard that is internally or self-consistent (the rules for others apply to oneself), as well as externally consistent (the morals are consistent with natural or intuitive moral sentiments common across virtually all cultures and societies), and he believed that such a moral system would be objectively true. This last point is my biggest point of contention as it makes as much sense to me as the notion that there would exist an objectively true genre of fiction, and an objectively true category of music, and an objectively true cuisine, and an objectively true movement or art, etc.

Stefan did fashion a method of evaluating ethical and aesthetic propositions against a libertarian standard in a manner that is consistent, rational, and readily accessible to any person, in much the same way that one might formulate a method for validating whether a piece of music is Rock & Roll or Jazz, or a piece of art is impressionist or realist, or whether a cuisine is Chinese, Thai, or Indian. The method itself may be considered an objective method in much the same way that the scientific method is an objective method for evaluating scientific hypothesis and theories. Nevertheless, while the method may be considered an objective method which will reliably provide the same result for anyone who follows it; what Stefan presents as objective morality is inherently subjective, as it is dependent upon the subjective selection of specific ideological premises or assumptions defined by the libertarian ideal. It would be no different than claiming that a method for determining whether a piece of music conforms to the ideals and standards defining contemporary Rock & Roll makes any piece of music which successfully passes such a standard “objectively true music”, and anything that fails, “objectively false music”.
 
Of course, as the standards for contemporary Rock & Roll change, music that would conform today might not conform tomorrow, and music that does not conform today might in fact conform tomorrow, all depending upon the sentiments of society which determine what is considered contemporary Rock & Roll.
 

However the gap from subjective to objective is a big one, and I'm not sure that UPB makes it. UPB seems more like subjectivity masquerading as objectivity by trying to be as similar as possible to get some of its binding powers (Just thinking out loud ...)

That is my analysis as well. 
 

Religion is different from UPB as a moral system because it is not rationally consistent and relies on the interpretations of others to decide whether or not something is true it is also often heavily reliant on having a hierarchy where someone else has power over you. You could say that the bible is a moral framework however again it is not rationally consistent and is more a (poorly constructed) list of shall/shall nots rather than a framework of how to come to those conclusions for yourself.

That is because the Bible’s list of prescriptions and proscriptions are the dictates of authority, not the consequence of adherence to a specific set of independent virtues, principles, or ideals. While such virtues, principles, and ideals are sometimes referenced, in the vast majority of cases, they are not indicated as the defining ideals or virtues upon  which the moral prescriptions and proscriptions are predicated. 
 

Ok, so much like the scientific method thinks up scientific theories, we think up a moral idea, we use UPB to validate that it's rational, logical and consistent - do we then consider it objective?

We should not.
 

At this point, we only have an idea that we know is rational, logical and consistent - how do you get people to abide by it? If people want to abide by the rule, they will, if they don't, they won't. It's not binding in the same way gravity is. You won't have a hard time convincing people it's a bad idea to murder but even if your moral theory of theft for example is rational, logical and consistent, most people don't really care when they are downloading music off piratebay.
 
I'm just left thinking that you've proved your moral idea is rational, logical and consistent - what's next?

What’s next is convincing people that adherence to certain moral proscriptions or prohibitions is mandatory (i.e., no raping, no assaulting, no murdering, no robbery, etc.) for those who wish to participate in a mutually beneficial and voluntary society. Those who do not adhere to such a standard will find themselves shunned, if not punished for their immoral behavior.

[Koroviev]

UPB is relative to the society. What is UPB for the world as a whole may not be UPB for the Papuans of New Guinea. What is UPB for 18th Century American Colonists may not be UPB for 19th Century Americans occupying the same land. What is UPB for Jews is not UPB for Muslims, is not UPB for Christians, in not UPB for Atheists, etc.

 

This is incorrect. This is how I understood at first as well it took me a couple reads through to really understand what exactly UPB was.

 

However, you can just look at this sentence itself and see that what you are saying does not make sense. Universally preferable behavior is relative to society. Stating something is both universal and relative is self defeating.

