soared4truth Posted December 16, 2017 Posted December 16, 2017 So, I don't know if anyone has already done this or not, but I thought it would be very useful to organize the UPB framework into a concise series of criteria tests much like is done with the scientific method. This has helped me use UPB to either validate or invalidate a moral claim. Please look it over and let me know if I have forgotten anything: Criteria for a UPB proposition to be valid: 1. Cannot be proactively positive. 2. Must be universal across space, time, and conditional scenarios. 3. Must not simply be a description, but must be a valid negative obligation that one can put into practice. 4. Must pass the common sense test (the rape test et al). 5. Must negate the morality of a positive action that one is reasonably able to avoid doing. 6. The morally negated action must create a negative outcome for another party simply by the act of committing it. [Side note: We could objectively prove this as a necessary criterion by saying that the morally negated action must create karmic debt for the actor]7. The morally negated action must not be reasonably avoidable by the victim of the action otherwise it is an aesthetically preferable behavior. 8. Positive net benefits of compliance to the moral rule must be verified empirically once put into practice.
HenryJubeda Posted March 10, 2018 Posted March 10, 2018 On 12/16/2017 at 9:23 PM, soared4truth said: So, I don't know if anyone has already done this or not, but I thought it would be very useful to organize the UPB framework into a concise series of criteria tests much like is done with the scientific method. This has helped me use UPB to either validate or invalidate a moral claim. Please look it over and let me know if I have forgotten anything: Criteria for a UPB proposition to be valid: 1. Cannot be proactively positive. 2. Must be universal across space, time, and conditional scenarios. 3. Must not simply be a description, but must be a valid negative obligation that one can put into practice. 4. Must pass the common sense test (the rape test et al). 5. Must negate the morality of a positive action that one is reasonably able to avoid doing. 6. The morally negated action must create a negative outcome for another party simply by the act of committing it. [Side note: We could objectively prove this as a necessary criterion by saying that the morally negated action must create karmic debt for the actor]7. The morally negated action must not be reasonably avoidable by the victim of the action otherwise it is an aesthetically preferable behavior. 8. Positive net benefits of compliance to the moral rule must be verified empirically once put into practice. That's nice, but when forming such a framework it's important to state why you think these rules are necessary. For example, point 2 is self-evident because universal is in the name and it means "under all circumstances", so that one can go into a list of term explanations instead. 1 is unclear in its definition of terms, which then leads to assumptions. I know that you likely mean something regarding positive rights compelling the actions of others, and if that's true then you've missed the point of UPB. UPB is the PROOF of secular ethics. It's not the rules FOR ethics. It is the proof that moral absolutism is the way to go. Universally preferable behavior is essentially, from my limited understanding, all preferences that continue life. A buddy of mine is also a major fan of UPB and is writing a book on moral absolutism based on UPB. I think he puts it quite nicely: UPB is behavior that continues a species. The point of UPB is to prove that all life has certain preferences, and therefore we can reason out what others do not want forced onto them, which is a perfect match for moral rules, so we can use morality as the rules and UPB for the proof for why people should be moral. Effectively, no species actively wants to die out, because they'd die out. Moral Absolutism: https://www.minds.com/blog/view/817044209175621632
Recommended Posts