Freedomain Radio

Arius:

Joseito:

In other words, it makes "no sense to connect UPB and action" but apparently it "makes sense to connect science and action". You've been proven wrong, and you change tactics: dishonest.

I understand, I'm being unclear.  Though it's not intentional.

First, I'm not criticizing UPB.  I think it does exactly what the author claims it does.

That's easy to say when you misrepresent what the author claims it does, as well as reject the corrections you receive. This was you on your first post:

 

Arius:

When Stef talks about preference (Hopefully I'll get stopped if I'm wrong) he means expressed preference (rather than stated preference), understood through empirical observation. 

and this is you now:

 

Arius:

 

Arius:

 

UPB does not check for consistency with reality, just that some claim is internally consistent and consistent with the definition of "ethics".

Joseito:

False. Read the book before you talk about it. 

No, really, UPB checks if a claim is internally contradictory.  That's the point of the various "people though experiments".  Those experiments involve distinct groups of "logical people" because an ethic has no exclusions across the category of "people".  There's no check for consistency with reality. 

 

 

and:

Arius:

 

UPB has nothing to evaluate.  If, rather than a murder, there is an internet conversation about murder, UPB will be able to evaluate any claims of an ethical nature.  UPB checked claims link to other claims.  Scientifically checked claims link to physical happenings.

really? UPB has nothing to evaluate??

"UPB claims" (= moral theories) link to physical happenings, because human behaviour is a physical happening – 'you must not murder' links to the physical happening of not-murder. "Science claims" (= scientific theories) link to physical happenings – 'energy must not be created' links to the physical happening of energy not being created. And yet some scientific theories contemplate the creation of energy – for example in a black hole's event horizon. So you see, physical laws, like moral ones, can also be violated in nature, especially if they are wrong or have been challenged with a greater empirical context.

Arius:

The validity? Nothing.  It's a statement about the comparative explanatory power of the two logical frameworks.  I don't think I ever said UPB was invalid, did i?

If I say 'lemons are blue' and defend that position tooth and nail – with fallacies galore – I can't really be said to be giving much validity to the concept of lemon. You're just uncomfortable that 'lemons are yellow' and come here to manage your anxiety – otherwise why would you come to state and elaborate on the obvious and on "what the author says it does"?

Arius:

Joseito:

However, a valid scientific theory also just means it has passed the scientific method – and its "explanatory power" is completely irrelevant to a comparison between science and UPB because none of that is 'binding' for reality.

"Binding" is a tricky word. In that the explanation is accurate, the two are bound together.  Nothing ever "passes" the scientific method, things just make it by under the current level of knowledge.  That's why scientific theories get revised.  Everything is always subject to review, that's part of the beauty of the process.  New information calls old ideas into question.

What do you believe UPB explains?  It does not tell you how you should behave.  It does not tell you how you should not to behave.  It does not even describe desirable (desirable is subjective) behavior.  It simply separates behaviors which can be simultaneously demonstrated, by all people, from those which cannot.  The logical portion makes no predictions.

and what do you believe science explains? It does not tell atoms how to behave. It does not tell atoms how they should not behave. It does not even describe desirable behavior. It simply separates behaviors which can be simultaneously demonstrated, by all people, from those which cannot.  The logical portion makes no predictions.

Mr. C:

Indefiance:

No person anywhere at any time can 'argue' about this rationally..i.e., make this a rational argument without taking on an inherently contradictory stance.  Your actions speak louder than your words as you contradict yourself.  Your making an argument (peaceful, voluntary action) that peaceful voluntary action is not preferable.

Even if he was making that argument, it's a genetic fallacy to say that the source of an argument is relevant to an argument. That is a fallacy that's been known for millenia now.

You can say it's a performative contradiction, and that might say something about the person's actions, but you cannot invalidate an argument based on the source.

The genetic fallacy is based on a lack of causal relevance between the argument and the arguer. "You're wrong because you're white" would be a genetic fallacy. But if someone is standing in front of you saying "human language has no meaning. Words are nothing. Ideas are all entirely subjective" that would be a statement that, merely by uttering it, contradicts itself. It's like saying "this statement is a lie." If it's true, it's false. If it's false, it's true. And therefore it's necessarily self-contradictory and implodes.

Indefiance is stating (I think incorrectly) that making a peaceful, voluntary argument that peaceful and voluntary actions are not preferable is inherently self-contradictory. There's an ocean of logical steps between his premise and his conclusion that are left out (perhaps because he thinks they are described elsewhere -- I dunno,) but the nature of the statement is not the genetic fallacy. It's a statement of causal necessity: that one CANNOT make a reasoned argument about a philosophical position without acknowledging that the basis for agreement would be reason and evidence and that each participant is capable of understanding the claim and free to decide whether they agree.