 

Although, yes UPB does correlate a lot with libertarian ideals that is only because both happen to be derived from the idea of inherent property rights. Inherent property rights means that property rights are universal (inherent = permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute). Since property rights are inherent all people have them (universal). A moral framework that deems anything immoral that infringes on an inherent property is not relative but universal. 

 

I have an earlier comment but it's still waiting on approval

Edited August 2, 2016 by Koroviev

[EclecticIdealist]

This is incorrect. This is how I understood at first as well it took me a couple reads through to really understand what exactly UPB was.

I’ve read “UPB” and “Truth” about half a dozen times each and listened to each on audio at least twice as many times. Please understand that my position is not due to a lack of familiarity or understanding of what Stefan is intending, but rather a difference of opinion. 

 

However, you can just look at this sentence itself and see that what you are saying does not make sense. Universally preferable behavior is relative to society. Stating something is both universal and relative is self defeating.

Stefan states that truth is both objective and relative? (“UPB” - pdf pp. 22-23). If you are asserting that UPB is a truth according to Stefan, you must concede that it is true relative to those it pertains to — to the members of a society or those able to govern or choose their behavior as they interact with others. As I mentioned previously, Stefan has sought, as many do, an objective standard of conduct or behavior that would be universally applicable, that is, applicable to all individuals capable of taking ethical and aesthetic decisions.

 

UPB deals with interpersonal ethics (morals) and interpersonal aesthetics (social customs, conventions, manners, etc.). Such preferences have no meaning outside of or apart from interpersonal interactions; in other words, they deal with an individual’s behavior as a member of society, even if that society is limited to two.

 

The term “Universally” or “universal” is synonymous with omni-, all, or every. When using the term in conjunction with preferences, one is indicating that such preferences are the preferences of all or every being. Stefan also states that these preferences are universally applicable, that is, apply at all times, places and circumstances to all people. Of course, even Stefan admits this is a generalization. Such preferences are not in fact universally held. There are some who prefer such moral prohibitions only apply to others, and not to themselves in order to justify crimes such as rape, murder, assault, theft, and fraud that they wish to commit but do not wish others to commit against themselves. There are others who are cognitively unable to hold such preferences due to a lack of maturity or physical impairment. Clearly, the term “Universally” cannot be used in its most absolute sense. In fact, it only makes sense in relation or relative to one’s membership in society. Furthermore, the universality of various preferences are also relative to the society one is a member of. This is especially true of the various aesthetic preferences held by a society, but is also true to a limited extent to other “moral” questions such as those involving abortion and various expressions of human sexuality.

 

If one is specifically talking about a common baseline of behavior that is held by almost every person on the planet, one is going to be limited to a very small number of ethical and an almost equally small number of aesthetic preferences. If instead, one looks at individual societies separated by geography, ethnicity, religious belief, and so on, then one can measure how well such a society conforms to libertarian standards (or any other standard one might measure the preferences of a society by). It would be a mistake, however, to suppose that UPB is actually what Stefan purports it to be, an Objective standard of morality. By the very fact that it is based upon the collective preferences of individual members of society, even if we include everyone, everywhere, at every time as part of that society, it is nevertheless INHERENTLY SUBJECTIVE because ALL preferences are inherently subjective, even if they are held “Universally” or by everyone.

 

Since property rights are inherent all people have them (universal). A moral framework that deems anything immoral that infringes on an inherent property is not relative but universal.

Your assertion that any moral proposition which infringes upon the (property) rights held by every person is a universally as opposed to relatively immoral is asserting a dichotomy between the universal and relative that is not being implied on my part. When I am referring to UPB relative to a particular society, I am only suggesting that each society defines by their collective preferences what may be termed Universally Preferable Behavior for that society. Relativity, in this case, refers to the scope or domain being sampled for the universality of preferences, not for the universality of rights. There are no objective moral standards or judgments, only objective processes for evaluating moral propositions against moral standards (which are inherently subjective moral sentiments).