diff --git a/yo/Universally Preferable Behaviour/p01_ch05_01_univ.md b/yo/Universally Preferable Behaviour/p01_ch05_01_univ.md
index 4e6f6c284..ee201d008 100644
--- a/yo/Universally Preferable Behaviour/p01_ch05_01_univ.md	
+++ b/yo/Universally Preferable Behaviour/p01_ch05_01_univ.md	
@@ -1,73 +1,179 @@
-## Universally Preferable Behaviour
+Universally Preferable Behaviour
+
+Ise Agbalaye ti o San Julo
+
+
+As a result of the above arguments, we can see that it is impossible to enter into any debate without accepting the premise that certain behaviours are universally preferable.
+
+Nitori awon aba isaaju wonyi, a le rii daju pe ko seese lati gun le ariyanjiyan kankan lai se pe a koko gba awon aba ti o so pe awon ise kan san julo kale agbaiye wole.
 
-As a result of the above arguments, we can see that it is impossible to enter into any debate without accepting the premise that certain behaviours are *universally preferable*.
 
 I use the word “behaviour” here rather than “thought” because it is important to differentiate between purely internal and unverifiable states such as “thinking” from objective and verifiable states such as “acting,” “writing” and “speaking.”
 
+Mo mu oro "ihuwasi" lo dipo "ero" nitoripe o se pataki lati se iyato larin awon nkan amumonu ponbele ti ko see wadi bii "ero" kuro ninu nkan gboogi ti o see wadi bii "ere-sise", "iwe-kiko" ati "oro-siso".
+
+
 It is impossible to prove that I dreamt of an elephant last night. It is possible to prove that I have written the word “elephant,” which is why I use the word “behaviour” rather than “thought.”
 
-Acquiescing to superior logic in an argument is an *action*. If, every time I conceded a point to you, I said nothing, but rather just stared at you blankly, you would find it rather irritating to debate me. To concede a point, I must perform the action of verbal acquiescence.
+Ko seese lati fihan pe mo fi ajanaku la ala l'ana. Ko seese lati fihan pe mo ti ko oro "ajanaku," ni o se je pe mo lo oro "ihuwasi" dipo "ero."
+
+
+Acquiescing to superior logic in an argument is an action. If, every time I conceded a point to you, I said nothing, but rather just stared at you blankly, you would find it rather irritating to debate me. To concede a point, I must perform the action of verbal acquiescence.
+
+Oro-ise ni gbigba fun aba ti o l'eke ninu ariyanjiyan. Ti o ba je pe ni gbogbo igba ti mo gba fun aba kankan ti o ba da ni mo dake sii, sugbon ti mo kan n wo o binaku, yio ma ni o lara lati ba mi f'oro jomitoro oro nigbakugba ni. Lati gba aba kankan wole, mo ni lati fihan pelu ise ati oro pe mo ti gba nitooto.
+
 
 Thus it can be seen that, inherent in the very act of arguing are a number of embedded premises that cannot be conceivably overturned.
 
+Nitorina a le rii pe, ninu akitiyan ariyanjiyan gangan ni ao ti ri awon aba abele k'okan ti ko se yipada bi o ti wu'ni.
+
+
 If I ask you to meet me on the tennis court, and show up with a hunting rifle, we may end up playing a sport of sorts, but it certainly will not be tennis. When I ask you to meet me on the tennis court for a game, implicit in that request is an acceptance of the rules of tennis.
 
+Ti mo ba ni ki o ba mi ni kootu tenisi, ki o gbe ibon ode dani ti o ba n bo, a le pada se ere idaraya o sugbon ko ni je ti tenisi lailai. Ti mo ba ni ki a pade lorii kootu tenisi fun ere idaraya, ni abele ninu ebe naa ni ireti pe o ti gba lati tele awon ofin ere tenisi.
+
+
 Historically, those engaged in ethical debating have often failed to maintain this basic reality.
 
