Freedomain Radio

I recently heard the audio book. I really think it's a great piece of
literature but I am still having a hard time breaking it down.

In there you say an ought could not be derived from an is. You say it
all depends on the objective.

IF I want to live, then I SHOULD eat.

But in the latter part of your book, I am having a hard time
pinpointing such an overall objective. What is the overruling
objective that is implied in assessing whether it is an APA or UPB to
be on time or to be late. Is it logical consistency? Meaning that IF I
want to act in accordance with logically consistent, universally
applicable, rules, then I SHOULD not steal/rape/murder? I'm trying to
find the parallel construct between not murdering and the eating
example above.

I am also having a hard time finding an exact definition of UPB. At
one point it seems like it is universally required behavior. Behavior
is of course an act performed by a human, so then UPB is probably a
set of behaviors that can be grouped into it.

But then somewhere else you say, UPB is a framework. But if it is a
framework, then it's not behavior, but rather a framework for
behavior?

Thanks much for all your great work!

Best,
Nima
EconomicsJunkie.com

There is no obligation for you to eat.

If you want to live, then you must eat. But if you choose not to eat, you will die.

Biological imperatives aren't moral choices.

economicsjunkie:

Meaning that IF I
want to act in accordance with logically consistent, universally
applicable, rules, then I SHOULD not steal/rape/murder?

I think that's exactly right, though I understand that's it's hard to relate to such an abstractly formulated goal (It's not very often that people wake up in the morning and think to themselves "mmm, today what I'd really like to do is act in accordance with logically consistent and universally applicable rules!") But acting in such a way is a necessary condition for being able to behave cooperatively with other people. The problem (or A problem) with acting in accordance to non-UPB compliant rules (such as "I get to steal from you but you don't get to steal back from me") is that other people can just decide to use that exact same rule against you, and there's no objective way of deciding who gets to claim the rule and who doesn't. So the rule just doesn't work as a basis for cooperative behaviour. UPB-compliant rules are the only ones that work. Therefore UPB-compliance is a valid objective criterion for determining what you can or can't reasonably demand from other people.

Any comments, anyone?

These might help too: 

http://freedomainradio.com/BOARD/forums/t/24188.aspx

Mozz:

UPB-compliant rules are the only ones that work. Therefore UPB-compliance is a valid objective criterion for determining what you can or can't reasonably demand from other people.

Perhaps some examples of "UPB-compliant" moral rules would help?

I can't think of any. Can anyone help with one/some (other than the non-aggression principle, which is a foundation of UPB)?

FreeSpirit:

Mozz:

UPB-compliant rules are the only ones that work. Therefore UPB-compliance is a valid objective criterion for determining what you can or can't reasonably demand from other people.

Perhaps some examples of "UPB-compliant" moral rules would help?

I can't think of any. Can anyone help with one/some (other than the non-aggression principle, which is a foundation of UPB)?

The NAP is a foundation of UPB? I don't think that's true... Where does it say that, or where did you get it from? I haven't read the UPB book very closely yet (I've only listened to it), so I may easily have missed something. But if the concept of UPB is derived from the NAP, then I'd have to conclude that I'd gotten it all completely wrong.

Mozz:

FreeSpirit:

Mozz:

UPB-compliant rules are the only ones that work. Therefore UPB-compliance is a valid objective criterion for determining what you can or can't reasonably demand from other people.

Perhaps some examples of "UPB-compliant" moral rules would help?

I can't think of any. Can anyone help with one/some (other than the non-aggression principle, which is a foundation of UPB)?

The NAP is a foundation of UPB? I don't think that's true... Where does it say that, or where did you get it from? I haven't read the UPB book very closely yet (I've only listened to it), so I may easily have missed something. But if the concept of UPB is derived from the NAP, then I'd have to conclude that I'd gotten it all completely wrong.

I'll have to download and read it to answer your question on "where I got it from". So, for now, I'll re-phrase my last post as:

Perhaps some examples of "UPB-compliant" moral rules would help?

I can't think of any (other than the non-aggression principle). Can anyone help with one/some?

FreeSpirit:

Perhaps some examples of "UPB-compliant" moral rules would help?

I can't think of any (other than the non-aggression principle). Can anyone help with one/some?

I personally can't, honestly. As far as I can see the NAP is the only UPB-compliant rule.

I believe non-aggression and property/ownership are the two most fundamental principles. 

Arrgh, I also come across this problem - I just know that UPB is true and works, but I can't explain why... It's quite a poor argument to make as debates go.

But you can't expect to play tennis like Federer after 3 lessons.

KS31:

Arrgh, I also come across this problem - I just know that UPB is true and works, but I can't explain why... It's quite a poor argument to make as debates go.

But you can't expect to play tennis like Federer after 3 lessons.  

UPB clearly proves that if you don't accept UPB on faith YOU'RE GOING TO HELL!!! 

KS31:

Arrgh, I also come across this problem - I just know that UPB is true and works, but I can't explain why... It's quite a poor argument to make as debates go.

But you can't expect to play tennis like Federer after 3 lessons.

 

I totally understand your frustration -- UPB is quite 'meta' -- in that you have to examine arguments against it, and be sure that they do not employ it...

fingolfin:

UPB clearly proves that if you don't accept UPB on faith YOU'RE GOING TO HELL!!! 

Hehee, I guess you mean my pre-philosophy life? I survived it once already! 

Stefan Molyneux:

I totally understand your frustration -- UPB is quite 'meta' -- in that you have to examine arguments against it, and be sure that they do not employ it...

Oo, it took me a few minutes to get what that meant. Can't employ a method to invalidate the method...

Thanks for all the input. Could someone answer the questions I asked though?

To repeat:

-1-

I should eat IF I want to live

equals

I should not murder IF ???

-2-

What is the definition of the term UPB?