why violently inflicting a preference on others is in contradiction with it being morally neutral. Can you elaborate some more?
"It is not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger." A Treatise of Human Nature, by David Hume (Lifeboat Survival 101)
Basically if it came to it, scratching a finger or hacking of a hand, if it meant preventing further destruction would not necessarily be in conflict with violence being morally neutral, being equitable though is probably worth baring in mind. I remember an early post on the forum where I asked if there was no truth in the NAP(Non Agression Principle) and people basically freaked out imo.
I think the difference is that UPB is a methodology for testing moral rules, not a moral rule itself. The categorical imperative specifies a "should". UPB helps us winnow out "shoulds" that don't pass scrutiny.
Yes methodology rather than refinement, not a moral itself. The "should" being an umbrella statement, which I agree is winnowed out in UPB. Intuitively I feel though, that perhaps UPB misses something in Ethics. It would be interesting to see what other moral rules or maxims are out there with expressions of truth.