Freedomain Radio

I would like to start a discussion regarding the use of the term "UPB". I've noticed that different people use the phrase to refer to many different things. I think we can show this just by asking the general question, "What is UPB?"

I guess then that my first question for everyone would be, "What is UPB?" What do you use that term to refer to.

I've read the book. A few times actually. I think even the book uses the term "UPB" to refer to a variety of different things.

I wonder if we could clarify those differnt things the term is used to refer to, and maybe develop a method of differentiating between those things.

I think a lot of confusion arises when discussing the merits of UPB due to the different ways in which the term is used. I've noticed that a lot of times, disagreements about UPB stem from semantic confusion.

I'm not sure what you mean by this post, you've read the book so of course I am assuming you aren't asking what it stands for.  What do you mean by "refer to"?

For example, Stef might say that UPB is a "methodology for evaluating ethical propositions."

Other times, UPB is used to refer to the means by which a goal can be reached in accordance with natural laws, as in this example from the book:

"When I speak of a universal preference, I am really defining what is objectively required, or necessary, assuming a particular goal."

Other times, UPB appears to refer to "universality"... basically, the Golden Rule.

One of the more confusing examples for me, is when people claim that argueing against UPB requires the use of UPB. It's unclear to me, how people are defining UPB in that instance.

If someone asked you (Nathan) the question of what IS UPB, how would you answer? How do you typically define it?

I certainly do agree with you that the usage can be confusing -- in your above example, if your goal is to evaluate an ethical proposition, your methodology would be Universally Preferable Behaviour.

It is similar to how the word "science" refers to both the intellectual framework of the scientific method, and the practical application of that framework through the development and testing of scientific theories.

Is that helpful?

Yes actually. It clarified for me what I'm confused about.

Taken by itself, what you said makes sense to me.

UPB is a methodology that you (Stef) formulated for the evaluation of ethical propositions.

Where the confusion arises for me, is when people claim that debating the validity of UPB is self-contradictory since one must employ UPB during that very process.

When I ask myself, "What do I employ when debating the validity of UPB", my answer is "logic". Debate requires the use of commonly accepted rules of logic. Those rules of logic however, prexisted the UPB methodology. While you obviously used logic to arrive at your methodology, your methodology is not sysnonymous with logic itself. When people claim that UPB can't even be argued against, it seems to me that they are confusing UPB with logic itself, or they are defining UPB two different ways. Either that, or I'm missing the crux of their argument. For a long time, I've had a problem with the idea that debating UPB is self-contradictory. That never sat well with me. I just don't understand the arguement.

I do have a short example of this error in the last section of the book, perhaps you could post it and let me know where the problem exists for you...

katietron:

Where the confusion arises for me, is when people claim that debating the validity of UPB is self-contradictory since one must employ UPB during that very process.

Maybe this will help. It's from the end of the UPB book. 

UPB book:

UPB in a nutshell:

1. Reality is objective and consistent.

2. "Logic" is the set of objective and consistent rules derived from the consistency of reality.

3. Those theories that conform to logic are called "valid"

4. Those theories that are confirmed by empirical testing are called "accurate".

5. Those theories that are both valid and accurate are called "true".

6. "Preferences" are required for life, thought, language and debating.

7. Debating requires that both parties hold "truth" to be objective and universally preferable.

8. Thus the very act of debating contains an acceptance of universally preferable behavior (UPB).

9. Theories regarding UPB must pass the tests of logical consistency and empirical verification.

10. The subset of UPB that examines enforceable behavior is called "morality".

11. As a subset of UPB, no moral theory can be considered true if it is illogical or unsupported by empirical evidence.

12. Moral theories that are supported by logic and evidence are true. All other moral theories are false.

Logic fan:

7. Debating requires that both parties hold "truth" to be objective and universally preferable.

8. Thus the very act of debating contains an acceptance of universally preferable behavior (UPB).

Yes! This illistrates my "problem" perfectly.

In the above example, "universally preferable" essentially means "pragmatic":

This is in accordance with how the book defines it:

"When I speak of a universal preference, I am really defining what is objectively required, or necessary, assuming a particular goal."

In other words, in order to debate and reach valid conclusions, it is pragmatic (universally preferable) to employ logic.

We can refer to that as UPBD1 (UPB Definition 1).

UPBD1="pragmatic behavior"

Now, here's where the trouble starts.

UPB can also be defined as "Stef's methodology for evaluating ethical propositions."

Let's call this UPBD2 (UPB Definition 2).

