Freedomain Radio

I'm about a third into UPB. I've heard UPB moderately compared to Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics theory both of which I have not fully grasped. I was curious if Roderick Long's critique of Hoppe applied to UPB...

 http://praxeology.net/unblog05-04.htm#10 

Back to UPB!

UPB as I understand it is different from Hoppes argumentation. UPB claims that a moral theory has to match the scientific criteria that are also required for every other theory.

-Logic consistency

-It's conclusions much not contradict empirical reality

Using this it does not put forward a moral theory, but just takes down everything that involves stealing and murdering on logic consistency (a theory of morality should apply to all humans like a theory of gravity should apply to all masses). Just taking down false moral theories and justifications for war and theft, you are left with something pretty decent.

It doesn't affect the theory of UPB itself, but Stef does use the Hoppian argument in question as a means of defending property rights, if I remember correctly it's even in UPB the book.

 This one aspect of FDR philosophy that makes me uncomfortable, I don't disagree with property rights necessarily, but this proof feels wrong. It can certainly be said that many people arguing against property rights are hypocritical in that they still assume property rights in their daily lives, but from a theoretical a priori standpoint it seems to confuse use rights with property rights. I can argue against self ownership while using my body but not retaining exclusive control over it, as in the example where by body is bound but my mouth is free. The argument that self-ownership is a biological truth doesn't work for me either, I think one could control another's body through electricity, chemicals, or brute physical force.

The other problem I have with UPB is I don't see how moral theories can be empirically tested. I may be misunderstanding this, but my understanding is that Stef tried to develop a theory that would work without requiring people to accept anything as an ultimate end (like we must work towards our own flourishing, the equality of all human beings, the preservation of the environment, etc) and so UPB aims to find what action will be preferable to all participants in some action. The problem then is if your going to run an ethical experiment how do you test if someone's preferences are being met? If you accept an objective end like we should preserve human life, you can test that for example by comparing how many deaths happened under one situation compared to another, but if the point is to not require people to accept any ends, then it seems like your forced into the world of subjective preferences, which can't be tested empirically.

I may have gone off-topic with that last paragraph, sorry about that but it's been something I've been struggling with. Like I said, I'm not sure if I'm understanding all of this so please correct me if I'm wrong.  

I think he meant with empirical testing:checking if no obviously strange things come out like slavery is good, rape is good. So first you shoot down what is inconsistent and then you do not empirically check if it is right , but check if it isn't obviously wrong.

"The argument that self-ownership is a biological truth doesn't work for me either, I think one could control another's body through electricity, chemicals, or brute physical force." 

And that is why the argument for self ownership does not work for you ??? 

My Horns Wont Fit:

It doesn't affect the theory of UPB itself, but Stef does use the Hoppian argument in question as a means of defending property rights, if I remember correctly it's even in UPB the book.

 This one aspect of FDR philosophy that makes me uncomfortable, I don't disagree with property rights necessarily, but this proof feels wrong. It can certainly be said that many people arguing against property rights are hypocritical in that they still assume property rights in their daily lives, but from a theoretical a priori standpoint it seems to confuse use rights with property rights. I can argue against self ownership while using my body but not retaining exclusive control over it, as in the example where by body is bound but my mouth is free. The argument that self-ownership is a biological truth doesn't work for me either, I think one could control another's body through electricity, chemicals, or brute physical force.

The other problem I have with UPB is I don't see how moral theories can be empirically tested. I may be misunderstanding this, but my understanding is that Stef tried to develop a theory that would work without requiring people to accept anything as an ultimate end (like we must work towards our own flourishing, the equality of all human beings, the preservation of the environment, etc) and so UPB aims to find what action will be preferable to all participants in some action. The problem then is if your going to run an ethical experiment how do you test if someone's preferences are being met? If you accept an objective end like we should preserve human life, you can test that for example by comparing how many deaths happened under one situation compared to another, but if the point is to not require people to accept any ends, then it seems like your forced into the world of subjective preferences, which can't be tested empirically.

I may have gone off-topic with that last paragraph, sorry about that but it's been something I've been struggling with. Like I said, I'm not sure if I'm understanding all of this so please correct me if I'm wrong.  

Hi - and welcome! 

Sorry, but I can't understand how you can argue about self-ownership without using self-ownership, even if it's only your mouth.

The UPB framework does not "prove" property right - it simple requires that any theory regarding property rights conform with evidence and reason.

Biological evidence points towards self-ownership, and every argument against self-ownership requires it, that is the very short proof.

