Freedomain Radio

Hi!

Over the past week, I've been reading UPB, and listening to a bunch of podcasts on the topic to try to clarify it in my mind. I was wondering if you guys could help clarify a few things for me. I have a few different places where it isn't clicking, but I'm just going to ask one right now, since I want to avoid having too much stuff going on in my head, and everything else kinda depends on this anyways.

So, I'm pretty sure that Universally Preferable Behavior would be defined something like:

A behavior X is universally preferable(or objectively required) for Y, if and only if X is the only way for anybody to get Y.

Is this right? or close?

The other possibility that I can see is something like:

A behavior X is universally preferable if and only if everyone should do X.

This one dosen't seem right to me, because I'm pretty sure "should" statements have to be conditional, (I should do X if I want Y.) and this definition would require a Y that everyone wants, and X will get them, which I'm not sure exists.

So is one of these right? Or is it something else? I'm sure this has been answered tons of times already, but I'm still having some trouble with it. I appreciate any help you can give me.

Thanks!

Can you try and reframe the questions in terms of the scientific method? Is the scientific method universally preferable? If so, under what conditions?

So if I rephrased those two definitions as statements about the scientific method, they would look like this:

The scientific method is universally preferable(or objectively required) for arriving at truth, because the scientific method is the only way for anybody to get truth.

or

The scientific method is universally preferable, because everyone should use the scientific method.

I am perfectly comfortable making the first statement, but not with the second, because I don't think everyone is interested in the things the scientific method gets them.(truth and knowledge) Granted, those people are probably all insane, but still.

Is that what you were asking for?

I think that first statement about scientific method makes perfect sense. I didn't delve in too much detail of UPB, but that's my understanding so far and I think this is why Stef asked for the reframing of the question: UPB is about verifying methods and theories, not about verifying specific acts. So it verifies scientific method as the way to get to the truth. Right?

Thanks for your reply! UPB validates methodologies. I think I understand that part, but for some reason I am always wanting to talk about specific actions, so thank you for reminding me.

I have a couple more questions now.

1. Before we get into the realm of deciding whether actions are immoral or not, would UPB validate mugging as the methodology to get a stranger's wallet? Put in other words, is there a problem with saying:

It is universally preferable to mug a stranger in order to get thier wallet, because mugging is the only way to get strangers' wallets.

I'm not asking if this is moral, only if it is a valid methodology. I guess more generally I'm asking if a methodology can be both valid and immoral. I'm pretty sure the answer is yes, but I just want to make sure I'm understanding correctly.

2. In the book, morality is defined as the things that are both "universally preferable and enforceable through violence." I'm not quite sure about what it means to say that something is enforceable through violence. Does it mean "universally preferable to enforce with violence"? So something to be defined as moral would need to be both

• universally preferable and
  
• universally preferable to enforce with violence 

Is this the correct definition?

Thanks for your time!

Edit... on an unrelated topic, I was wondering... Would it have been better for me to just ask all my questions at once? I'm not really used to posting on forums like this, although I read them quite a bit. I still have more questions, but I want to make sure I understand the answer to one before moving on. Is this annoying to people? For some reason I keep thinking it might be, but I don't quite know why...

I'm still a noob, but trying my best:

AaronU:

It is universally preferable to mug a stranger in order to get thier wallet, because mugging is the only way to get strangers' wallets.

 

Since we're extracting a universal prefrence from this statment, we can get rid of unrelated detials. This methodology could equally apply to mugging a friend to steal a car, right?

So the universal statement is: It is universally preferable to use force to obtain the items you desire.

This statement is universal, so it applies to the victim as it does the agressor.

But the victim obviously desires to keep possession of their item, else force would never be used.

Thus for this statement to be valid, identical individuals must persue different behaviors to facilitate this exchange. One person must use force, and the other person must not use force.

Fundamentally this statement then is: Individuals must simultaneously use force, and NOT use force, for the exact same situation. In this case it is impossible for this statement to be "universal".

That's my understanding. Does that help or am I just repeating what you've already read?

MrCapitalism:

Since we're extracting a universal prefrence from this statment, we can get rid of unrelated detials. This methodology could equally apply to mugging a friend to steal a car, right?

So the universal statement is: It is universally preferable to use force to obtain the items you desire.

