wilderness:Ethics is a science.
Ethics inasmuch as it is a quest for universal, absolute, and objective "ought"s, is only a science insofar as Plato's Theory of the Forms and Ricardo's Labor Theory of Value is part of science; if it is a science, it is a vain one. It is a hunt for a Chimera.
In seeking the Form of Justice, the Form of the Good, and the Form of Beauty, Plato was trying to discover universal, absolute, and objective values.
Ricardo was doing much the same when he tried to infer objective value from the intrinsic qualities of goods.
And Rothbardian ethicists do much the same when they try to infer universal, absolute, and objective values from the intrinsic qualities of man.
This whole strain of thought is known as conceptual realism. Just as Aristotle overthrew Platonic conceptual realism and Menger overthrew Ricardian conceptual realism, so should have Hume and Mises preempted the conceptual realism implicit in the Rothbardian insistence that justice has any kind of existence outside of the mind of the individual.
you quoting me is a strawman in association with your whole argument. and I don't appreciate you're false imposition of me associated with your post. so please take away my quote. it's intellectually dishonest. I wait for this to be enacted in a timely manner.
thank you.
Let me just "throw it out" that there is an objective value of some sort. If I remember (I might be incorrect), hume just explained where our sense of morality came from but he didn't answer whether there was some objective value.
Perhaps this objective value is "improve yourself"?
Good post lilburne, but I fear that, just as platonic realism survives today among contemporary philosophers like Goldstein and Ricardian value theory survives among most non-economists, the search for the 'one true ethic' shall continue into the foreseeable future. It is the natural consequence of a cultural worldview that is insufficiently naturalistic and fears reductionism.
“Elections are Futures Markets in Stolen Property.” - H. L. Mencken
J. Grayson Lilburne:so should have Hume and Mises preempted the conceptual realism implicit in the Rothbardian insistence that justice has any kind of existence outside of the mind of the individual.
I think this is a consequence of many of the libertarian philosophers having a personal experience with Rothbard that they did not have with Mises, and Mises' ideas, outside of their renaissance by Rothbard with MES, still not being explored outside the Rothbardian paradigm, and the few who do seem to pursue this (GMU crowd?) aren't radical libertarians. I suspect the next generation may be more likely to challenge Rothbard, just as it is only the last generation who were finally comfortable challenging Rand and Reagan.
What is very interesting is how with technology, information is advancing faster than our own biases can adjust, even confirmation biases. I've accepted that what I know today could all be obsolete in a decade or two. The only way to avoid that is to unplug and become a hermit. It actually sounds tempting.
My prediction: this is going to escalate into another flame war between Juanite "true path" libertarians and Lilburnesque "real world" libertarians.Still, thanks for eloquently pointing out the facts once again, Lilburne. Maybe at some point they will be recognized as such.
J. Grayson Lilburne: Ethics inasmuch as it is a quest for universal, absolute, and objective "ought"s, is only a science insofar as Plato's Theory of the Forms and Ricardo's Labor Theory of Value is part of science; if it is a science, it is a vain one. It is a hunt for a Chimera. In seeking the Form of Justice, the Form of the Good, and the Form of Beauty, Plato was trying to discover universal, absolute, and objective values. Ricardo was doing much the same when he tried to infer objective value from the intrinsic qualities of goods. And Rothbardian ethicists do much the same when they try to infer universal, absolute, and objective values from the intrinsic qualities of man. This whole strain of thought is known as conceptual realism. Just as Aristotle overthrew Platonic conceptual realism and Menger overthrew Ricardian conceptual realism, so should have Hume and Mises preempted the conceptual realism implicit in the Rothbardian insistence that justice has any kind of existence outside of the mind of the individual.
What about logic, is that transcendental? Is there one truth or are there many truths?
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
Sphairon: My prediction: this is going to escalate into another flame war between Juanite "true path" libertarians and Lilburnesque "real world" libertarians.Still, thanks for eloquently pointing out the facts once again, Lilburne. Maybe at some point they will be recognized as such.
