Freedomain Radio

This is only getting more confusing by the minute (Teabagger isn't adding clarity, only confusion), and it doesn't help that the ones here who agree with UPB don't even seem to agree with each other.

Is it true or not true that UPB has been used to validate the moral proposition, "You shouldn't steal cars"?

Nathan T. Freeman:

kranberry:

If UPB can be used to prove that someone who cares about truth and rationality shouldn't steal cars, then my scenario makes sense:

I'm a rational agent, I care about truth, rationality, and logic -- prove that I shouldn't steal cars.
I don't see what's so disagreeable about that.

It's not disagreeable. It's just not possible in the sense that you're asking. UPB can prove that stealing cars is not virtuous. It can't prove WHY YOU SHOULD be virtuous.

Again, the important quality of UPB is that by being able to falsify a theory like "stealing is virtue if you only steal from the rich and give the loot to the poor" (eg: the Robin Hood theory)

If what you're looking for is an explanation of why you personally shouldn't be an asshole, you won't find it in UPB. You'll find it in philosophy and science in general, though.

Heck, hazek has provided a number of reasons why you shouldn't be an asshole. Ostracization, retribution, psychological deterioration -- all excellent reasons to not be an asshole.

UPB tells you that when someone is, say, stealing, they are doing evil and therefore an asshole -- even if they give all the loot to the poor.

kranberry:

I'm a rational agent, I care about truth, rationality, and logic -- prove that I shouldn't steal cars.

I don't see what's so disagreeable about that.

I don't think that you're a rational agent in this case. I think you are someone who has has set a standard of proof that the theory does not claim to meet and possibly cannot be met. I think you are straw-manning the theory with the the question "prove that I shouldn't steal cars". It has been explained that UPB test the theory / justification for the action. You either ignoring that or you can't comprehend it.

kranberry:

This is only getting more confusing by the minute (Teabagger isn't adding clarity, only confusion), and it doesn't help that the ones here who agree with UPB don't even seem to agree with each other.

Is it true or not true that UPB has been used to validate the moral proposition, "You shouldn't steal cars"?

It is NOT TRUE. UPB has been used to validate the moral proposition "stealing is virtuous."

kranberry:

This is only getting more confusing by the minute (Teabagger isn't adding clarity, only confusion), and it doesn't help that the ones here who agree with UPB don't even seem to agree with each other.

Is it true or not true that UPB has been used to validate the moral proposition, "You shouldn't steal cars"?

This is a kind of a trick question. It depends what YOU mean by "validate the moral proposition, "You shouldn't steal cars". That moral proposition is logically consistent and can be applied universally so I guess it passes UPB (is "validated"?). So the answer is Yes, it has been "validated". What's the problem?

Stealing cars only becomes an issue when people start stealing cars. 

Nathan T. Freeman:

Nathan T. Freeman:

kranberry:

If UPB can be used to prove that someone who cares about truth and rationality shouldn't steal cars, then my scenario makes sense:

I'm a rational agent, I care about truth, rationality, and logic -- prove that I shouldn't steal cars.
I don't see what's so disagreeable about that.

It's not disagreeable. It's just not possible in the sense that you're asking. UPB can prove that stealing cars is not virtuous. It can't prove WHY YOU SHOULD be virtuous.

Again, the important quality of UPB is that by being able to falsify a theory like "stealing is virtue if you only steal from the rich and give the loot to the poor" (eg: the Robin Hood theory)

If what you're looking for is an explanation of why you personally shouldn't be an asshole, you won't find it in UPB. You'll find it in philosophy and science in general, though.

Heck, hazek has provided a number of reasons why you shouldn't be an asshole. Ostracization, retribution, psychological deterioration -- all excellent reasons to not be an asshole.

UPB tells you that when someone is, say, stealing, they are doing evil and therefore an asshole -- even if they give all the loot to the poor.

BOOM

Thread title question solved, UPB does not provide an is = ought, there is no objective reason not to be an asshole except if one has the objectively measurable goal to not feel like or be regarded as an asshole. All UPB is suppose to be is an objective measurement of what actions would make you an objective asshole, that's it.

Thank you very much.

Nathan T. Freeman:

kranberry:

This is only getting more confusing by the minute (Teabagger isn't adding clarity, only confusion), and it doesn't help that the ones here who agree with UPB don't even seem to agree with each other.

Is it true or not true that UPB has been used to validate the moral proposition, "You shouldn't steal cars"?

It is NOT TRUE. UPB has been used to validate the moral proposition "stealing is virtuous."

Could you explain that? 

This was my first post in this thread:

kranberry:

Chaz0218:

He asked me why he (or anyone) ought to act in accordance with universally preferable behavior.  I was unable to answer that question to my own satisfaction.

I'm posting to express sympathy with your predicament.

I joined this site a while ago, and someone suggested I read UPB, so I've been on a posting/chatting haitus for a bit. Now that I'm done reading, that haitus is also done. From my reading, I'd like to say that I don't at all blame you for not being able to answer that question satisfactorily. The book had a certain lack of lucidity to it, I think, and the wide range of unfulfilling answers in this thread, such as "Because acting otherwise leads to contradiction and is therefore impossible to actually do," only go to show how truly difficult to understand UPB is.

You are not alone in your confusion and in your lack of coherent answers. I started reading the thread thinking the answers were merely difficult to derive. Having read most of the thread, I'm now left wondering if those answers are even obtainable at all.

After seeing your responses to my posts, your consistently inconsistent responses -- one guy says "Yes, UPB proves you shouldn't" and another says "No, it doesn't", one guy says "Actions can be incorrect" and another says "No, they can't" -- I'm no less confused than when I started.

