Book:Universally Preferable Behaviour/3 - Revision history

FormerContributor-78162cb3 at 04:28, 13 October 2012

2012-10-13T04:28:51Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:28, 13 October 2012
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{header		{{Book header
	\| title = [[Universally Preferable Behaviour]]		\| title = [[Universally Preferable Behaviour]]
	\| author = Stefan Molyneux		\| author = Stefan Molyneux

FormerContributor-78162cb3: Nathan Larson moved page Universally Preferable Behaviour/3 to Book:Universally Preferable Behaviour/3

2012-10-12T20:06:00Z

Nathan Larson moved page Universally Preferable Behaviour/3 to Book:Universally Preferable Behaviour/3

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:06, 12 October 2012
(No difference)

84.60.208.138 at 19:31, 8 December 2010

2010-12-08T19:31:35Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:31, 8 December 2010
Line 294:		Line 294:

	Thus, fundamentally, if I tell you that you are not responsible for your actions, I am telling you that it is universally preferable for you to believe that preference is impossible, since if you have no control over your actions, you cannot choose a preferred state, i.e. truth over falsehood. Thus this argument, like the above arguments, self-destructs.		Thus, fundamentally, if I tell you that you are not responsible for your actions, I am telling you that it is universally preferable for you to believe that preference is impossible, since if you have no control over your actions, you cannot choose a preferred state, i.e. truth over falsehood. Thus this argument, like the above arguments, self-destructs.
	''(1:26:24)''		''(1:25:57)''

	== Universally Preferable Behaviour ==		== Universally Preferable Behaviour ==
Line 316:		Line 316:

	Let us now turn to a series of positive proofs for UPB.		Let us now turn to a series of positive proofs for UPB.
			''(1:28:32)''
	=== UPB And Validity ===		=== UPB And Validity ===
	One of the central challenges faced by modern philosophers is the need to prove that moral rules are both possible and universal. Until moral rules can be subjected to the same rigour and logic as any other propositions, we will forever be stymied by subjectivism, political prejudices and the pragmatic “argument from effect.”		One of the central challenges faced by modern philosophers is the need to prove that moral rules are both possible and universal. Until moral rules can be subjected to the same rigour and logic as any other propositions, we will forever be stymied by subjectivism, political prejudices and the pragmatic “argument from effect.”
Line 361:		Line 361:

	The methodology for judging and proving a moral theory is exactly the same as the methodology for judging and proving any other theory.		The methodology for judging and proving a moral theory is exactly the same as the methodology for judging and proving any other theory.
			''(1:36:32)''
	==== Moral Rules: A Definition ====		==== Moral Rules: A Definition ====
	The first question regarding moral rules is: what are they?		The first question regarding moral rules is: what are they?
Line 368:		Line 368:

	The second question to be asked is: is there any such thing as “universally preferable behaviour” at all? If there is, we can begin to explore what such behaviour might be. If not, then our examination must stop here – just as the examination of Ptolemaic astronomy ceased after it became commonly accepted that the Sun was in fact the centre of the solar system.		The second question to be asked is: is there any such thing as “universally preferable behaviour” at all? If there is, we can begin to explore what such behaviour might be. If not, then our examination must stop here – just as the examination of Ptolemaic astronomy ceased after it became commonly accepted that the Sun was in fact the centre of the solar system.
			''(1:37:21)''
	=== UPB: Five Proofs ===		=== UPB: Five Proofs ===
	As we discussed above, the proposition that there is no such thing as preferable behaviour contains an insurmountable number of logical and empirical problems. “Universally preferable behaviour” must be a valid concept, for five main reasons.		As we discussed above, the proposition that there is no such thing as preferable behaviour contains an insurmountable number of logical and empirical problems. “Universally preferable behaviour” must be a valid concept, for five main reasons.
Line 435:		Line 435:

	We could bring many more arguments to support the existence and validity of UPB, but we shall rest our case with the above, and move to an examination of the nature of UPB.		We could bring many more arguments to support the existence and validity of UPB, but we shall rest our case with the above, and move to an examination of the nature of UPB.
			''(1:46:18)''
	==== UPB: Optional And Objective ====		==== UPB: Optional And Objective ====
	Since we have proven the validity of universally preferable behaviour, the question of morality now shifts. Since morality is valid, what theories can quantify, classify, explain and predict it?		Since we have proven the validity of universally preferable behaviour, the question of morality now shifts. Since morality is valid, what theories can quantify, classify, explain and predict it?