+Ni ti'tele itan, awon ti won ti n ko'pa ninu ariyanjiyan ododo ma n saba kuna lati ba le irufe iriri bi eyi.
+
+
 I cannot submit a scientific paper written in my own personal language, claiming that it has been refereed by my psychic goldfish, and expect to be taken seriously. Similarly, I cannot start a philosophical debate on ethics with reference to my own personal values, and claim that my arguments have all been validated by Trixie the omniscient and invisible leprechaun, and expect to be taken seriously.
 
-The very act of debating requires an acceptance of universally preferable behaviour (UPB). There is no way to rationally respond to an ethical argument *without* exhibiting UPB.
+Mi o le kowe ise iwadi sayensi ni ede mi gboogi, ki n ma daa l'aba pe arinurode eja alawo wura mi ti se iduro fun ise iwadi naa, ki n si maa reti pe ki awon eniyan mase pe mi ni elefe. Bakanna, mi o le bere ariyanjiyan filosofi lori ise-dede pelu akawe si iwa ọmọluabi mi, ki n si l'ero pe ti Trixie, olumoran ati afeeri arara naa, ba gba awon aba mi wole, ki n si ro pe awon eniyan naa o ma gba amoran mi wole.
+
+
+The very act of debating requires an acceptance of universally preferable behaviour (UPB). There is no way to rationally respond to an ethical argument without exhibiting UPB.
+
+Ise ariyanjiyan paapaa nilo gbigba ise agbalaye ti o san julo (UPB). Ko si ona ti a le gba f'esi pelu ori pipe si ariyanjiyan ise-dede lai se pe a fi UPB han.
+
 
 Let us now turn to a series of positive proofs for UPB.
 
-### UPB And Validity
+Nisinyii, e je ki a wa gba awon ipele ti o daju fun UPB yẹwo
+
+
+UPB And Validity
+
+UPB ati Bi o Se Se Gboogi Si
+
 
 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.”
 
-The closest historical analogy to our present situation occurred in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, during the rise of the scientific method. The early pioneers who advocated a rational and empirical approach to knowledge faced the same prejudices that we face today – all the same irrationalities, entrenched powers of church and state, mystical and subjective “absolutes” and early educational barriers. Those who advocated the primacy of rationality and empirical observation over Biblical fundamentalism and secular tyrannies faced the determined opposition of those wielding both cross and sword. Many were tortured to death for their intellectual honesty – we face far less risk, and so should be far more courageous in advocating what is *true* over what is *believed*.
+Ikan lara awon wahala ti awọn ọjọgbọn filosofi igbalode ma n ko ni iwulo lati fihan pe awon ofin iwa rere seese won si tan jakejado. Titi di igba ti awon iwa rere ba to le ese idaniloju ati imunadoko bii eyikeyi awon aba, oro-erefe, awon ojusaju oniselu ati iyara “ariyanjiyan lati inu esi” ko ni dekun lati maa gan wa.
+
+
+The closest historical analogy to our present situation occurred in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, during the rise of the scientific method. The early pioneers who advocated a rational and empirical approach to knowledge faced the same prejudices that we face today – all the same irrationalities, entrenched powers of church and state, mystical and subjective “absolutes” and early educational barriers. Those who advocated the primacy of rationality and empirical observation over Biblical fundamentalism and secular tyrannies faced the determined opposition of those wielding both cross and sword. Many were tortured to death for their intellectual honesty – we face far less risk, and so should be far more courageous in advocating what is true over what is believed.
 
