I always start off any serious and fruitful debates with this question: “I accept that all ideas I propose could be incorrect, and the reverse, that everything I think to be incorrect could be correct. I seek truth, so if I am proven incorrect I will gladly change. I do not take any stake in the outcome of this debate. I ask you to do the same. Do you accept?”
P= Premise C= Conclusion
P1: “Preferences” are required for life, thought and debating. P2: Debating requires that both parties hold truth to be both objective and universally preferable. C: Thus, the very act of debating contains an acceptance of universally preferable behaviour (aka UPB)
UPB 5 PROOFS REFUTED
P1: The concept UPB must be true. P2: Arguing against the truth of UPB demonstrates UPB. C: Thus, no argument against UPB can be true.
P2 is false; If I state a preference for truth over falsehood when debating UPB, that does not mean that I have preference for truth over falsehood in all things. For example, if I were in a situation where I needed to choose between knowing the truth and permanently decreasing the well-being of all life, or to not know the truth but to permanently increase the well-being of all life, I would choose falsehood over truth because I value well-being over truth. Even if I did have a preference for truth over falsehood, it would not be a universal preference, because all other people do not share my preference for truth over falsehood. While I may value truth over falsehood, when it comes to the question of being reunited with dead loved-ones when we die, another person might value falsehood over truth as a result of valuing comfort over truth. What we value personally is not universal. UPB has asserted that “moral values exist because we hold the belief that moral values exist” which is not the same as demonstrating that moral values actually exist. For example, if all ..