Also, if you were to say that your theory is that "no one owns anything" then you would have to exercise ownership to stop anyone from exercising ownership, which is a contradiction of course...

Also, if we are responsible for our actions, we must be responsible for their effects - that is the root of both morality and property, if that makes sense.

Hi, thanks for taking the time to respond to my post.

pcrs:

I think he meant with empirical testing:checking if no obviously strange things come out like slavery is good, rape is good. So first you shoot down what is inconsistent and then you do not empirically check if it is right , but check if it isn't obviously wrong.

 But then that's still not empirical unless you have some way of testing the validity of "slavery is bad", "rape is bad". If you just assume those rules to be correct, I'm not saying that's necessarily wrong, but it's not empirical. I guess the ultimate question is: by what means do you test these moral theories through empirical evidence, ie, if you have a hypothesis that "rape is bad", how do you conduct an experiment to prove or disprove that? or am I on the wrong track here?

pcrs:

"The argument that self-ownership is a biological truth doesn't work for me either, I think one could control another's body through electricity, chemicals, or brute physical force." 

And that is why the argument for self ownership does not work for you ??? 

Stefan Molyneux:

Also, if you were to say that your theory is that "no one owns anything" then you would have to exercise ownership to stop anyone from exercising ownership, which is a contradiction of course...

Also, if we are responsible for our actions, we must be responsible for their effects - that is the root of both morality and property, if that makes sense.

I can see that one owns their actions, that's tautological: it's implied in the definition of action. I can see also that you have responsibility for the effects of your actions too. Any action you make requires using your body as well--I can't think something in my head and then move the table behind me. Where I'm getting stuck on is: couldn't someone else make an action that uses my body as well? If my brain and my body run on electrical and chemical signals, couldn't someone create a response in my body by manipulating those signals? Or for a more primitive example they could just grab my arm and move it. I wouldn't be responsible for those movements in my body, the other person would since it would be their actions.

 The "no one owns anything" question has got me thinking though, I need to flesh out the differences between property ownership and just using something, my feeling was that we could just ignore the concept of property altogether, but maybe ownership is unavoidable? I'm going to think about that. 

Just took a walk and was thinking about this, here's my thought process so far:

 Libertarians follow the non-agression principle, which states that no one has the right to initiate force against another person, nor to threaten to initiate force, nor to delegate the initiation of force to another party.

 If you stop here you have something like what I think is called anarcho-syndicalism, where if I am using a laptop and you take it away from me, that's wrong (because taking something without my agreement requires a threat of violence against me), but if I quite using the laptop, and you take it, you aren't aggressing against any human being, and therefor you're OK.

If you add property rights to this, it simply results in a redefinition of the NAP, where now if you take something that is my property you are making an initiation of force against me, and if I attack you in response, I am not considered the initiator.

 So ownership essentially means that no one can do anything to what I own without my permission, and if they do I am justified in responding with force. 

Ownership of myself, then, is the equivalent of the NAP, self ownership means nobody can do anything to my body without my permission, and I can respond with force if they do.

If you reject property in material goods then, it means aggression is meaningless regarding anything that is not currently in use by someone (this always includes the body, because there is never a time when I am not using my body). If someone takes a bench lying on the sidewalk, no case can be made against that because everyone has the right to do whatever they wish to a bench that's not in use.

 Likewise, if you reject self-ownership, it means all forms of aggression against human beings are valid. If person a tries to assert property rights against person b, person a is just using force against person b for using a toothbrush person a believes is their property, and this aggression is valid.

If person b attacks person a then, for trying to assert property rights, that is just another form of aggression and no more invalid than person a's aggression. person b doesn't even need to believe he is defending the non-existance of property rights, he could just say he felt like aggressing against someone.

I guess the question then is "is person b exercising ownership by responding in this way?". Unfortunately I'm running out of WiFI time now, so I guess I'll have to return to this later :). Again, please correct me if I'm skipping over or misunderstanding anything.

The "use principle" for determining property rights from anarcho-syndicalists is ridiculous. Examine the following situations:

1. A man in a coma or asleep is not using his body in any willful manner. He is not using his body during this period much like a corpse does not use his body. The "use principle" would deny self-ownership in this instance.

2. How can you be said to only be in use of something when you are physically using it? Wouldn't such a premise allow someone to steal your spare tire since it is not being used? Just as you and I "use" a spare tire in the sense that it is able to be used, the factory owner "uses" his factory.