The question I would ask at this point, is what does the methodology have to do with basic pragmatism? It seems to me, that the methodology involves a LOT MORE than just basic pragmatism. It's NOT merely a test of pragmatism. There are all sorts of other considerations involved in the methodology (we don't need to enumerate them, since I'm pretty sure everyone would agree with that assessment).

I guess my whole point here is that, in theory, we can be logical and pramatic about debating AGAINST those OTHER considerations that stef incorporated into his overall methodology. UPBD2 isn't just about basic pragmatism. It involves a lot more, and thus argueing against those additional issues and factors doesn't contradict a basic acceptance of pragmatism.

In summary, one can employ UPBD1 when arguing against UPBD2.

Does that make sense?

"Stef's methodology"?

I can't understand that sentiment at all. If it is personal to me, then it is not a methodology -- it is a methodology, then it is not personal to me...

I also don't think the word "pragmatism" necessarily always means "taking the required steps to achieve a goal."

Stefan Molyneux:

"Stef's methodology"?

I can't understand that sentiment at all. If it is personal to me, then it is not a methodology -- it is a methodology, then it is not personal to me...

By "Stef's methodology" I simply meant, "The methodology devised by Stef (you)". I wasn't trying to convey a sentiment so much as give credit to the creator/author.

Stefan Molyneux:

I also don't think the word "pragmatism" necessarily always means "taking the required steps to achieve a goal."

Maybe not, but I think it's fair to say that it is often/sometimes used that way, and thus it is valid for me to use it that way (especially when I define upfront how I'm using the term). What I wanted to do was find a rough equivalent to the phrase "universally preferable", in order to be more clear about the distinction I wanted to make (distinguishing the two different ways the term UPB is often used). 

katietron:

Stefan Molyneux:

I also don't think the word "pragmatism" necessarily always means "taking the required steps to achieve a goal."

Maybe not, but I think it's fair to say that it is often/sometimes used that way, and thus it is valid for me to use it that way (especially when I define upfront how I'm using the term)

Well, it's not used like that by most people and therefore it’s not valid for you to use it like that. Not without a very good reason. 

Practical behavior and required behavior (or steps) is two different things. One is optional while the other is mandatory. The difference is huge. 

Logic fan:

"Well, it's not used like that by most people and therefore it’s not valid for you to use it like that."

I disagree.

Many words have multiple meanings a.k.a "senses", which are valid regardless of their popularity.

For example, it's well known that Stef defines "self-ownership" in an unusual way that most people don't use. I would say that there's nothing wrong with that as long as he defines his terms.

I have no idea how we would determine the popularity of a given "sense" of a word, but in terms of validity and acceptability, one sense is as good as another as long as one defines one's terms.

We need only consult a dictionary... or google, to find that "practical" and "pragmatic" can indeed be used to mean "required to achieve a goal":

"pragmatism - The doctrine that the meaning of an idea or a proposition lies in its observable practical consequences."

"practical - useful, based on past performance, as in: She is interested in the practical applications of your idea."

The reason that they don't specifically say "useful in relation to a specific goal" is because the term "useful" implies that. Whether a given course of action is "useful" or "required" is determined by the specificity of the goal.

At any rate, I am using the words in a commonly understood way. If you have a better term, I'd love to hear it. I'm open to suggestions. Don't tell me however, that "universally preferable" is the only acceptable term, because Stef (obviously) did not discover that certain actions are required to achieve certain goals. That's a basic fact of reality/science that was discovered long ago.

Logic fan:

"Well, it's not used like that by most people and therefore it’s not valid for you to use it like that."

Perhaps the word "effective" would be more to your likeing. I'm not particulary attached to any particular word. Semantics is just semantics. If people define their terms, then the words that one person prefers over another can really be considered a matter of aesthetics.

We could absolutely say that logic is more effective than guessing when it comes to arriving at truth. I don't think it makes any sense to say that logic is "mandatory", but I will freely admit that it is more "effective".

katietron:

We could absolutely say that logic is more effective than guessing when it comes to arriving at truth. I don't think it makes any sense to say that logic is "mandatory", but I will freely admit that it is more "effective".

Sorry, this confused me.  Can you share with me another valid method of arriving at truth that doesn't require logic?  I'm not sure I've ever heard the argument that there is any status other than "mandatory" for arriving at the truth, so I'm very curious to hear one!

Thanks!

katietron:

We could absolutely say that logic is more effective than guessing when it comes to arriving at truth. I don't think it makes any sense to say that logic is "mandatory", but I will freely admit that it is more "effective".

With what methodology did you arrive at that conclusion?