84.60.208.138: /* Preferences */

2010-12-08T17:00:45Z

Preferences

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:00, 8 December 2010
Line 222:		Line 222:

	When we apply this simple fact to ethical arguments, we come up with some very interesting results.		When we apply this simple fact to ethical arguments, we come up with some very interesting results.
			''(1:15:27 mp3)''
	=== Preferences And Arguments ===		=== Preferences And Arguments ===
	Remembering our above analysis of self-defeating arguments, we can easily understand the contradictory nature of the statement: “preferences do not exist.” Given that every human action – including making philosophical statements – is chosen in preference to every other possible action, arguing that preferences do not exist requires a preference for arguing that preferences do not exist, which is a self-contradictory statement.		Remembering our above analysis of self-defeating arguments, we can easily understand the contradictory nature of the statement: “preferences do not exist.” Given that every human action – including making philosophical statements – is chosen in preference to every other possible action, arguing that preferences do not exist requires a preference for arguing that preferences do not exist, which is a self-contradictory statement.
Line 228:		Line 228:

	Since it is impossible to act without expressing a preference – either implicitly or explicitly – anyone who acts accepts the premise that preferences exist. Thus it is impossible to debate the existence of preferences without accepting the existence of preferences.		Since it is impossible to act without expressing a preference – either implicitly or explicitly – anyone who acts accepts the premise that preferences exist. Thus it is impossible to debate the existence of preferences without accepting the existence of preferences.
			''(1:16:25 mp3)''
	=== Preferences And Universality ===		=== Preferences And Universality ===
	The next question thus becomes: are preferences purely subjective, or can they be universal?		The next question thus becomes: are preferences purely subjective, or can they be universal?
Line 246:		Line 246:
	In other words, if you want to get to the top of a mountain, wishing for it will never work. If you want to know the origins of the universe, prayer will never provide an answer. People still wish, and pray, but that does not make wishing or praying any more effective.		In other words, if you want to get to the top of a mountain, wishing for it will never work. If you want to know the origins of the universe, prayer will never provide an answer. People still wish, and pray, but that does not make wishing or praying any more effective.
	With that in mind, let us turn to the question of whether or not universal preferences can be valid.		With that in mind, let us turn to the question of whether or not universal preferences can be valid.
			''(1:18:55)''
	=== Arguments And Universality ===		=== Arguments And Universality ===
	If I choose to debate, I have implicitly accepted a wide variety of premises that are worth spending some time to unpack here.		If I choose to debate, I have implicitly accepted a wide variety of premises that are worth spending some time to unpack here.
Line 294:		Line 294:

	Thus, fundamentally, if I tell you that you are not responsible for your actions, I am telling you that it is universally preferable for you to believe that preference is impossible, since if you have no control over your actions, you cannot choose a preferred state, i.e. truth over falsehood. Thus this argument, like the above arguments, self-destructs.		Thus, fundamentally, if I tell you that you are not responsible for your actions, I am telling you that it is universally preferable for you to believe that preference is impossible, since if you have no control over your actions, you cannot choose a preferred state, i.e. truth over falsehood. Thus this argument, like the above arguments, self-destructs.
			''(1:26:24)''

	== Universally Preferable Behaviour ==		== Universally Preferable Behaviour ==

84.60.208.138 at 15:52, 8 December 2010

2010-12-08T15:52:27Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:52, 8 December 2010
Line 133:		Line 133:

	With this in mind, we can now turn to the core subject of this book.		With this in mind, we can now turn to the core subject of this book.

			''(1:01:21 mp3)''

	== Ethics ==		== Ethics ==
Line 150:		Line 152:

	However, just as Einsteinian physics provided surprising truths – in fact, it would have been of little value if those truths were not surprising – ethical theories provide the most value when they also reveal surprising truths – shocking, even. In fact, ethical theories that did not provide surprising truths would be a mere confirmation of existing instinctual preferences, and thus be of little value.		However, just as Einsteinian physics provided surprising truths – in fact, it would have been of little value if those truths were not surprising – ethical theories provide the most value when they also reveal surprising truths – shocking, even. In fact, ethical theories that did not provide surprising truths would be a mere confirmation of existing instinctual preferences, and thus be of little value.

			''(1:04:04 mp3)''

	=== The Discipline Of Theoretical Ethics ===		=== The Discipline Of Theoretical Ethics ===
Line 171:		Line 175:
	“Behaviour” exists in objective reality, outside our minds – the concepts “ought,” “should,” and “preference,” do not exist outside our minds.		“Behaviour” exists in objective reality, outside our minds – the concepts “ought,” “should,” and “preference,” do not exist outside our minds.
	However, the fact that “ought” does not exist within objective reality does not mean that “ought” is completely subjective. Neither the scientific method nor numbers themselves exist within reality either, yet science and mathematics remain objective disciplines.		However, the fact that “ought” does not exist within objective reality does not mean that “ought” is completely subjective. Neither the scientific method nor numbers themselves exist within reality either, yet science and mathematics remain objective disciplines.

