Comment: So I’m assuming you didn’t

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Molyneux's rebuttal was (see in situ)

So I’m assuming you didn’t

So I’m assuming you didn’t peak at the second post, since it replied to Mr. Molyneux’s rebuttal. Anyways, I would like to say a few things about UPB. My first one is the complete arrogance of the theory, or, rather, the arrogance of Mr. Molyneux. It is constructed in such a way that any attempt to raise objections is thereby twisted as support for it—that is, the person arguing against UPB is said to presuppose precisely what one is denying in the act of denying it—that is, it is Molyneux using sleight of hand hocus pocus, shifting the burden of proof on you, and basically claiming victory without every making a positive statement for UPB.

Second, UPB does not justify why such and such an action is moral or immoral; rather, at best, it is a tool of consistency. But inconsistency between one’s actions and one’s belief does not prove or disprove a theory.

For example, above, you state:

Stealing is bad because if stealing were ‘good’ then there would be no reason to steal, as you will never keep the thing you stole. It's universally preferable to call theft ‘immoral’.

You want to state that "theft is immoral" as a universal statement, or, the converse, that “theft is moral” cannot be universalized. Sure it can! All one has to do is construct a theory—like UPB!—and have has one of its tenets, “theft is moral,” as a universal absolute. If the person setting forth this proposition does not like being stolen from, or does not in engage in theft every time, would not prove that their philosophy is internally inconsistent or that it has some error in its content; at best, it shows a contradiction between one’s theory and one’s action. But showing one to be a hypocrite, at best, says nothing about the content of the proposition! It tells no one whether it is good or bad, whether one ought-to or ought-not to do something. In effect, UPB rules out any context or any non-absolute rule. As long as you absolutely apply the rule, any rule works. But validation of an ethical theory depends on the content, rather than the application, of the theory.

Next, UPB bumps into the is/ought dichotomy. Ethics, or moral claims, deal with prescriptive statements (oughts and ought-nots). But UPB refers to descriptive elements in the world, and from this tries to derive moral statements. But moral statements are not questions of “what is” but “what ought to be.”

And finally, for a full take down by an astute philosopher, I recommend this piece by Danny Shahar.

malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium

I am an aristocrat. I love liberty; I hate equality. - John Randolph of Roanoke