Jackson LaRose: zefreak: 'Thus, consequentialist liberals support liberal policies because they think that these policies best promote human well-being and happiness, and they desire human well-being and happiness.' Like, all humans? Or should it be "personal well being and happiness"?
zefreak: 'Thus, consequentialist liberals support liberal policies because they think that these policies best promote human well-being and happiness, and they desire human well-being and happiness.'
'Thus, consequentialist liberals support liberal policies because they think that these policies best promote human well-being and happiness, and they desire human well-being and happiness.'
Like, all humans? Or should it be "personal well being and happiness"?
The two not need be mutually exclusive. Personal well-being and happiness may depend on the perceived happiness of others. Humans are empathic creatures, for cultural and physiological/evolutionary reasons. Even if I realize that I have no obligation to others, it would not necessitate removing 'human happiness and well-being' from my valued outcomes.
“Elections are Futures Markets in Stolen Property.” - H. L. Mencken
zefreak: The two not need be mutually exclusive. Personal well-being and happiness may depend on the perceived happiness of others. Humans are empathic creatures, for cultural and physiological/evolutionary reasons. Even if I realize that I have no obligation to others, it would not necessitate removing 'human happiness and well-being' from my valued outcomes.
That makes sense, but it is a belief in the humanist liberal policies that causes you to enact them for the benefit of humanity. The universal enactment of said policies couldn't make every human being satisfied (absolute monarchists, theocrats), you essentially act to please your own desire, and justify it by claiming the benefit for humanity.
The desire for universal human happiness is an unattainable goal, like Stirner says about the "True Christian". Why beat your brow over it?
Jackson LaRose:I don't remember accepting that. Last I remember, the rest of the sentence on the wiki described consequentialist liberalism as essentialy humanist.
And it didn't say "consequentialist liberals are essentially natural rights and/or social contract supporters" narrow definition clearly incorrect.
Jackson LaRose:You're right, reading is hard. I have no idea what you are trying to convey to me here...
About a page or so of text.
Jackson LaRose:Could I have an example to study?
Liberal Relativism.
(And that video didn't clear up anything)
Angurse:And it didn't say "consequentialist liberals are essentially natural rights and/or social contract supporters" narrow definition clearly incorrect
How do you define humanism?
Jackson LaRose:How do you define humanism?
Humanism is a broad category of active ethical philosophies that affirm the dignity and worth of all people, based on the ability to determine right and wrong by appeal to universal human qualities—particularly rationalism. Humanists endorse universal morality based on the commonality of human nature, suggesting that solutions to our social and cultural problems cannot be parochial.
Angurse:Liberal Relativism.
This seems like a contradiction of terms. Here is a quote from Leo Strauss:
"Liberal relativism has its roots in the natural rights tradition of tolerance or in the notion that everyone has a natural right to the pursuit of happiness as he understands happiness; but in itself it is a seminary of intolerance. . . .Absolute tolerance is altogether impossible; the allegedly absolute tolerance turns into a ferocious hatred of those who have stated clearly and most forcefully that there are unchangeable standards founded in the nature of man and the nature of things."
So the doctrine, as I see it is, "Do/think whatever you like, as long as it doesn't prevent anyone else from doing/thinking whatever they'd like"
Is that a fair assessment?
Angurse:Humanism is a broad category of active ethical philosophies that affirm the dignity and worth of all people, based on the ability to determine right and wrong by appeal to universal human qualities—particularly rationalism. Humanists endorse universal morality based on the commonality of human nature, suggesting that solutions to our social and cultural problems cannot be parochial.
How is this not a belief system? More specifically, a deification of true Human Rationality?
Jackson LaRose:This seems like a contradiction of terms.
Who cares? Internal problems with liberal relativism is besides the point. And we've already established that not all liberals subscribe to natural-rights theory.
Jackson LaRose:How is this not a belief system? More specifically, a deification of true Human Rationality?