-In order to attack false moralities, we must start from the beginning, just as the first scientists did. Francis Bacon did not argue that the scientific method was more “efficient” than prayer, Bible texts or starvation-induced visions. He simply said that if we want to understand nature, we must observe nature and theorise logically – and that there is *no other* route to knowledge.
+Apere lati inu itan ti o jo mo oro ti a n so yii sele ni awon odun egberun le irinwo ati awon odun egberun le irinwo o le ogorun, nigba ti ilana sayensi bere si n rugbogbo. Awon olulana ti won ja fun eto ti o ye ti o si tun yanranti ko awon ojusaju ti a n ko ode oni naa – gbogbo awon aigunrege, apoju agbara ile isin ati ti ijoba, awon "akotan" airi ti ko si f’idi mule ati pelu awon idiwo lona eko to ye koro. Awon ti won ja fun yiyan laayo ise-dede ati imo to munadoko saaju imo ti bibeli ati ikoleru aiye naa ko itako gbigbona lati odo awon ti won n fi ida ati agbelebu ja. Opolopo ni won pa ni ipa oloro nitori otito ti o jade ninu ori-pipe won- awa o ko’ju ewu kankan, nitorina o ye ki a ni igboya sii lati maa se akitiyan nipa oun ti o je otito ati ohun tia gbagbo.
+
+
+In order to attack false moralities, we must start from the beginning, just as the first scientists did. Francis Bacon did not argue that the scientific method was more “efficient” than prayer, Bible texts or starvation-induced visions. He simply said that if we want to understand nature, we must observe nature and theorise logically – and that there is no other route to knowledge.
+
+Lati le pa ina aisede, a gbodo bere lati ibere, gege bi awon onimo sayensi akoko se se. Fracis Bacon ko jiyan pe ilana ti sayensi se regi ju “adura”, ese bibeli tabi awon iriri tie bi n mu wa lo. O so ni erefe pe ti a ba fe mo nipa imo-emi, a si tun ni lati maa woye imo-emi ati ironu ti o gunrege- ati pe ko si ona miran si imo ju eyi lo. 
+
+
+We must take the same approach in defining and communicating morality. We must begin using the power and legitimacy of the scientific method to prove the validity and universality of moral laws. We must start from the beginning, build logically and reject any irrational or non-empirical substitutes for the truth.
+
+
+A ni lati mu ilana yi kannaa lo ni sise alaiye ati ni ijiroro nipa iwa-rere. A gbodo bere si n lo agbara ati ase ilana sayensi lati topinpin imunse ati itankale awon ofin owa-rere. A ni lati bere lati ibere pepe, ko ilana ni sisen-tele ati ki a ko eyikeyi aba ainiye-ninu tabi ailapere fun otito.
 
-We must take the same approach in defining and communicating *morality*. We must begin using the power and legitimacy of the scientific method to prove the validity and universality of moral laws. We must start from the beginning, build logically and reject *any* irrational or non-empirical substitutes for the truth.
 
 What does this look like in practice? All we have to do is establish the following axioms:
 
-- Morality is a valid concept.
-- Moral rules must be consistent for all mankind.
-- The validity of a moral theory is judged by its consistency.
+Bawo ni oran yii se ri pato ni sise? Gbogbo nkan ti a ni lati se ni pe ki a fi idi awon oro kan mule:
+
+
+Morality is a valid concept.Moral rules must be consistent for all mankind.The validity of a moral theory is judged by its consistency.
+
+Nkan ijinle ni ise-rere. Awon ofin iwa si ni lati gun rege fun gbogbo-gbo. A le mo bi eko ise-rere se kunna si pelu bi o se ja gere si.
+ 
 
 To start from the very beginning… are moral rules – or universally preferable human behaviours – valid at all?
 
+Lati bere nibi pelebe, se awon ofin ihuwa - tabi ise agbalaye ti o san julo - kunna rara?
+
+
 There are only two possibilities when it comes to moral rules, just as there are in any logical science. Either universal moral rules are valid, or they are not.[^6]
 
-A rule can be valid if it *exists empirically*, like gravity, or because it is *true*, like the equation two plus two equals four.
+Ona meji pere ni a le jasi ti a ba ye awon ofin iwa wo, bi o ti ri gele ninu eyikeyi ironu sayensi. Ninu ko je wipe awon ofin iwa agbaiye je tooto, tabi won o ki n se otito.[^6]
+
+
+A rule can be valid if it exists empirically, like gravity, or because it is true, like the equation two plus two equals four.
+
+Ofin kan le kunna ti o ba wa pelu aridaju, bii grafiti, tabi ki o kan je wipe itori pe otito ni, bii isiro eji pelu eji se je erin.
+
 
 We must then first ask: do moral rules exist at all?
 