UPB may be correct, I don't know. What I do know about it, at the very least, is that it isn't clear. This thread has made that clear.

I need a break from this. I've got 3 different people telling me 3 different things, some of them contradicting each other, one of them just nitpicking, and shit, one of them was just speaking gibberish for a little while -- there's no consistency, there's too much confusion, I can't get no relief (Yes, I just quoted Jimi Hendrix).

Maybe I'll continue this another time. I'll maybe read some bloggers' thoughts on the theory, see what they have to say about it, maybe I can find some clarity and consistency elsewhere. Thank you all for trying to help -- the ones that did, in fact, try. I'll maybe continue posting in other threads, but I'm going to avoid UPB for a while. I'm no longer enjoying the experience of this thread -- though I admittedly was enjoying it quite a bit for a while, there was a stretch of semi-clarity a few pages back. Maybe I'll try again another day.

hazek:

Thread title question solved, UPB does not provide an is = ought,

It doesn't claim to. It specifically claims not to.

hazek:

 there is no good reason not to be an asshole except if one has the goal to not feel like or be regarded as an asshole

What are "good" reasons? Who are you to decide what is good?

Truth is an objective value. It's this value that gives the conditional that bridges the is/ought gap. 

ProfessionalTeabagger:

hazek:

Thread title question solved, UPB does not provide an is = ought,

It doesn't claim to. It specifically claims not to.

hazek:

 there is no good reason not to be an asshole except if one has the goal to not feel like or be regarded as an asshole

What are "good" reasons? Who are you to decide what is good?

Truth is an objective value. It's this value that gives the conditional that bridges the is/ought gap. 

Yeah I was a bit sloppy using precise language there, so I edited my post to make it precise.

Nathan T. Freeman:

I can only conclude that you are trolling at this point. 

+1 supporter of that hypothesis.

kranberry:

After seeing your responses to my posts, your consistently inconsistent responses -- one guy says "Yes, UPB proves you shouldn't" and another says "No, it doesn't", one guy says "Actions can be incorrect" and another says "No, they can't" -- I'm no less confused than when I started.

Saying you are confused is irrelvant. The people discussing UPB are no more confused than people who talk about science (probably less so). People understand the same thing in differnet ways and use flawed language. You can say "Well I'm confused and now I'm just not sure about this science thing". Perhaps you should take responsiblitiy for your own part in the confusion. If you ask questions that are open to interpretation then you might get diffferent answers and people often mean different things. 

kranberry:

 UPB may be correct, I don't know. What I do know about it, at the very least, is that it isn't clear. This thread has made that clear.

Ethical theories need to be logically consistent and universal. It's not that complicated.

kranberry:

 I need a break from this. I've got 3 different people telling me 3 different things, some of them contradicting each other, one of them just nitpicking, and shit, one of them was just speaking gibberish for a little while -- there's no consistency, there's too much confusion, I can't get no relief (Yes, I just quoted Jimi Hendrix). 

Maybe I'll continue this another time. I'll maybe read some bloggers' thoughts on the theory, see what they have to say about it, maybe I can find some clarity and consistency elsewhere. Thank you all for trying to help -- the ones that did, in fact, try. I'll maybe continue posting in other threads, but I'm going to avoid UPB for a while. I'm no longer enjoying the experience of this thread -- though I admittedly was enjoying it quite a bit for a while, there was a stretch of semi-clarity a few pages back. Maybe I'll try again another day.

Maybe you should just call Stef's Sunday show and ask him to "prove that you shouldn't steal cars".  Failing that the least you should do is stop holding people to upb standards like logic and consistency.

ProfessionalTeabagger:

Nathan T. Freeman:

kranberry:

This is only getting more confusing by the minute (Teabagger isn't adding clarity, only confusion), and it doesn't help that the ones here who agree with UPB don't even seem to agree with each other.

Is it true or not true that UPB has been used to validate the moral proposition, "You shouldn't steal cars"?

It is NOT TRUE. UPB has been used to validate the moral proposition "stealing is virtuous."

Could you explain that? 

Sure. UPB test theories. "You shouldn't steal" isn't a theory. "Stealing is virtuous" is a theory. "You shouldn't steal" is a conclusion.

An analogy: "Rocks fall when dropped" isn't a theory. It's an observation. The theory of gravity explains WHY rocks fall when dropped. When it's validated, it gives you conclusions like "don't expect rocks to go up when you drop them because there is a reason they go down." You can also use the theory to conclude "if you want to launch an object into space, you're going to need to achieve an upwards speed of X mph."

Notice the "if you want" in that conclusion. :-)

Nathan T. Freeman:

Sure. UPB test theories. "You shouldn't steal" isn't a theory. "Stealing is virtuous" is a theory. "You shouldn't steal" is a conclusion.

I thought you could take specific claims ("you shouldn't steal"), expand them into theories ("people are prohibited from stealing"), and then test the theories.  Isn't that the process?

Arius:

Nathan T. Freeman:

Sure. UPB test theories. "You shouldn't steal" isn't a theory. "Stealing is virtuous" is a theory. "You shouldn't steal" is a conclusion.

I thought you could take specific claims ("you shouldn't steal"), expand them into theories ("people are prohibited from stealing"), and then test the theories.  Isn't that the process?

You can expand them, but only based on the premise that they hypothetical "you" wishes to be virtuous. "People are prohibited from stealing" presupposes the desire to have a virtuous society. Any hypothetical "you" can simply say "I don't care about virtue" and bypass the whole proposition.

Of course, the rest of us can then look on and say "well, objectively, you're just an asshole."