3 (similar to 2). I carve a staff out of wood in a period of 2 days and leave it where I made it. I leave for a few weeks and come back. In that time period, you have used my staff. I catch you in the act and ask you to return it to me. You (an adherent of the use principle) claim I was not using it. I reply by saying "well, I'm here and I want my staff back". You refuse to give it to me; it is clear now that you have enslaved me for 2 days (the time it takes to make the staff). Similarly, the land and building a factory owner works to procure honestly and voluntarily is stolen by anarcho-syndicalists and thus it is clear that the work down by the owner to procure the means of production was essentially slavery at the hands of the workers.

Good examples, if you extend 2 days to longer it becomes even more obvious. If I worked my whole life with the single purpose to live in a big villa and I go on a holiday, it could be occupied when I come back. I can not relive my life to dedicate it to get another villa, my past life is spent and gone. Therefor property = past life and energy. If people don't respect your property, they take the portion of your life that you have spent. They do not only take your property, but with it they take a part of your life, the part you chose to dedicate to a villa and they did not.

If this were generally excepted, you can better consume everything as quickly as possible not save anything, nor make any investments. Without investments the productivity of labor would not go up and poverty is unavoidable imho.
 

I was simply working from the NAP, you can just forget about the term "use" if you like and think about it in terms of aggression if you like. I'm not proposing this as a moral system, just trying to see what you get when you assume the rights granted by the NAP but not by property ownership. 

 If someone grabs the expresso I'm drinking out of my hands, they are putting me into a kind of negative economics situation: either I give them the cup, or I lose control over one part of my body, due to them hitting me or to my arm being tied up fighting for control of the cup with them or something like that. If I put the cup down and they grab it, I'm not forced to respond in any way. 

So that observation is all I mean when talking about "usage". I don't know if that observation is valid or if it's the same as what anarcho-syndicalists, but I am most certainly not trying to argue the anarcho-syndicalist position. I agree that this leads to some absurd situations, I'm just trying to work out what some of these terms mean here, I don't know if talking about property theft being enslavement is really relevant to that, and in any case I do agree with what pcrs said in the last post.

 The question I'm really dying to have answered, though, is that if UPB says that an ethical theory is validated by first making sure it is logically consistent, then showing that it conforms (or at least doesn't not-conform) to empirical reality, how do you test the second part? How does one demonstrate that an ethical theory is valid in the real world?

IIRC, UPB gave a few examples of trying out ethical theories, perhaps I need to go back and reread those sections, then I can come here with some more concrete examples/quotations of the problems I'm working through here. 

My Horns Wont Fit:

The question I'm really dying to have answered, though, is that if UPB says that an ethical theory is validated by first making sure it is logically consistent, then showing that it conforms (or at least doesn't not-conform) to empirical reality, how do you test the second part? How does one demonstrate that an ethical theory is valid in the real world?

I think this is more a sanity check, the main thing with UPB is consistency:same rules for same people. The scientific method says:first check logical consistency, if this is correct check with experiments, if not:don't even bother with empirical stuff, don't leave the study. For a moral theory this is more difficult to do objectively than with a theory of gravity. But a check could be:if a moral systems gets millions of people killed like communism, it should at least not validate communism, or there is something wrong. Another one can be:if all moral systems say murder is bad, you would like to comply with that. But if you wanted to be cheeky you could say that this gets you in a circular argument. Luckily the really bad stuff already fails on inconsistency. The interesting part is mainly to find some things that are not directly intuitive for people like: the initiation of force is immoral.

It is a bit like calculus by head without a calculator. At the end you check if the answer is not completely insane, otherwise you probably have done something wrong.

My Horns Wont Fit:

 The question I'm really dying to have answered, though, is that if UPB says that an ethical theory is validated by first making sure it is logically consistent, then showing that it conforms (or at least doesn't not-conform) to empirical reality, how do you test the second part? How does one demonstrate that an ethical theory is valid in the real world?

My answer at least is in the book...

Stefan Molyneux:

My Horns Wont Fit:

 The question I'm really dying to have answered, though, is that if UPB says that an ethical theory is validated by first making sure it is logically consistent, then showing that it conforms (or at least doesn't not-conform) to empirical reality, how do you test the second part? How does one demonstrate that an ethical theory is valid in the real world?

My answer at least is in the book...

 Yeah sorry about all this, I realized that at the end of my post. I've gone and looked back at UPB, and I think I'm going to have to put a more work into understanding it. Once I straighten some things out in my life I'll do that and let you know what I think ( and send a donation, and all the other FDR-stuff I've been putting off :) )