-Certainly not in material reality, which does not contain or obey a single moral rule. Moral rules are different from the rules of physics, just as the scientific method is different from gravity. Matter innately obeys gravity or the second law of thermodynamics, but “thou shalt not murder” is nowhere inscribed in the nature of things. Physical laws *describe* the behaviour of matter, but do not contain a single *prescription*. Science says that matter *does* behave in a certain manner – never that it *should* behave in a certain manner. A theory of gravity proves that if you push a man off a cliff, he will fall. It will not tell you whether you *should* push him or not.
+A o wa ni lati koko beere: nje awon ofin iwa wa rara?
+
+
+Certainly not in material reality, which does not contain or obey a single moral rule. Moral rules are different from the rules of physics, just as the scientific method is different from gravity. Matter innately obeys gravity or the second law of thermodynamics, but “thou shalt not murder” is nowhere inscribed in the nature of things. Physical laws describe the behaviour of matter, but do not contain a single prescription. Science says that matter does behave in a certain manner – never that it should behave in a certain manner. A theory of gravity proves that if you push a man off a cliff, he will fall. It will not tell you whether you should push him or not.
+
+Daju-daju kii se ni pataki ododo, eyiti o je pe ko ni, ko si tele ofin iwa kankan. Awon ofin iwa yii yato si awon ofin fisiksi, gegebi awon ilana sayensi se yato si ti grafiti. Ofin grafiti ni nkankan ma n tele tabi bi ofin keji tamodainamiksi, sugbon “iwo ko gbodo pa eniyan” ko si ninu eto isembaye ohunkohun. Awon ofin nkan afojuri se afihan ise nkan, sugbon ko ni alaye kankan ti o baa wa. Sayensi so pe nkankan o ki n hu iwa ni eto atele kankan – ko ni lati hu iwa ni ona kan gboogi. Imo grafiti fihan pe ti o ba ti eni kan jabo ni eba ogbun, yio jabo. Ofin yi ko ni so wipe boya ki o tii tabi ki o ma tii.
+
+ 
+Thus it cannot be said that moral rules exist in material reality, and neither are they automatically obeyed like the laws of physics – which does not mean that moral laws are false, subjective or irrelevant. The scientific method itself does not exist in reality either – and is also optional – but it is not at all false, subjective or irrelevant.
+
+Beeni a o kan le so wipe awon ofin iwa fi idi mule ni pataki ododo, beeni won o si ki n je imuse bii awon ofin fisiksi - eyi ko toka si pe awon ofin iwa je iro, ko se gboogi tabi ko ni lari. Ilana sayensi funra re ko sele ni iriri – ko si se dandan – sugbon kii se iro rara ati rara, o se gboogi o si ni lari.
+ 
+
+If we can prove that moral theories can be objective, rational and verifiable, this will provide the same benefits to ethics that subjecting physical theories to the scientific method did.
+
+Ti a ba le fihan pe awon imo iwa le se gboogi, ni itumo ti o si see yewo, eyi a pese fun awon anfani kanna fun iwa-rere ti fifi awon imo afojuri si ilana sayensi se. 
+
+
+Before the rise of the scientific method, people believed that matter obeyed the subjective whims of gods and devils – and people believe the same of morality now. Volcanoes erupted because the mountain-god was angry; good harvests resulted from human or animal sacrifices. No one believed that absolute physical laws could limit the will of the gods – and so science could never develop. Those who historically profited from defining physical reality as subjective – mostly priests and aristocrats – fought the subjugation of physical theories to the scientific method, just as those who currently profit from defining morality as subjective – mostly priests and politicians – currently fight the subjugation of moral theories to objective and universal principles.
 
-Thus it cannot be said that moral rules exist in material reality, and neither are they automatically obeyed like the laws of physics – which does *not* mean that moral laws are false, subjective or irrelevant. The scientific method itself does not exist in reality either – and is also optional – but it is not at all false, subjective or irrelevant.
+Ki ilana sayensi to tan kale, awon eniyan ma n lero pe nkan n gboran si ase awon orisha and esu ni - awon eniyan si gbagbo nkan yi nisin nipa iwa-rere. Awon apata fon ka tori wipe awon orisha oke n binu ni; awon ikore oko ti o po so mo fifi omo eniyan ati eranko ru’bo. Ko si eni ti o gbagbo pe awon ofin nkan afojuri le din agbara awon orisha yi ku – nitorina imo sayensi ko le gbile. Awon ti won ti jere ninu itan lati ibi pe won n tumo imo nkan afojuri gege bi ase – paapaa julo awon alufa ati awon borokini – ja wipe ki ilana sayensi ma le bori imo nkan afojuri, gege bi awon ti o n jere lowolowo bi won se n tumo iwa-rere si ase – paapaa awon alufa ati awon oloselu – n ja lori bi awon imo ti o daju ti o si tan kale se n bori awon imo iwa rere.
 
