UPB begs the question: Why should preferable behavior be preferable? Or, said another way: Why is preferable behavior good? If we say: UPB is good because it’s UPB, then we have a circular reasoning (tautology), which is a logical fallacy. If we say that UPB is good because it’s good for individuals, then the individual, not UPB, is the ethical standard. In this case “universality” is an irrelevant ethical concept. Since individuals are individual, collectivizing their actions (demanding or even suggesting universal compliance) contradicts their existence. Which implies that the individual is not actually the ethical standard. Pursuing UPB then demands the collectivization of humanity, and once this happens, “preference” goes out the window. Since preference is a parameter of consciousness, and consciousness is and can only be singular (a function of the Individual qua the Individual), it has nothing whatsoever to do with Universally Preferable Behavior.
Trust NO philosophy from anyone which implies the collectivization of humanity. No matter how warm and fuzzy and peaceful it may sound, it’s all utterly evil. There is no rational apologetic for ethics which demand or imply universal compliance. They are all the spawn of hell. Period.
unreformingtheology 
I don’t know about UPB, but I can describe how we might reach consensus on behaviors that everyone prefers versus behaviors that everyone condemns.
The goal of morality is the best good and least harm for everyone. So the behavior that people universally approve would be that which harms no one and benefits someone. And the behavior that everyone disapproves would be that which unnecessarily harms someone.
Fixing dinner for everyone in the family is universally approved. Providing food to those unable to provide food for themselves would also be approved.
But stealing food from someone else, when you already have enough food, would be universally disapproved.