-
OK Restating question. Above, you write: "If you are a act utilitarian then you can justify the most heinous things." My question is: Why can't I be a natural law ethicist or Aristotlian ethicist and justify the most heinous things? I understand your statement to mean that if someone chooses another philosophy besides utilitarianism, this
-
OK Sounds like utilitarianism is like a tool that can be used for things considered bad or wrong, or for things considered good or right. You wrote that if a person is a certain type of utilitarian, they can justify the most heinous things. How does subscribing to one philosophy or one scientific method over another, effectively prevent a person from
-
Utilitarianism is unstable because: 1. if a person is one type of utilitarian, then this leads to or is constitutive of something X. 2. if a person is another type of utilitarian, then this leads to or is constitutive of something Y. Utilitarianism is unstable because choosing different versions of it leads to or is constitutive of different things
-
Hi Cain. What do you find objectionable about Mises's utiltarianism?
-
I’m not sure Hoppe’s theory is being accurately portrayed here. I would refer the reader to Hoppe’s presentation of his theory in chapter 10 of The Economics and Ethics of Private Property, first edition. The two paragraphs in question are on page 204, beginning with “I want to…” and on page 205, first paragraph
-
I would like to announce that I have just completed work on my most recent book: Striving and Attainment - A Theory of Social Interaction. I have posted it in Word document form on my web sites adamknott.com and praxeology.com In the book, I present the theory of ethics which I have been developing as consistent with the principles of Misean praxeology
-
Macsnafu: I find stocks as money to be an interesting idea, but obviously a lot of people think it's a non-starter. You write that many factors make stocks a bad form of money. By the standards you list above (fungibility, convertability, durability, portability, etc..), what makes stocks a bad form of money?
-
My understanding of Austrian economic theory, at least that of Mises, is that the term "intrinsic value" is not used. Only the term "subjective" value is used. By this approach then, it would be inadmissible to say that a stock certificate doesn't qualify (as money, currency, etc.) based on its lack of intrinsic value. The concept
-
Let's apply that reasoning to a transaction a few hundred years ago. A man uses a portion of his stock of gold or silver to buy a house or a horse. By the above reasoning, a barter transaction. Then we say, your gold or silver can be used as money, but it is not a "currency". The stock certificates are not currency because they are bartered
-
Hi ChaseCola. I would phrase your question in the following way: Why couldn't a mutual fund for example, issue a currency or notes based on its own portfolio of stocks? Or, theoretically, what is to prevent people from purchasing and trading certificates or notes of this nature? I'm not expert enough to answer such a question, but you might