If all moral propositions were false then it would be impossible for some moral proposition to be true but then that would eliminate utilitarianism and every other ism in the history of the world. But, come on now, that's just implausible moral questions come up everywhere and even small things like etiquette or any "ought to" ever would be illicit?!
wilderness:you quoting me is a strawman in association with your whole argument. and I don't appreciate you're false imposition of me associated with your post. so please take away my quote. it's intellectually dishonest. I wait for this to be enacted in a timely manner. thank you.
what's so hard about editing out my quote? Am I really asking too much of you to make a few clicks and erase - no - seeing that it's not intellectually honest to associate my quote with your post. But seeing that you've been in and out of this thread without addressing this yet, then it only validates what I've known all along but only on a deeper level. It is quite unfortunate, but I'd like to think not all is lost.
peace
fakename: If all moral propositions were false then it would be impossible for some moral proposition to be true but then that would eliminate utilitarianism and every other ism in the history of the world. But, come on now, that's just implausible moral questions come up everywhere and even small things like etiquette or any "ought to" ever would be illicit?!
If "utilitarianism" means "that which satisfies the largest group of people is best/good", then yes, it's false. It's based on a premise that cannot be proven, namely that satisfying the largest group of people is somehow better than satisfying a smaller group. It's an assertion, an expression of preference.Subjectivist libertarians often seem to cling to utilitarian arguments because that's what resonates with most people. Most people's view of a "just" socio-economic system is utilitarian in some form. Thus, the utilitarian case for liberty is likely to have the greatest ROI. It's not that we are necessarily utilitarians just because we like to argue that way.Also, it's not illicit for you to discuss the intricacies of etiquette and social mores. Just realize that you're in a battle of preferences, and that ultimately not one single preferential premise can be proven to be "true" beyond doubt. Unfortunately, many thinkers that got involved in ethics, including Rothbard, came to different conclusions.
Sphairon: If "utilitarianism" means "that which satisfies the largest group of people is best/good", then yes, it's false. It's based on a premise that cannot be proven, namely that satisfying the largest group of people is somehow better than satisfying a smaller group. It's an assertion, an expression of preference.Subjectivist libertarians often seem to cling to utilitarian arguments because that's what resonates with most people. Most people's view of a "just" socio-economic system is utilitarian in some form. Thus, the utilitarian case for liberty is likely to have the greatest ROI. It's not that we are necessarily utilitarians just because we like to argue that way.Also, it's not illicit for you to discuss the intricacies of etiquette and social mores. Just realize that you're in a battle of preferences, and that ultimately not one single preferential premise can be proven to be "true" beyond doubt. Unfortunately, many thinkers that got involved in ethics, including Rothbard, came to different conclusions.
Respectable enough, but I still harbor suspicions. What if you get into a conversation about social mores, that would mean that you're fighting over false things? And any moral justification for fighting over false things would also be false.
And again, if you argue logically about ethics (which are false) then you can have true premises with a false conclusion and be logical at the same time -which is absurd.
So there must be non moral reasons for arguing about morality or/and, any sound argument about "whether or not a is good" would be false. Which is contradictory.
Or maybe none of this matters since it is all based on an unproven premise?
zefreak:platonic realism survives today among contemporary philosophers like Goldstein
Interesting. What is the first name of this fellow? Also do you know what University he's based out of?
zefreak:It is the natural consequence of a cultural worldview that is insufficiently naturalistic and fears reductionism.
Very interesting analysis!
liberty student:still not being explored outside the Rothbardian paradigm, and the few who do seem to pursue this (GMU crowd?)
Right, and the GMU non-Rothbardians tend to be more Hayekian than Misesian. As revered as Mises is, there seems to actually be very few Misesians, in the sense of Mises being their chief influence.
Great post, LS.