Perhaps you are getting conversations mixed up, as I never said otherwise.
Angurse: Jackson LaRose:This seems like a contradiction of terms. Who cares? Internal problems with liberal relativism is besides the point. And we've already established that not all liberals subscribe to natural-rights theory.
All the ones who don't contradict themselves subscribe to at least humanism, which designates humans as deserving of rights. How is this not natural rights theory?
Jackson LaRose: All the ones who don't contradict themselves subscribe to at least humanism, which designates humans as deserving of rights. How is this not natural rights theory?
Who cares? You are admittedly leaving a portion out.
But even your contention is false (or at least ignorant of the various forms of relativism): as they could hold that morals are relative to various contexts, which clearly isn't universal (read; not humanism).
Angurse:Who cares?
It was a few hours ago, but I think this all started when I considered pilitical ideologies and religion as analogous. You picked the fight, not me. So I figured you cared.
Angurse:But even your contention is false (or at least ignorant of the various forms of relativism)
I said nothing about relativism. I don't understand how that is relevant to Liberalism, except liberal relativism, which we covered. Are there more I should know about?
Angurse:as they could hold that morals are relative to various contexts, which clearly isn't universal (read; not humanism).
OK, I didn't say relativists were humanists. Clearly that appears to be a contradiction, much like Liberal Relativism. Hence, Liberal relativists aren't liberals. They are relativists. I could call myself a 50 year old black woman. It doesn't mean I am, because I lack the defined criterea.
Jackson LaRose:It was a few hours ago, but I think this all started when I considered pilitical ideologies and religion as analogous. You picked the fight, not me. So I figured you cared.
Leaving out the portion made my point though.
Jackson LaRose:I said nothing about relativism. I don't understand how that is relevant to Liberalism, except liberal relativism, which we covered. Are there more I should know about?
Except for liberal relativism? Thats what we are talking about, relativism in liberal relativism.
Jackson LaRose:OK, I didn't say relativists were humanists. Clearly that appears to be a contradiction, much like Liberal Relativism. Hence, Liberal relativists aren't liberals. They are relativists. I could call myself a 50 year old black woman. It doesn't mean I am, because I lack the defined criterea.
No, liberal relativists aren't necessarily contradictory for the reason I already gave. A liberal be a relativist and hold said morals to certain contexts, still meeting the criteria to be a liberal.
In conclusion:
liberal + relativism /= liberal + humanism
Angurse:Leaving out the portion made my point though.
I still contend that. Humanism is a form of natural rights theory. We went over this. Unless you plan on arguing that point, consider the matter settled.
Angurse: Except for liberal relativism? Thats what we are talking about, relativism in liberal relativism.
That is a contradiction of terms. To use an example from Roderick Long, it's akin to saying "zaxifraz is a metalic sphere, like the Washington mounument".
Angurse:No, liberal relativists aren't necessarily contradictory for the reason I already gave. A liberal be a relativist and hold said morals to certain contexts, still meeting the criteria to be a liberal.
See above.
Jackson LaRose:I still contend that. Humanism is a form of natural rights theory. We went over this. Unless you plan on arguing that point, consider the matter settled.
You've already accepted that not all liberals embrace natural rights theory, its been settled that you were wrong about liberals for some time now.
Jackson LaRose:That is a contradiction of terms. To use an example from Roderick Long, it's akin to saying "zaxifraz is a metalic sphere, like the Washington mounument".
No it isn't, the political and moral philosophies are perfectly compatible for the reasons already given.
Angurse:You've already accepted that not all liberals embrace natural rights theory, its been settled that you were wrong about liberals for some time now.
I don't recall this occuring, could you please quote me?
Angurse:No it isn't, the political and moral philosophies are perfectly compatible for the reasons already given.
If the reasons were already given, then I've either missed them or failed to comprehend. Could you quote or explain?
Something better, Wiki
Wiki:Later, the concept of natural rights fell out of favor
Not all liberals believe in natural rights.