-If we can prove that moral theories can be objective, rational and verifiable, this will provide the same benefits to ethics that subjecting *physical* theories to the scientific method did.
 
-Before the rise of the scientific method, people believed that matter obeyed the subjective whims of gods and devils – and people believe the same of morality now. Volcanoes erupted because the mountain-god was angry; good harvests resulted from human or animal sacrifices. No one believed that absolute physical laws could limit the will of the gods – and so science could never develop. Those who historically profited from defining physical reality as subjective – mostly priests and aristocrats – fought the subjugation of physical theories to the scientific method, just as those who currently profit from defining morality as subjective – mostly priests and politicians – currently fight the subjugation of *moral* theories to objective and universal principles.
+As mentioned above, the scientific method is essentially a methodology for separating accurate from inaccurate theories by subjecting them to two central tests: logical consistency and empirical observation – and by always subjugating logical consistency to empirical observation. If I propose a perfectly consistent and logical theory that says that a rock will float up when thrown off a cliff, any empirical test proves my theory incorrect, since observation always trumps hypothesis.
 
-As mentioned above, the scientific method is essentially a methodology for separating accurate from inaccurate theories by subjecting them to two central tests: logical consistency and empirical observation – and by always subjugating logical consistency to empirical observation. If I propose a perfectly consistent and logical theory that says that a rock will float *up* when thrown off a cliff, any empirical test proves my theory incorrect, since observation always trumps hypothesis.
+Ti a se fi enu kan tele, ilana sayensi je ona kan gboogi ti a fi n ya imo ti o to ati eleyi ti ko to si oto nipa yiye won wo pelu idanrawo meji ti o yanranti: ayewo ti o muna doko ati akiyesi ti o kunna - ati nipa fifi akiyesi ti o kunna saaju ayewo ti o muna doko. Ti mo ba daba imo kan ti o ja gere ti o si ni itumo ti o da leri ti okuta kan yi o ba lefo ti a ba ju sile leti ogbun, ayewo ise yi da imo yi si iro, nitoripe akiyesi ma n ju aba lo. 
 
-A further aspect of the scientific method is the belief that, since matter is composed of combinations of atoms with common, stable and predictable properties, the behaviour of matter must also be common, stable and predictable. Thus experiments must be *reproducible* in different locations and times. I cannot say that my “rock floating” theory is correct for just one particular rock, or on the day I first tested it, or at a single location. My theories must describe the behaviour of *matter*, which is universal, common, stable and predictable.
+
+A further aspect of the scientific method is the belief that, since matter is composed of combinations of atoms with common, stable and predictable properties, the behaviour of matter must also be common, stable and predictable. Thus experiments must be reproducible in different locations and times. I cannot say that my “rock floating” theory is correct for just one particular rock, or on the day I first tested it, or at a single location. My theories must describe the behaviour of matter, which is universal, common, stable and predictable.
+
+Siwaju sii, ona miran ti ilana sayensi ya si ni igbagbo pe, bi awon nkan se je pe o wa lati inu akojopo erun kinkinni ti won ni asa ti o je mimo, ti o da duro, ti o tun se da l’aba, ihuwasi nkan naa gbodo je mimo, ti o da duro, ti o tun se da l’aba. Nitorina, atunmulo awon idanwo sayensi gbodo le seese ni ibikibi ati nigba gbogbo. Mi o le so pe imo “okuta ilefo” mi je otito ponbele nipa lilo iru okuta kan pere, tabi ni ojo ti mo koko se ayewo re, tabi nibi ti mo ti see. Awon imo mi yii gbodo le salaiye ihuwasi nkan, ti o si le je mimo, ti o da duro, ti o tun le se da l’aba.    
+ 
 
 Finally, there is a generally accepted rule – sometimes called Occam’s Razor – which states that, of any two theories that have the same predictive power, the simpler of the two is preferable. Prior to the Copernican revolution, when Earth was considered the centre of the universe, the retrograde motion of Mars when Earth passed it in orbit around the sun caused enormous problems to the Ptolemaic system of astronomical calculations. “Circles within circles” multiplied enormously, which were all cleared away by simply placing the sun at the centre of the solar system and accepting the elliptical nature of planetary orbits.
 