Esuric:What about logic, is that transcendental? Is there one truth or are there many truths?
My post doesn't discuss truth-in-general; it discusses value.
J. Grayson Lilburne:My post doesn't discuss truth-in-general; it discusses value.
Well that begs the question.
fakename: Respectable enough, but I still harbor suspicions. What if you get into a conversation about social mores, that would mean that you're fighting over false things?
Respectable enough, but I still harbor suspicions. What if you get into a conversation about social mores, that would mean that you're fighting over false things?
Value statements cannot be universally/absolutely/objectively false, any more than they can be universally/absolutely/objectively true.
Esuric: J. Grayson Lilburne:My post doesn't discuss truth-in-general; it discusses value. Well that begs the question.
How am I employing circular reasoning?
Rebecca Goldstein, earned her PHD from Princeton and has taught at Columbia and Rutgers. I had not heard of her until reading her biography of Kurt Godel where I learned of her self-professed platonic realism (and interprets Godel's Incompleteness Theorems as evidence for mathematical realism).
J. Grayson Lilburne: Moral "ought" statements cannot be universally/absolutely/objectively false, any more than they can be universally/absolutely/objectively true.
Moral "ought" statements cannot be universally/absolutely/objectively false, any more than they can be universally/absolutely/objectively true.
This means that the statement "you ought to do something" doesn't have a truth value. But it is a statement so it must have truth conditions. But truth conditions are possible truth values. So that statement has no truth conditions which is just weird...
That means the statement is non capable of being analyzed?
Or does it not have a truth value in that "unicorns have horns" doesn't have a truth value but has truth conditions?
Thanks z!
J. Grayson Lilburne:Ethics inasmuch as it is a quest for universal, absolute, and objective "ought"s, is only a science insofar as Plato's Theory of the Forms and Ricardo's Labor Theory of Value is part of science; if it is a science, it is a vain one. It is a hunt for a Chimera.
J. Grayson Lilburne:How am I employing circular reasoning?
The point is that immoral/evil action will have negative consequences for the parties involved, even if the person doesn't know/agree that he is in fact acting immorally. When a king debases his currency he is acting immorally, and we know this because of the consequences of his action. The point is that the actions are grounded in the real world, and are subject to real/natural laws which have definite consequences. Separating ethics from the real world and making it a purely subjective judgment isn't new. This position is often supported by leftists and nihilists.
We all have our opinions about what is good and what is bad, but the real world either confirms our condemns our beliefs.
Knight_of_BAAWA: wilderness:Ethics is a science. J. Grayson Lilburne:Ethics inasmuch as it is a quest for universal, absolute, and objective "ought"s, is only a science insofar as Plato's Theory of the Forms and Ricardo's Labor Theory of Value is part of science; if it is a science, it is a vain one. It is a hunt for a Chimera.And what if ethics is the study of morality, i.e. the study of the rules of interpersonal behavior wrt rights.
If you mean by "wrt rights", universal, absolute, objective rights, then I don't see what the difference would be...
fakename: Sphairon: My prediction: this is going to escalate into another flame war between Juanite "true path" libertarians and Lilburnesque "real world" libertarians.Still, thanks for eloquently pointing out the facts once again, Lilburne. Maybe at some point they will be recognized as such. If all moral propositions were false then it would be impossible for some moral proposition to be true but then that would eliminate utilitarianism and every other ism in the history of the world. But, come on now, that's just implausible moral questions come up everywhere and even small things like etiquette or any "ought to" ever would be illicit?!
The absurdity heuristic is useful in a very rough sense but is insufficient in countering more in depth analysis like that presented by lilburne. The absurdity heuristic can even lead to what are, with hindsight, absurd results. For example, we can easily imagine a great ancestor of yours posting on an ancient internet forum that criticisms of the luminiferous aether were wrong precisely because it necessitated rejecting as useless the volumes of discourse that assumed its existence.