			''(1:08:41 mp3)''

	=== Self-Defeating Arguments ===		=== Self-Defeating Arguments ===
Line 188:		Line 194:

	If I tell you that “Your senses are invalid,” then my argument also self-destructs, since I am using your sense of hearing to communicate to you that your sense of hearing is invalid. If I can successfully communicate my thesis to you, then your sense of hearing must be valid. Thus I must assume that your senses are valid in order to convince you that your senses are not valid, which cannot stand.		If I tell you that “Your senses are invalid,” then my argument also self-destructs, since I am using your sense of hearing to communicate to you that your sense of hearing is invalid. If I can successfully communicate my thesis to you, then your sense of hearing must be valid. Thus I must assume that your senses are valid in order to convince you that your senses are not valid, which cannot stand.

			''(1:11:13 mp3)''

	== Preferences ==		== Preferences ==
Line 199:		Line 207:

	Thus in ethics, just as in science, mathematics, engineering and all other disciplines that compare theories to reality,valid theories must be both logically consistent and empirically verifiable.		Thus in ethics, just as in science, mathematics, engineering and all other disciplines that compare theories to reality,valid theories must be both logically consistent and empirically verifiable.

			''(1:15:06 mp3)''

	=== Preferences And Existence ===		=== Preferences And Existence ===

84.60.208.138: /* A Framework For Ethics */

2010-12-08T13:30:44Z

A Framework For Ethics

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:30, 8 December 2010
Line 9:		Line 9:
	}}		}}
	{{rightTOC\|width=25%}}		{{rightTOC\|width=25%}}

			''(43:47 mp3)''

	== A Framework For Ethics ==		== A Framework For Ethics ==
Line 22:		Line 24:

	The scientific method, rationality itself, and mathematical laws are all examples of objective criteria for establishing the truth of a proposition. It is not my opinion that two and two make four – if you also accept that two and two make four, you are not subjecting yourself to my mere opinion, but to a rational truth.		The scientific method, rationality itself, and mathematical laws are all examples of objective criteria for establishing the truth of a proposition. It is not my opinion that two and two make four – if you also accept that two and two make four, you are not subjecting yourself to my mere opinion, but to a rational truth.

			''(46:30 mp3)''

	=== Objective Truth ===		=== Objective Truth ===
Line 39:		Line 43:

	Again, this does not mean that the purity of water is utterly subjective. Distilled water is always more potable than seawater.		Again, this does not mean that the purity of water is utterly subjective. Distilled water is always more potable than seawater.

			''(49:39 mp3)''

	==== Truth And Objective Reality ====		==== Truth And Objective Reality ====
Line 54:		Line 60:

	Assuming you can tell the difference between the above two fonts, we can reasonably continue.		Assuming you can tell the difference between the above two fonts, we can reasonably continue.

			''(51:36 mp3)''

	==== Accuracy And Consistency ====		==== Accuracy And Consistency ====
Line 77:		Line 85:

	Thus we can accept that we must measure the validity of a statement relative to objective reality – both empirically, and logically. Logic as a discipline arises only as a result of the consistency of reality; empirical observations are also valid or invalid only as a result of the consistent nature of reality.		Thus we can accept that we must measure the validity of a statement relative to objective reality – both empirically, and logically. Logic as a discipline arises only as a result of the consistency of reality; empirical observations are also valid or invalid only as a result of the consistent nature of reality.

			''(55:00 mp3)''

	=== The Existence Of "Truth" ===		=== The Existence Of "Truth" ===
Line 93:		Line 103:

	In fact, the first hurdle that any theory must overcome is that of internal consistency.		In fact, the first hurdle that any theory must overcome is that of internal consistency.

			''(57:45 mp3)''

	== Internal Consistency ==		== Internal Consistency ==

Anarchei: /* The Beast */

2010-12-01T00:22:03Z

The Beast

@@ Line 707: / Line 707: @@
 == The Beast ==
 === Propaganda ===
 == Notes ==
 {{Reflist}}

Anarchei: /* Lifeboat Scenarios */

2010-12-01T00:20:05Z

Lifeboat Scenarios

@@ Line 645: / Line 645: @@
 == Lifeboat Scenarios ==
 === Grey Areas ===
 === Shades Of Grey ===
 === Universality And Exceptions ===
 === The Purpose And The Dangers ===
 == The Beast ==

Anarchei: /* Initiation */

2010-12-01T00:12:21Z

Initiation

@@ Line 598: / Line 598: @@
 == Initiation ==
 === The Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) ===
 == Lifeboat Scenarios ==

Anarchei: /* UPB: Ethics Or Aesthetics? */

2010-12-01T00:09:39Z

UPB: Ethics Or Aesthetics?

@@ Line 518: / Line 518: @@
 == UPB: Ethics Or Aesthetics? ==
 === Irrationality ===
 === Lying ===
 === Murder ===
 === Requirements For Ethics ===
 === Choice ===
 === Avoidance ===
 ==== Avoidance And Initiation ====
 === Ethics, Aesthetics, And Avoidability ===
 == Initiation ==