It is my understanding that something can be called universally preferable for some goal only if it's the only way to arrive at that goal. Is that your understanding too? That is why I see a difference between my statement and your universalized one. If the person is a stranger and you want thier wallet, then the only way to get it is to use force. But there are other ways to get many of your desires; if you want a candy bar in a store you have more than one way to get it, you can use force, or you can pay. Since there are two options, neither can be universally preferable from the standpoint of getting the candy bar. Does this distinction make sense? Or am I missing something important?

It occurs to me that I might be slightly wrong about the definition of UPB. Does something have to be the only way of achieving the goal in order to be UPB? Or simply the best way? I'm not sure what difference this distinction would make for this question, but something tells me it is important.

I hope this all makes sense, the more I think about this topic, the more I feel like my head is full of knots. And each one I untie only reveals more. I'm thinking that I might be trying to project this confusion onto others, if so I apologize.

Well, if we say 2+2=4, we're saying that four is the correct answer logically, objectively. However, in the realm of behaviour it is universally preferable, because it is objectively false to say 'five' is the correct answer, even though there is nothing stopping a person from actually choosing to do so. Morality rests upon our capacity for choice. A person can claim that 2+2=5 is correct; but that person is simply objectively 'wrong' (incorrect) according to a higher objective standard of logic and truth (i.e. UPB).

So in the realm of ethics, only certain behaviours can be universally preferable (not preferred). There are various ways to steal, but each implies the same underlying principle — a specific claim to property [rights]. If theft, according to 'theory X' was objectively good, then theft would simultaneously also become objectively bad, which is a flat contradiction — because one cannot both affirm and deny property rights. So theft may be preferred by some, but it cannot be universally preferable, simply because (among otehr things) universal theft would be impossible to achieve in physical reality.

We understand a thing cannot be 'subjectively better, objectively'. It must either be opinion, which is really just 'I like to steal' etc; or it is fact — according to an objective standard of truth. As soon as one says it is good to steal, it's an objective theory. Since we can only use UPB (logic, the scientific method etc) to attain valid truth statements about reality, truth is universally preferable to falsehood. Thus only those theories about human action/behaviour which UPB validates can be preferable/moral/good/correct etc.

Thanks for your response! It triggered a lot of thoughts that I hope clarified things for me.

Ok, forgive me if I make no sense here, for some reason this stuff is really messing with my head.

What I was thinking after reading your post is that I must be wrong in my definition of UPB. I thought that if some behavior was the only way(aka a neccessary condition) for anyone to arrive at that goal, then that behavior must be universally preferrable for that goal. I thought that this couldn't be the whole of the definition. My reasoning was that "theft is the only way to achieve certain goals(say, somebody's wallet), so it must be universally preferable. But it couldn't be universally preferable for the reasons you were saying, so there must be another aspect to the definition that rules out theft." Then I had a realization that I think cleared it up for me. Could you tell me if this makes sense to you? Is it a helpful way for me to look at it? Or am I missing the point?

So the goal is to have this specific wallet in your possession, let's say it's mine... At first I was thinking that the only way for anybody to get it would be to use force. But then it occured to me that I wouldn't have to use force, since it is my wallet. Therefore force isn't universally required in order to get it. A similar reasoning can also be used to argue against any theft.

My origianal goal with asking about this was that I was trying to find something that was UPB according to my understanding of the term, but also violent, in order to test my definitions. So, even though I had found that this couldn't be universally preferable, I started looking for other possibilities. I couldn't find one that couldn't be answered by something similar to this. I know this isn't the kind of argument Stef uses(or that you were using), and I'm still not sure I see how that one works for some reason, so I'm still probably misunderstanding something, but I feel like I made an important step in my head with that.

fingolfin:

Well, if we say 2+2=4, we're saying that four is the correct answer logically, objectively. However, in the realm of behaviour it is universally preferable, because it is objectively false to say 'five' is the correct answer...

...truth is universally preferable to falsehood.

Okay, maybe I'm being too nitpicky here, but I see this claimed alot and I'm not sure I've seen the reasoning behind it... Why is truth universally preferable to falsehood? Is it because truth is objectively required in order to achieve any goal, whoever you are? I'm assuming that's the reason, but I just want to make sure.

Thanks for your patience guys! The last time I felt as confused as I did the last couple days was when I was getting religion out of my head, so I know I'm working through some important stuff here.