You can apply the same reasoning to most of theology, metaphysics and ethics. To quote Stirner:
"Just as the schoolmen philosophized only inside the belief of the church; as Pope Benedict XIV wrote fat books inside the papist superstition, without ever throwing a doubt upon this belief; as authors fill whole folios on the State without calling in question the fixed idea of the State itself; as our newspapers are crammed with politics because they are conjured into the fancy that man was created to be a zoon politicon, -- so also subjects vegetate in subjection, virtuous people in virtue, liberals in humanity, etc., without ever putting to these fixed ideas of theirs the searching knife of criticism. Undislodgeable, like a madman's delusion, those thoughts stand on a firm footing, and he who doubts them lays hands on the sacred! Yes, the "fixed idea," that is the truly sacred!"
Lil,
You're a very interesting psychological case study. I've taken some classes and read some as this was my second major, until I changed it a couple years into school. So I'm not talking from a baseless, uneducated assumption here. But is this to prove a point? Like you can't give in to anybody or else you fail type of mentality even on a trival thing like taking off my quote in your OP. I mean if you're this tyrannical when it comes to something so trival as erasing a quote, then it only is a hop, skip, and jump to how you are when it comes to bigger things in life, like do you want fries with that sir?
fakename: J. Grayson Lilburne: Moral "ought" statements cannot be universally/absolutely/objectively false, any more than they can be universally/absolutely/objectively true. This means that the statement "you ought to do something" doesn't have a truth value. But it is a statement so it must have truth conditions. But truth conditions are possible truth values. So that statement has no truth conditions which is just weird... That means the statement is non capable of being analyzed? Or does it not have a truth value in that "unicorns have horns" doesn't have a truth value but has truth conditions?
It does not have a truth value in the sense that 'this yellow is zxacious'. It is conceptually meaningless.
J. Grayson Lilburne:If you mean by "wrt rights", universal, absolute, objective rights, then I don't see what the difference would be...
Esuric:When a king debases his currency he is acting immorally, and we know this because of the consequences of his action.
If his goal was to promote general prosperity, then the consequences will show his action to be inexpedient. If his goal was to collect seigniorage, then the consequences may very well show his action to be expedient. Whether economically hurting the masses for one's own benefit is immoral is a value judgment. Some may base their value judgment on the consequences of the act, others may base it on the nature of the act itself. Either way, it's an individual judgment of value.
Esuric:Separating ethics from the real world and making it a purely subjective judgment isn't new.
Who said or implied that it was? Certainly not me, given that I explicitly cited Hume in my OP.
Esuric:This position is often supported by leftists and nihilists.
Guilt by association?
Esuric:the real world either confirms our condemns our beliefs.
I would refer you back to the discussion between you, me, and JosephBright regarding economics, physics and value statements.
zefreak:It does not have a truth value in the sense that 'this yellow is zxacious'. It is conceptually meaningless.
That is to say that it is meaningless because morality (zxacious) is non-existent? Or is it rather because the whole sentence is just incorrect from a word-signification point of view?
All I can say is that this is pure nihilism; it rejects the real world and its laws, including praxeological laws. A good act is everywhere and always a good act. I can't really defend natural law with you because I believe it stems from God, which is something you probably automatically dismiss. But there is constancy in the world, a natural order. We have rights, and when someone infringes on our rights, we react.
I don't waste time with philosophy because it's merely a reaction to religion. The enlightenment sought to explain natural order without appealing to God, but ended up merely replacing God with the scientific method. Once that was exposed as nonsense, philosophy turned to pure nihilism and denies things like causality.
Esuric:All I can say is that this is pure nihilism; it rejects the real world and its laws, including praxeological laws.
Which praxeological laws?
And yet you've never been able to deal with those like me, who know that god is pure nonsense, and who do not deny causality, aren't nihilists, etc.