Jackson LaRose:If the reasons were already given, then I've either missed them or failed to comprehend. Could you quote or explain?
Strauss' characterisation of relativism was one-dimensional (normative), as I've already said moral relativism is a broad category:
Angurse:ignorant of the various forms of relativism
A liberal relativist could take the descriptive view and say that different cultures have different morals, not agreeing or disagreeing that there is a universal moral truth. Or a liberal relativist could take the metaethical view and say that "right" and "wrong" aren't universal but have their origins within are various socio-economic cultures. Richard Rorty has written extensively about this.
And heres a book.
Also, just came to me, liberal puralists, yet another reason why liberals aren't necessarily natural rights supporters or humanists.
It's funny. I didn't think I had explicitly claimed that "all liberals believe in universal natural rights", and after a quick look back at the posts on this thread, it turns out I didn't. That was a masterful strawman you set up there, you almost had me going for a while. I knew you were a cheeky monkey... If you don't trust me, please quote me on it. Scout's honor, I didn't edit a thing.
When I quoted the wiki stuff, I was looking for a definition of Liberalism, because your initial challenge to it cast doubt in my mind as to whether or not I actually had the correct definition. All the Wiki stuff I found in my (admittedly cursory) scan mentioned natural rights as the foundation. You countered with the consequentialists, which I contended still beleived in Humanism, which led you to bring up the relativists and the pluralists. But all these flavors of liberalism still have a common thread, which is they all believe in some form of rights, bestowed on one group (divisible down to one individual) by another group (again, divisible down to a single individual)
It's the granting of privilege to man by Man, as opposed to the granting of privilege to man by God. The granting of privilege, or rights still remains as a common thread. That is why I classify the two together.
Jackson LaRose: Mankind - Liberalism - The Human Contract, Bill of Rights (among many others)
Mankind - Liberalism - The Human Contract, Bill of Rights (among many others)
Clearly false.
Jackson LaRose:You countered with the consequentialists, which I contended still beleived in Humanism, which led you to bring up the relativists and the pluralists. But all these flavors of liberalism still have a common thread, which is they all believe in some form of rights, bestowed on one group (divisible down to one individual) by another group (again, divisible down to a single individual)
Natural rights - Out!
Humanist ideal - Out!
Leading us to rights...
Jackson LaRose: It's the granting of privilege to man by Man, as opposed to the granting of privilege to man by God. The granting of privilege, or rights still remains as a common thread. That is why I classify the two together.
Anthony de Jasay the worlds foremost liberal doesn't believe in the granting of privilege.
Rights - Out!
(If not then egoism, and just about every other political philosophy is just a form of liberalism, making it a non-term)
Angurse: Jackson LaRose: Mankind - Liberalism - The Human Contract, Bill of Rights (among many others) Clearly false.
I was merely quoting a few examples of domatized Liberalism. I should've included "The Communist Manifesto, and Mein Kampf" to "mix it up a bit". I applogize for any confusion.
Angurse:Anthony de Jasay the worlds foremost liberal doesn't believe in the granting of privilege
Then I would argue he isn't a liberal. How do you know he is? I'm not familiar with him. Can you sum up his positions?
Angurse:(If not then egoism, and just about every other political philosophy is just a form of liberalism, making it a non-term)
I can think of a few examples that aren't:
Islamic Republics
Deist Monarchy
Christian Communism
Also, I assume you aren't very familiar with egoism. It makes no presumption rights whatsoever. It's a non-value philosophy, sort of like the political equivalent to Austrian Economics. The individual will take/do/say whatever they have the power to. It does not determine whether or not said individual is justified in doing so.
Jackson LaRose:Then I would argue he isn't a liberal. How do you know he is? I'm not familiar with him. Can you sum up his positions?
And I'd argue that Locke wasn't a liberal. Sigh, non-cognitivism, anti-statism, liberty over rights. He has a famous book clearing up loose ends of famous and contemporary liberals.
