Freedomain Radio

Well to say that something is universally preferable is to say that it is preferable that all people do it.  To say that something is universally preferred is to say that all people prefer it.  The latter is nonsensical; the former describes a moral theory of any content.  I don't understand how either proves libertarianism as the one true doctrine.  One thing I just stumbled upon in Gerald Sauer's 1982 essay, Imposed Risk Controversies: A Critical Analysis, was the statement, "Libertarian conceptions of rights are themselves shorthand notions for the respect owed to others" (8).  I like that characterization a lot better!

impaler:

Nathan:

So please help validate my efforts to explain by telling me that my post was helpful in some way?

Well ... maybe, I would have to have the answer to this:

Nathan:

impaler:

Nathan:

I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion, I will guess you mean that if something amoral like nutrition or language is also included as UPB that it can't be called morality or ethics because it is amoral?

More like if you call morality UPB, and there are amoral UPBs (which you agreed) you are imposing a moral judgement to amoral preferences.

Hmm, you got me stumped on this one.  I'll get back to you after 567.

It seems to me that you get the contradiction but are unwilling to accept that defining morality as UPB is incorrect.
Your posts about nutrition make a lot of sense and explain the distinction between UPBs like nutrition and UPBs and the ones like "thou shalt not kill"  , but I don't see how do they fit with Stefan's definition of morality, which is the one seem to defend ¿or am I interpreting you incorrectly?

Nathan:

Yes the term changed from "preferred" to "preferable" sorry.

I don't get the semantic difference. Both terms can be misleading to what is been proposed but in different ways. I dont see why "preferable" would be preferable to "preferred".

HAHAHA!!! 

DonnywithanA:

Well to say that something is universally preferable is to say that it is preferable that all people do it.  To say that something is universally preferred is to say that all people prefer it.  The latter is nonsensical; the former describes a moral theory of any content.  I don't understand how either proves libertarianism as the one true doctrine.  One thing I just stumbled upon in Gerald Sauer's 1982 essay, Imposed Risk Controversies: A Critical Analysis, was the statement, "Libertarian conceptions of rights are themselves shorthand notions for the respect owed to others" (8).  I like that characterization a lot better!

(a) NO such things as "rights". "Right" is actually muddled shorthand itself, for the concept of negative-obligation. And, negative obligation, itself, is a shorthand for the logic of universal reciprocity: "Do NOT unto others, as you would NOT have them do unto you".

(b) Nobody "owes respect" to anyone else, as if there was some unchosen debt to be paild. You EARN respect, by your actions. Reason should be "respected" by an in-kind reciprocation of reason. Violence should be "respected" with an in-kind reciprocation of violence (or defensive action). Reciprocity is respect.

 

 

Nathan:

I think my four legged animal metaphor answers your question does it not?

Sorry, I didn't find it, is not in this thread.
¿where is it?
I'd like to answer to that one, but when I was searching for it I found this:

Nathan:

Nathan, I understand that cause and effect exist, and rationality is the best tool for achieving effective ends through causal means.  But why is it moral to act in a nutrition enhancing way and immoral to act in a nutrition harming way?  If I eat fast food, it does not imply that I am evading the truth about my actions.

I'll try one more time to make myself as clear as possible because I don't have a clue why you are still meshing the two together the way you are.

Again,  The only comparison I was making between morality and nutrition is that like the rules of morality, the rules of nutrition apply to all people at all times.  The only comparison I was making was that they are both universally preferred behaviors.  Both language and morality are universally preferred behaviors.  Both the scientific method and ethics are universally preferred behaviors.  Both language and nutrition are universally preferred behaviors. 

That is the only comparison to nutrition that I was making.

Because both nutrition and morality are behaviors independent of one another, it cannot possibly be immoral to eat badly.

In order to take what you have said and say it differently as an example of how NOT to mesh the two together:

Nathan, I understand that cause and effect exist, and rationality is the best tool for achieving effective ends through causal means.  But why is it healthy to act in a language clarifying way and unhealthy to act in a language confusing way?  If I speak badly, it does not imply that I am evading what I should eat.

Do you see my point? Meshing it in that way makes no sense.

A giraffe and a cow are easily compared as both being 4 legged animals. This does not imply that a giraffe is a cow.  In the same way, comparing the UPB nature of morality and nutrition does not mean nutrition is morality.

You are arguing my point, you are saying that nutrition is a UPB but is not a moral issue.
If nutrition is a UPB but is not a part of morality, morality would not be exactly UPBs but a subset of it.
I don't get how you can argue the same point I do, but defend the definition of morality that contradicts that point.
Could you tell me where is the animal metaphor? or is it here and I skipped it?

 

So now that Stefan's book has come out and presumably some of you have had the chance to read it and understand it, I figured it might be a good time to bring this thread back to life.  I haven't read the book myself, which puts me far behind the ball.  But nevertheless I was wondering if anyone would be so kind as to explain to me what a Universally Preferred Behavior is, and how it responds to the objections that I raised here a year ago.  If the answer is that I should simply go read the book, because it's not worth your time to rehash it, then I understand.  I was just hoping to get a quick synopsis so that I could decide whether it was worth the $20, given the fact that no one seemed able to deal with this thread when it was first established.

Send me your address, I'll mail you a free copy of the book, pay me if you like it...

host@freedomainradio.com