Mr. C:

 

Arius:

UPB can, at best identify which ethical claims are self-contradictory or contradictory with the definition of ethics.

By self contradictory, do you mean the same kind of contradiction logic detects? Is contradiction with facts also invalidating in that?

Why do you keep trying to put this dividing line between UPB and logic? Yes, of course it's the "same kind" of contradiction that logic detects. UPB is an application of logical theorems to a particular category of propositions.

Annabelle:

How is that going to happen?

I have no idea.  For a long time I thought it might be all about burning down city hall and overthrowing the established power structure.  I now realize that violence doesn't defeat violence.  I suspect the truth is much simpler, but I have no idea how to eliminate force or fraud.

Annabelle:

What leads you to believe that UPB will be involved (if you do)?

I don't think UPB will have any practical application until the tempo of the culture changes.  There's simply to high a demand for violence in human interaction at this point.

Annabelle:

Let's also keep in mind that although the scientific method has been around for centuries, religion is still the dominant way of thinking on much of the planet. Why hasn't it had a transformative effect everywhere?

I have a suspicion that there are subtle relationships between the way people choose to interact, their economic conditions, and the level of violence in their society.  Unfortunately, I'm not aware enough to fully understand it.

Annabelle:

Why should its ethical counterpart fare any better?

Science wins because it produces more useful results than any other methodology, better answers.  That's the long-run test for any system of thought.  If UPB produces good results (better answers than the competition), it'll be widely adopted.

Annabelle:

If the world forever remains in a state where not everyone behaves perfectly rationally (as current evidence suggests that it will), how useful will UPB be?

If people choose to use violence and coercion forever, then UPB will never find a use.  Same thing with superstition.  If people reject science as a system, the only consequence is the lousy answers they get.  If people reject UPB, it just means more bad answers.

Nathan T. Freeman:

Indefiance is stating (I think incorrectly) that making a peaceful, voluntary argument that peaceful and voluntary actions are not preferable is inherently self-contradictory.

This is the genetic fallacy because it takes the speaker's acts as special because they're the speaker's. We should be able to say, if it is valid: "Since Stef makes peaceful and voluntary arguments, then this guy can hardly say that peaceful and voluntary actions are not preferable."

If that's not a valid argument, then this cannot be either, since the sole strength would be that the argument comes from a source that has some property. A hypocritical arguer does not invalidate an argument, at most his actions are properly characterized as hypocritical. The argument is unaffected.

Nathan T. Freeman:

Mr. C:

Arius:

UPB can, at best identify which ethical claims are self-contradictory or contradictory with the definition of ethics.

By self contradictory, do you mean the same kind of contradiction logic detects? Is contradiction with facts also invalidating in that?

Why do you keep trying to put this dividing line between UPB and logic? Yes, of course it's the "same kind" of contradiction that logic detects. UPB is an application of logical theorems to a particular category of propositions.

I'm not sure how asking what a person means is trying to put something into what the person means. Even if that was the case, I'm not sure how asking whether it could be said that a logical test was included was the same as trying to separate logic from it.

Distinctions are quite different from lines that completely divide two things from each other.

There are a few assumptions (now I'm criticizing) offered in UPB which I don't quite jive with me. On page 59, there's a casual assertion made, this idea which keeps showing up.  The idea that a particular set of ethics or morality is responsible for the actions of the people in some historical society.  Specifically, the book discusses the relationship between Nazis and Arianism (I took the name from the philosopher, not the cult which developed later).  I do not believe that people select moral or ethical sets and then build personal relationships.  I believe people build personal relationships and then adopt beliefs which support those relationships.  To me, that seems to be the reason why people are willing to defend incorrect or illogical views strongly, to protect the personal relationships in which those views have developed.  Take the idea of German superiority.  Am I to believe that each German was, free from social pressures, exposed to those ideas and, after serious contemplation and study, accepting of them as right and good?  Social relationships don't work that way.  More likely than not, people were exposed to those views in some social context and accepted the ideas rather than challenge the underlying interpersonal relationships.