+Lakotan, ofin kan wa ti a gba l’agbatan – ti a ma n pe ni Occam’s Razor nigba miran – ti o so pe, ninu awon asayan imo meji kan ti o ba ni agbara isotele kan naa, eyi ti o ba rorun ju ni yi o je aayo. Ki awuyewuye Copernicus to sele, nigbati a ma ro pe Aiye ni o wa laarin iseda, irin ateyinwa Marsi, nigbati Aiye koja legbe re nigba ti o n yi oorun ka fa wipe ki opolopo wahala sele lori awon ilana isiro agbaiye ti won ti n lo lati aiye awon Ptolemy. “Awon okiribiti laarin awon okiribiti” lona aimoye, ti a kan yi danu si igbo nigbati a gbe Oorun si aarin agbaiye ti a si tun bere si gba wipe aiye ati awon elegbe re ko ni iwo okiribiti.
+
+
 Thus any valid scientific theory must be (a) universal (b) logical (c) empirically verifiable (d) reproducible and (e) as simple as possible.
 
-The methodology for judging and proving a *moral* theory is exactly the same as the methodology for judging and proving any other theory.
+Nitorina, eyikeyi imo sayensi ni lati je (a) kale-gbogbo  (b) ni itumo  (c) ni ayewo ti o kunna  (d) o le see mulo nigbakugba ati (e) ti o rorun daadaa.
+
+
+The methodology for judging and proving a moral theory is exactly the same as the methodology for judging and proving any other theory.
+
+Ilana ti a fi n se idajo ti a si fi n se iwadi imo iwa je nkankan naa ti a fi n se idajo ti a si fi n se iwadi imo iwa awon imo ohun miran iyoku.
+
 
-#### Moral Rules: A Definition
+Moral Rules: A Definition
 
-The first question regarding moral rules is: *what* are they?
+Awon Ofin Iwa: Alaye
+
+
+The first question regarding moral rules is: what are they?
+
+Ibere akoko lori awon iwa ni: kini won je?
+
+ 
+Simply put, morals are a set of rules claiming to accurately and consistently identify universally preferable human behaviours, just as physics is a set of rules claiming to accurately and consistently identify the universal behaviour of matter.
+
+Ni erefe, iwa-rere je awon ilana ti a fi n mo pato awon ise agbaiye ti o san julo yato ni igbakuugba, gege bi fisiksi se je awon ilana ti a fi n mo pato awon ise agbalaye ti o mu nkan yato ni igbakuugba.
 
-Simply put, *morals* are a set of rules claiming to accurately and consistently identify universally preferable human behaviours, just as *physics* is a set of rules claiming to accurately and consistently identify the universal behaviour of matter.
 
 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.
 
-[^6]: In physics, the question is: either universal physical rules are valid, or they are not.
\ No newline at end of file
+Ibeere keji ti a gbodo beere ni: se nkankan wa bi “ise agbalaye ti o san julo” rara? Ti o ba wa, a le bere si n wadi ohun ti irufe awon iwa bayi le je. Ti ko ba ri bee, ayewo naa ni lati dawo duro nibi – gege bi idanwo ayewo irawo ni aiye Ptolemy se dawo duro nigbati gbogbo eniyan ti gba wipe oorun gangan ni o wa laarin gbungbun agbaiye.
+
+
+[^6]: In physics, the question is: either universal physical rules are valid, or they are not.
+
+[^6]: Ni fisiksi, ibeere naa ni: boya awon ofin nkan afojuri ti o tan kale je ooto kodoro, tabi ko ki n se otito kodoro.