What the UPB theory shows is that some preferences, when generalized in a certain way, cannot be universalized. If UPB wants to be a valid ethical theory, then aspects that are ethically relevant should not be generalized away.
UPB is not an ethical theory. It is a framework for evaluating ethical theories using logic. I have no idea what you mean by "when generalized in a certain way".
You imply morality is optional in two senses:
1) it is possible to violate the moral imperative. I agree, it is not physical law.
2) the moral imperative applies only if you want to be good. I disagree. It are especially those that do not want to be good, that need the moral imperative.
An imperative is when you declare an action to be necessary. A moral imperative certainly exists if your goal is to be good, but what is the basis for a moral imperative (for morality to be necessary in other words) when you do not have that goal?
I see the same problem of circularity here (morality ~= virtue ~= goodness).
I'm not seeing circularity at all. Can you explain that a bit better?
Morality = The standards/principles/rules that distinguish between right and wrong
Virtue/Goodness = Behavior in accordance with those moral standards
So one word describes the standards themselves, while the other describes behaviors that follow those standards.
If the implication of UPB is not intended to be a moral obligation (an "ought"), what would you say are its implications for our personal life or for society?
[facts] --derivation--> [UPB content] --application?--> [our life]
So this question is not about the derivation or content of UPB, but about its application.
Where are you getting the idea that UPB results in a moral obligation? The application of UPB is evaluating proposed moral theories for basic consistency.