I'm going to show how the book fails to live up to its own standard. In the first section, Stef describes what he means by "Universally Preferrable Behavior":
When I speak of a universal preference, I am really defining what is objectively required, or necessary,
assuming a particular goal. If I want to live, I do not have to like jazz, but I must eat.
"Universally preferable,” then, translates to “objectively required,” but we will
retain the word “preferable” to differentiate between optional human absolutes and non-optional
physical absolutes such as gravity.
But when Stef starts running actual theories through the framework, they take on a different form:
The non-initiation of force is universally preferable.
Notice anything missing?
It's easier to see if you rephrase it (using the book's own definition):
"The non-initiation of force is objectively required."
Objectively required for what? The goal is missing. How would one test such a statement for "internal consistency and empirical observation?
The book continues along these lines:
The only possible valid moral theory regarding murder is that it is evil, or universally banned.
So John murders Jane. What goal did John *necessarily* fail to achieve? If that question can't be answered then UPB is broken.