Jackson LaRose:Islamic Republics
Jackson LaRose:Deist Monarchy
Jackson LaRose:Christian Communism
Jackson LaRose: Also, I assume you aren't very familiar with egoism. It makes no presumption rights whatsoever. It's a non-value philosophy, sort of like the political equivalent to Austrian Economics. The individual will take/do/say whatever they have the power to. It does not determine whether or not said individual is justified in doing so.
LOL. Thats a presumption of might makes right.
Angurse:And I'd argue that Locke wasn't a liberal.
I don't think I claimed he was . I merely stated his philosophy laid the groundwork upon which Liberalism as an ideology was founded
Angurse:non-cognitivism
I don't understand how this defines him as a liberal
Angurse:anti-statism
Again, just because he is an anarchist, doesn't define him as a liberal
Angurse:liberty over rights
The right to liberty, or the individual desire for liberty without moral precepts?
Angurse: Jackson LaRose:Islamic Republics - There are constitutions putting forth rights
Rights which are given to man by Allah, via Muhammad. This would be Theocratic.
Angurse: Jackson LaRose:Deist Monarchy - There isn't such a thing, however divine Right of Kings comes to mind.
What is the difference?
Angurse: Jackson LaRose:Christian Communism - Rights to the commons.
As granted by God to man, as opposed to granted by Man to man.
Angurse: Jackson LaRose: Also, I assume you aren't very familiar with egoism. It makes no presumption rights whatsoever. It's a non-value philosophy, sort of like the political equivalent to Austrian Economics. The individual will take/do/say whatever they have the power to. It does not determine whether or not said individual is justified in doing so. LOL. Thats a presumption of might makes right.
How? It was a value free statement. "I will do what I want" is a different than "I should do what I want".
Jackson LaRose:I don't think I claimed he was . I merely stated his philosophy laid the groundwork upon which Liberalism as an ideology was founded
That doesn't seem to be the case at all though. However, Mises and de Jasay do claim to be liberals though, they would have the stronger case.
Jackson LaRose:I don't understand how this defines him as a liberal
I don't know what you are talking about, I never said it defined how he was a liberal. You asked me to sum up his positions, which I did.
Jackson LaRose:The right to liberty, or the individual desire for liberty without moral precepts?
Neither.
Jackson LaRose: Rights which are given to man by Allah, via Muhammad. This would be Theocratic.
Nope, Istislah, there are secular laws, its a compromise.
Jackson LaRose:What is the difference?
They were still held to customary, constitutional, and... natural law when applicable.
Jackson LaRose:As granted by God to man, as opposed to granted by Man to man.
Not necessarily, as urged by Jesus, not granted because its a right granted by god.
But this I say, He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully. Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.
Also, much of liberal natural rights theory itself is comes right from the rights being granted from God. So liberals aren't liberal.
Jackson LaRose:How? It was a value free statement. "I will do what I want" is a different than "I should do what I want".
Its still a presumption of rights, rights not given by god, but of man. There have been several famous non-cognitivist liberals, Hobbes, Hume, Rorty and I believe, Dennett come to mind.
Angurse: Jackson LaRose:I don't think I claimed he was . I merely stated his philosophy laid the groundwork upon which Liberalism as an ideology was founded That doesn't seem to be the case at all though.
That doesn't seem to be the case at all though.
Interpretation of history is subjective, I don't see how can decidedly resolve this particular dispute.
Angurse:Mises and de Jasay do claim to be liberals though, they would have the stronger case.
I don't really know understand how that proves anything. I claim to be emperor of Antarctica.
Angurse:I don't know what you are talking about, I never said it defined how he was a liberal. You asked me to sum up his positions, which I did.
I'm sorry, I figured you were summing up his ideals in order to correlate them to Liberalism.