Suppose a parent tells a child something, anything.  For the child to challenge that statement requires an action which pushes against both evolutionary and interpersonal pressures.  The amount of moral courage in doing something like that (if the habit is undeveloped) is unimaginable.  If the state has a paternalistic or maternalistic role, the average Joe must feel intense pressures to conform to whatever the prevailing beliefs are.  Let me offer a bit of behavioral science to back myself up.  In the case of the Asch conformity experiments, an experimental participant would mis-identify the length of drawn lines in order to have an opinion which conformed to a small group of strangers.  Imagine that.  A person would purposefully ignore objective truth in favor of conformity with a group of strangers.  Then consider the power of interpersonal relationships and how that might effect an individual's point of view.  To me, the idea that introducing a system for BS-checking ethical claims will resolve incorrect beliefs is addressing the symptom of a much larger, underlying problem.  People lack moral courage, either by design or accident.  Challenging a fake word in scrabble, an unreasonable edict, or a false moral system all require some degree of moral courage.  My honest sense is that very few people are willing to accept total social isolation in exchange for true or correct beliefs.  What about Zimbardo?  People will brutalize each other for the sake of a social narrative with no basis in reality.  What is a social narrative but a common folklore, a mutually accepted way of being?  It's pressures from personal relationships, pure and simple.

I've actually been thinking about this quite a bit lately; social pressure and how it effects people.  I see it as a very reasonable explanation for the extreme hostility people exhibit when one of their beliefs is challenged.  As an example, who hasn't had a discussion which, when fueled by internet courage, resulted in the other participant sending an endless stream of insults, profanity, and threats?  I've been trying to understand that behavior for quite a while.  I think that when I say "Your core belief is logically inconsistent, let me show you how."  the other person hears "Every relationship you have is built on a bed of lies, let me pull you from everyone you value."  Why else take something like "how do you identify existence?" personally?

I don't even think UPB is actually foreign to anyone.  I suspect we've all just abandoned it in favor of having family and friends, the endless series of mutually manipulative social relationships which everyone takes part in.  In the end, which is worth more, social relationships or truth?  That's the terrible choice which underlies a highly anti-social philosophy.  That is, UPB is in total conflict with the bulk of accepted social relationships (Parent/child, State/citizen, Police/not Police, Elder/Youth, Relatives, Priest/Parrish).  I'm sorry that personal relationships work like that (It saddens me deeply).  I'd like to think it was possible for people to offer some degree of courtesy, compassion, or honesty to each other.  We just don't live in a world where personal relationships can withstand an absolute-zero power distance and total honesty plus moral courage.  Even the foundational concept of free people's relationships "All adult relationships are voluntary" is beyond the comprehension of most people.  My god, "You can't pick your family" is a commonly used idiom.  How about "Blood is thicker than water"?  Untangling the various social relationships is the real challenge.  Arguing about the logical validity of UPB at this point is just fiddling while Rome burns.

Relationships underlie beliefs, not the other way around.

Arius:

Murdering someone, as an action, is not an ethical or moral claim.  Much like orange juice is not a temperature.  A sum, which uses several mathematical operations, makes a mathematical claim.  Trying to establish a relationship between an action and UPB simply doesn't make sense.  Murder, the action, is simply a matter of physics and biology.  The force of a knife, combined with a sharp edge entering a chest, is more than sufficient to render a heart incapable of functioning.  That statement is entirely consistent, so I would say that murder is logically consistent with science.  By that, if I knew nothing of murder, I could still infer it was physically possible.  A statement about murder (one which contains an ought) "Murder is ethical", which translates to "people ought to murder one another" has some implied goal (we already established that wherever there is an ought and an is a goal is implied).  Regardless of what that goal is (it doesn't actually matter), if the ethical theory is internally inconsistent it cannot be valid.  Invalid theories are wrong (inconsistent with objective reality). This does not mean a person does not have the ability to murder (people can do wrong, make wrong claims, and support wrong ideas), nor does it mean that our killer had a goal at the time of murdering.  In fact, the instance of murder is totally separate from any ethical claims about murder, which are the things UPB can actually evaluate.

 

I'm afraid I may be misunderstanding you, so please help me out if that's the case.  But what I get from your comments is that moral theories are somehow divorced from external reality, whereas the book claims the opposite.

The book claims that the UPB framework requires any theory to be supported by empirical observation much like any other scientific theory.  The theories UPB evaluates are statements about human behavior.  Behavior requires action.  So I would expect the UPB framework to have the ability to observe specific actions for consistency with a given theory.

And again, according to UPB "shoulds" require a goal to be tested.  A moral statement is a "should" statement, so by inference, I would expect that the moral claim should be able to be empirically tested to see if the goal and behavior jive in particular instances.

Joseito:

where do you get that the non-initiation of force or don't hit lacks a goal?