Knight_of_BAAWA:And yet you've never been able to deal with those like me, who know that god is pure nonsense, and who do not deny causality, aren't nihilists, etc.
So take up the challenge and defeat Lilburne. Defend natural rights, or concede the point.
liberty student:Which praxeological laws?
I mean, I already addressed it in my initial post, but people become dissatisfied with immoral acts forced upon them, and as such, they react. Their reaction is praxeological, that is, they do so because they are trying to better their own position. The king who debases his currency, levies taxes without consent, or whatever, is acting immorally. The reaction to his immoral decree will be violent revolution, and his liquidation.
fakename: zefreak:It does not have a truth value in the sense that 'this yellow is zxacious'. It is conceptually meaningless. That is to say that it is meaningless because morality (zxacious) is non-existent? Or is it rather because the whole sentence is just incorrect from a word-signification point of view?
That someone does indeed regard something as right or wrong can be considered a fact ABOUT someone's values. So insofar as a moral statement is an expression of those facts (as if someone said "that killing, in fact, is counter to my values"), it is meaningful. Insofar as it attempts to describe something beyond the conscience, mentality, etc of the moral agent and those who share the agent's moral judgments, it is meaningless.
Knight_of_BAAWA: And what if ethics is the study of morality, i.e. the study of the rules of interpersonal behavior wrt rights.
And what if ethics is the study of morality, i.e. the study of the rules of interpersonal behavior wrt rights.
Ironically, I rarely see anyone argue morality's relation to emergence.
J. Grayson Lilburne:That someone does indeed regard something as right or wrong can be considered a fact ABOUT someone's values. So insofar as a moral statement is an expression of those facts (as if someone said "that killing, in fact, is counter to my values"), it is meaningful. Insofar as it attempts to describe something beyond the conscience, mentality, etc of the moral agent and those who share the agent's moral judgments, it is meaningless.
The personal judgment is indeed subjective, but the real world consequences are not.
Esuric: The enlightenment sought to explain natural order without appealing to God, but ended up merely replacing God with the scientific method. Once that was exposed as nonsense, philosophy turned to pure nihilism and denies things like causality.
The enlightenment sought to explain natural order without appealing to God, but ended up merely replacing God with the scientific method. Once that was exposed as nonsense, philosophy turned to pure nihilism and denies things like causality.
lolwut? I wasn't aware nihilists en masse deny causality. Are you sure your not generalizing? I ask mainly because none of those I've spoken with that could be considered nihilists (offline) haven't denied causality. At best they have different interpretations of what constitutes the cause & effect, but I don't see how that would inherently deny causality itself.
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
I don't waste time with philosophy because it's merely a reaction to religion. The enlightenment sought to explain natural order without appealing to God,
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Esuric:I mean, I already addressed it in my initial post, but people become dissatisfied with immoral acts forced upon them, and as such, they react. Their reaction is praxeological, that is, they do so because they are trying to better their own position. The king who debases his currency, levies taxes without consent, or whatever, is acting immorally. The reaction to his immoral decree will be violent revolution, and his liquidation.
Right, but you're ignoring the unseen. The act of the person who forces the immoral act, the king who debases his currency etc. Those acts are all praxeological as well.
I don't think you have made the case that any praxeological laws are violated by what Lilburne has introduced.
Morality assumes objective value exists, whether it be teleological with regard to a certain end or deontological with regard to certain actions. The value is assumed to be inherent in either the end or the action. (Even moralists who argue via epistemology IE Argumentation Ethics (assuming their reasoning is valid, which I don't think it is) assume that self-contradiction is morally wrong.)
There is no good reason to believe that 'objective value' exists (or whether the conjunction is conceptually meaningful and can be clearly defined), as (I have argued in other threads) moral axioms can be neither verified nor falsified. First, to address a possible concern, I am not saying that propositions within a system of ethics cannot be falsified (if they can be shown to be inconsistent with the axioms of the system) but that the axioms themselves are in such a position.