AaronU:

 

fingolfin:

Well, if we say 2+2=4, we're saying that four is the correct answer logically, objectively. However, in the realm of behaviour it is universally preferable, because it is objectively false to say 'five' is the correct answer...

...truth is universally preferable to falsehood.

Okay, maybe I'm being too nitpicky here, but I see this claimed alot and I'm not sure I've seen the reasoning behind it... Why is truth universally preferable to falsehood?

If you argue that "truth is not universally preferable to falsehood," then you are claiming that it is universally (objectively) preferable to accept that truth is not universally preferable.  It's self-detonating.

AaronU:

Okay, maybe I'm being too nitpicky here, but I see this claimed alot and I'm not sure I've seen the reasoning behind it... Why is truth universally preferable to falsehood? Is it because truth is objectively required in order to achieve any goal, whoever you are? I'm assuming that's the reason, but I just want to make sure.

As I understand it, it's the context of being in an argument that makes truth universally preferable to falsehood.  If you make a moral statement to me, and I hold a gun to you face and tell you to change your mind, then it is possible I prefer falsehood to the truth.  I am not offering an argument, I'm giving you an ultimatum: change your mind or die.  No preference for truth or falsehood is necessary, only an understanding of the consequences involved. (This is 1984's Room 101, or every government on the planet.)

However, if I instead say that you are wrong, and offer a counter-argument (any counterargument, really), then I have already lost by self-detonation.  In effect, I am saying: "falsehood is universally preferable to truth" is true and "truth is universally preferable to falsehood" is false and this truth is universally preferable to that falsehood.

Does this help?

AaronU:

Okay, maybe I'm being too nitpicky here, but I see this claimed alot and I'm not sure I've seen the reasoning behind it... Why is truth universally preferable to falsehood? Is it because truth is objectively required in order to achieve any goal, whoever you are? I'm assuming that's the reason, but I just want to make sure.

If I understand this post correctly, it would be universally preferable to you if the statement that truth is universally preferable were universally true?

In logical terms, that is called "begging the question."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

And, I think this can be spread even further outside of just arguments:

True describes mental conepts about reality that are accurate. These mental concepts can be called Truths.

In order to interact with the world around us, all humans must interpret the information their senses bring in. They must translate these pieces of information into Truths inorder to interact with the world outside of them; so, Truth is a universally prefered outcome/state. Just walking around shows the prefered state of knowing wether it's true if you're on stairs or a flat floor.

I think this is why Stef said, in another thread, that we can't choose to value Truth or not. We have to inorder to exist.

Thanks guys, I think I understand that now.

Stefan Molyneux:

If I understand this post correctly, it would be universally preferable to you if the statement that truth is universally preferable were universally true?

In logical terms, that is called "begging the question."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

I was confused by the part I italized above. What does it mean to say something is universally preferable to me? It seems like if something is universally preferable, then it is obviously preferable to me. But I don't think I understand how something can be universally preferable to an individual person. Doesn't calling it universal imply that there is much more than one person involved?

Again, I'm sorry if I'm being too nitpicky, I just want to make sure I understand the concept.

Thanks!

AaronU:

Thanks for your patience guys! The last time I felt as confused as I did the last couple days was when I was getting religion out of my head, so I know I'm working through some important stuff here.

Just to say a few words as an aside. I think you are incredibly courageous for pursuing truth with your history of religious and moral propaganda, and conditioning. It takes real guts and a commitment to truth and you should be applauded.

With regards to the deep logic of UPB, I had the same perfectly natural foggyness, uncertainty and (for me at least) anxiety around the topic. I also had a strong resistance to the profound implications of 'objective ethics', but even while I started to become more emotionally liberated, I often still struggled with the highly complex underlying logic and syllogisms (i.e. truth as preferable, etc).

I highly recommend these podcasts (in this order of their helpfulness to me!):

http://www.freedomainradio.com/Traffic_Jams/FDR_1218_Sunday_Show_Nov_23_2008_UPB.mp3
http://www.freedomainradio.com/Traffic_Jams/FDR_1064_UPB_And_Science_Conference.mp3
http://www.freedomainradio.com/Traffic_Jams/FDR_872_Debating_and_UPB.mp3
http://www.freedomainradio.com/Traffic_Jams/FDR_1310_Virtue_Values_and_Ownership_A_Debate.mp3

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux8.html (good syllogistic article).

Good luck!