 

You can say you accomplished the "goal" of not initiating force or not hitting anyone, but that's just describing the actual behavior, which can be said for anything.  By that standard, this theory would also pass the test: "If I want to kill someone but they do not give me permission, I should try to murder them"

Mr. C:

Water:

Doesn't a theory pertaining to all instances of something have implications for any particular instance in that set?

Yeah, but the problem is that the theory goes something like "if the person disagrees with UPB and starts talking about instances at all, they must be mistaking instances for theories". That theory is then applied to your instance.

 

I think that's a very keen observation :)

Nathan T. Freeman:

The part where, if everyone practiced the same behavior, it would work out to any desirable result.

 

UPB claims to make ethics an "objective" discipline.  As soon as you say "desirable result", you're introducing subjectivity.

 

Indefiance:

Water:

John was never interested in "reasoning" or arguing about anything.

 

Yes...but you were.  No person anywhere at any time can 'argue' about this rationally..i.e., make this a rational argument without taking on an inherently contradictory stance.  Your actions speak louder than your words as you contradict yourself.  Your making an argument (peaceful, voluntary action) that peaceful voluntary action is not preferable.  Your the one contradicting yourself, not your hypothetical 'John'.   That is why this is so hard to wrap your mind around, because your forgetting that you can't exclude yourself from the equation and neither can anyone else. EVER.  The argument is invalid because in the process of arguing it you prove it wrong. Every Time, Everywhere, Forever.  If you truly believed that the Non-initiation of force wasn't valid, you wouldn't argue, you would just prove yourself a villain and we would no longer debate you, but would remove you from society forthwith.  Because you don't do this, proves you don't believe it yourself, and your argument is empty.

 

I see this line of reasoning all the time here, and it's completely flawed.  It's based on the book's section on Arguments and Universality: "If I choose to debate, I have implicitly accepted a wide variety of premises..."  What it is, is an attempt to bridge the is-ought gap, but it's full of errors and is a total non sequitur.  There are so many problems in this section of the book I don't even know where to start.  I'll try to keep this as concise as I can:

*My first reaction is, wait a minute.  Who said anything about a debate?  Theories can be developed and tested outside of any debates or arguments.  Scientists, mathemeticians, etc. have contributed theories throughout history in this manner.  Theories do not require debates, and debates do not determine whether a theory is valid (unless, of course, the theory is something like "Humans never debate"). 
*valid theories can be developed and tested while initiating force against others, or being the victim of the initiation of force.  Can a slave not make valid scientific discoveries?  Can an evil scientist not experiment on unwilling participants?

In short, I don't see how this solves the is-ought problem in any way.  I was planning on showing the errors in some of the individual premises of the book, but stopped myself for a few reasons:

*It would take a while and I don't have the energy right now
*After having made my points above, I'm not sure what the relevance would be
*Part of me would enjoy the mental exercise anyways, but I remember starting to do this a while back and didn't get much feedback (http://board.freedomainradio.com/forums/t/33847.aspx?PageIndex=3 (starts at the bottom of this page))

By the way, sorry to you and everyone else for taking so long to respond.  I'd been reading the thread, but just hadn't had enough quiet time to gather my thoughts.

 

Arius:

Relationships underlie beliefs, not the other way around.

Yeah, that applies to UPB as well. The proportion of people who accept it and defend it without understanding it (or perhaps who understand it correctly while it's horribly flawed or something like that) is just about all of those who accept it and defend it.

Water:

Joseito:

where do you get that the non-initiation of force or don't hit lacks a goal?

 

You can say you accomplished the "goal" of not initiating force or not hitting anyone, but that's just describing the actual behavior, which can be said for anything. 

including whatever you think is a "goal"?

Water:

By that standard, this theory would also pass the test: "If I want to kill someone but they do not give me permission, I should try to murder them"

No, it does not pass the test because – like in murder – 2 guys in a little room cannot "try to murder" each other simultaneously, since the concept of "trying to murder" requires one of them enables the action. 

Joseito:

No, it does not pass the test because – like in murder – 2 guys in a little room cannot "try to murder" each other simultaneously, since the concept of "trying to murder" requires one of them enables the action. 

I don't know what 'one of them enables the action' means, since physics and the people's ability to control their bodies enables both of them to try for it. The concept itself (if you actually mean that) is enabled by people's ability to think of such things rather than any actual attempted murders.

I would add that if it's wrong to say that trying to murder a person is universally preferable, it's probably also wrong to say that trying to actively prevent a murder is universally preferable for the same reasons. If it's about passivity and you use 'self defense' as something that can be passive, then 'murder when you really want to' can also be quite passive.

That was, after all, the proposal (murdering when you want to, not just murdering).