I hope to update this FAQ soon (2014). I consider this version deprecated. I wouldn't say anything is out and out wrong, but incomplete and maybe misleading. I hope the update will be much better.
Persons who describe themselves as competent moral agents may not actually prefer that which is "universally preferred", but in violating UPB they contradict their claim of moral agency.
I want to explain UPB to you. Unfortunately, I don't claim to understand it myself. Here are some questions and attempts at answers.
If you remember nothing else about UPB, remember this "bottom line". If someone tries to moralize you into doing something or accepting something on the basis of a rule which does not apply to everyone, that person is a hypocrite and can be ignored. That is UPB in a sentence.
1 What is UPB?
UPB stands for universally preferred behavior. Molyneux often uses it to debunk moral claims that somehow fail the criteria. If moral claims are illogical, contradicted by evidence, or fail to apply to all persons at all times in all places, they fail the UPB test. Molyneux frames UPB as a generalization of argument and science to connect to the powerful truth-seeking aspects of those approaches, using this connection to deflect attacks against UPB.If you remember nothing else about UPB, remember this "bottom line". If someone tries to moralize you into doing something or accepting something on the basis of a rule which does not apply to everyone, that person is a hypocrite and can be ignored. That is UPB in a sentence.
UPB is a general approach, with moral propositions only one application. If you want to understand the world you should use the scientific method. If you want to persuade someone, you must debate.
Persons who describe themselves as competent moral agents may not actually prefer that which is "universally preferred", but in violating UPB they contradict their claim of moral agency.
1.1 can you explain some of the UPB jargon?
Maybe in 1.0.
1) UPB is a generalization of scientific method and fair argument.
2) Any argument that applies to UPB and disproves it, can also be applied to the process of fair argument and also disproves the ability of argument to establish truth. It also removes the foundation for all scientific claims.
3) Since the argument that disproved UPB also depends on the process of argumentation, and argumentation is a special case of UPB, the foundation for that argument also disappears, and it is at best uncertain.
4) We can summarize this as "any argument against UPB implies that argument in general can never establish the truth of any statement."
5) But we have just established the truth of at least one statement by use of argument, that is, we have established that "argument can never establish the truth of any statement." So, if we are sure that "argument can never establish the truth of any statement" then we cannot be sure that "argument can never establish the truth of any statement."
6) Since we have generated a contradiction, logic says we must have assumed something that was false. So we have 3 options: we can reject the use of logic, evidence, and argument and fall back to grunting or killing those who make statements we disagree with, we can reject the argument "disproving" UPB, or we can reject the assumption that argument is a subset of UPB.
Since the UPB critic used argument to support the anti-UPB proposal, that person can only proceed by denying that whatever argument applies to UPB also applies to the process of argumentation itself. They must show that their argument hinges on a characteristic of UPB that argument does not share. (Note that the conflict does not depend on Molyneux's claim that UPB is more general than pure argument; Molyneux only needs to show that any attack on UPB also applies to pure argument, and his critic must show that the attack leaves pure argument untouched.) I do not recall seeing any criticism of UPB that actually took this approach.
I think Molyneux claims that using fair argument entails a claim of moral agency, so that arguments that deny moral agency generate a contradiction. If I disdain moral agency and defend some form of nihilism, moral agents can ignore my arguments because I am denying the ethics of argument, and therefore denying the efficacy of argument.
I think he accepts the nonaggression principle and property rights, and rejects everything else. He has confusing analyses of murder, theft and rape, but we can derive prohibitions against these from the NAP, which seems simpler to me.
Molyneux's use of the words (universal, universally, prefer, preferred, preferable, preference) confuses me. For instance, Molyneux sometimes uses "objective" in place of "universal": "The challenge arises when we try to define some preferences as objective. The proposition before us is thus: can some preferences be objective, i.e. universal?" (page 33) The concepts of objectivity and universality seem to me to be closely related, but not identical or interchangeable.
In other places, he indicates that a universal rule must apply to all persons (except children and the mentally incompetent) at all times and places, in all circumstances. Rules may apply to persons in three different ways: the observer evaluating the argument, the subject who obeys or disobeys a moral rule, and the object whose rights are violated or not when the subject obeys the rule or not. Does universality require all (or any) of these? Or should we restrict universality to process of evaluating rules? David Gordon's critique mentioned a version of this question.
Nima's article helped me to improve my understanding of UPB. My imperfect grasp of the topic should not be blamed on that person, however.
2 Why should anyone believe UPB is true?
Molyneux uses something like proof by contradiction to argue for UPB. Here is my sketch of his argument:1) UPB is a generalization of scientific method and fair argument.
2) Any argument that applies to UPB and disproves it, can also be applied to the process of fair argument and also disproves the ability of argument to establish truth. It also removes the foundation for all scientific claims.
3) Since the argument that disproved UPB also depends on the process of argumentation, and argumentation is a special case of UPB, the foundation for that argument also disappears, and it is at best uncertain.
4) We can summarize this as "any argument against UPB implies that argument in general can never establish the truth of any statement."
5) But we have just established the truth of at least one statement by use of argument, that is, we have established that "argument can never establish the truth of any statement." So, if we are sure that "argument can never establish the truth of any statement" then we cannot be sure that "argument can never establish the truth of any statement."
6) Since we have generated a contradiction, logic says we must have assumed something that was false. So we have 3 options: we can reject the use of logic, evidence, and argument and fall back to grunting or killing those who make statements we disagree with, we can reject the argument "disproving" UPB, or we can reject the assumption that argument is a subset of UPB.
Since the UPB critic used argument to support the anti-UPB proposal, that person can only proceed by denying that whatever argument applies to UPB also applies to the process of argumentation itself. They must show that their argument hinges on a characteristic of UPB that argument does not share. (Note that the conflict does not depend on Molyneux's claim that UPB is more general than pure argument; Molyneux only needs to show that any attack on UPB also applies to pure argument, and his critic must show that the attack leaves pure argument untouched.) I do not recall seeing any criticism of UPB that actually took this approach.
I think Molyneux claims that using fair argument entails a claim of moral agency, so that arguments that deny moral agency generate a contradiction. If I disdain moral agency and defend some form of nihilism, moral agents can ignore my arguments because I am denying the ethics of argument, and therefore denying the efficacy of argument.
3 How does Molyneux apply UPB
How does Molyneux apply UPB to evaluate statements about morality, and what statements does he reject, what statements does he accept?I think he accepts the nonaggression principle and property rights, and rejects everything else. He has confusing analyses of murder, theft and rape, but we can derive prohibitions against these from the NAP, which seems simpler to me.
4 Footnotes, Digressions, Quibbles and Confusions
4.1 Sematics
Molyneux's use of the words (universal, universally, prefer, preferred, preferable, preference) confuses me. For instance, Molyneux sometimes uses "objective" in place of "universal": "The challenge arises when we try to define some preferences as objective. The proposition before us is thus: can some preferences be objective, i.e. universal?" (page 33) The concepts of objectivity and universality seem to me to be closely related, but not identical or interchangeable.
In other places, he indicates that a universal rule must apply to all persons (except children and the mentally incompetent) at all times and places, in all circumstances. Rules may apply to persons in three different ways: the observer evaluating the argument, the subject who obeys or disobeys a moral rule, and the object whose rights are violated or not when the subject obeys the rule or not. Does universality require all (or any) of these? Or should we restrict universality to process of evaluating rules? David Gordon's critique mentioned a version of this question.