Angurse: Jackson LaRose:The right to liberty, or the individual desire for liberty without moral precepts? Neither.
He doesn't claim a right to liberty (for himself or others), and he doesn't merely desire it for himself, either. I don't understand how he is a proponent of it.
Angurse:Nope, Istislah, there are secular laws, its a compromise.
They don't follow sharia? Who determines the right to rule of the Ayatollah? How about islamic dictatorships (pre-911 Taliban, for example).
Angurse:They were still held to customary, constitutional, and... natural law when applicable.
But that doesn't explain why they are allowed to rule. What about Pharaohs?
Angurse: Not necessarily, as urged by Jesus, not granted because its a right granted by god. But this I say, He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully. Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.
So the Bible is just suggestions, not God's eternal laws to man?
Angurse:Its still a presumption of rights, rights not given by god, but of man.
I don't understand how.
Angurse:There have been several famous non-cognitivist liberals, Hobbes, Hume, Rorty and I believe, Dennett come to mind.
But that isn't the point. Just because you don't have complete assurance that your beleifs are true or not, doesn't mean you can't still believe. Most religious people can tell you that. That's why it's called faith. I've read and seen a few things by Dennett, and he's a big time humanist.
LaRose, I'm really interested about egoism, it does fall in line with much about what I think. Couldn't however, an egoist adopt certain liberal axioms such as the Non-Aggression Principle without being contradictory? Much the same way you accept using english in order to communicate with others?
Because if so, that's how I feel egoism can be compatible with non-objectivist liberalism. Liberalism being not an absolute ethics, but only an employable guideline for interpersonal relations.
Jackson LaRose: Interpretation of history is subjective, I don't see how can decidedly resolve this particular dispute.
In which case, this was you just wasting time.
Jackson LaRose:I don't really know understand how that proves anything. I claim to be emperor of Antarctica.
People who are generally held to be liberals and admit to being liberals, normally are liberals.
Jackson LaRose:He doesn't claim a right to liberty (for himself or others), and he doesn't merely desire it for himself, either. I don't understand how he is a proponent of it.
He explains it on logical and epistomological grounds, not an ought, an if-then. I'm sure he does desires it for himself, however that's not what his work is composed of.
Jackson LaRose:They don't follow sharia?
They follow some Shariah, not all, its basically a compromise, some even hold it to be the foundation of Sharia law.
Jackson LaRose:Who determines the right to rule of the Ayatollah?
Don't know, Ayatollah's have used Istislah frequently though, even in Shi'a communities. Ayatollahs are experts in Islamic law and aren't accepted as rulers everywhere.
Jackson LaRose: How about islamic dictatorships (pre-911 Taliban, for example).
I don't know if dictatorships are even compatible with Sharia law, however the Taliban did enforce Pashtun common laws, used various democratic-ish councils and weren't supposed to be permanent. Nor were they consistent about much.
Jackson LaRose:But that doesn't explain why they are allowed to rule. What about Pharaohs?
Custom, people didn't know any better, and in many cases their "rule" wasn't respected or noticeable for common peasants.
Jackson LaRose:What about Pharaohs?
Very "liberal" in some instances, men and women did have equal rights. But little is known about Egyptian law.
Jackson LaRose:So the Bible is just suggestions, not God's eternal laws to man?
There isn't a law in there about communism, possibly a suggestion made by Jesus.
Jackson LaRose:I don't understand how.
There isn't proof that your right comes from might, just as there isn't proof that there isn't proof that rights come from nature. They are all presumptions of rights from men
Jackson LaRose: But that isn't the point. Just because you don't have complete assurance that your beleifs are true or not, doesn't mean you can't still believe. Most religious people can tell you that. That's why it's called faith. I've read and seen a few things by Dennett, and he's a big time humanist.
The point was that liberals aren't necessarily 1) natural rights supporters, 2) humanists 3) believing in some form of granting of privilege. Consequential don't support natural rights. Humanism is an absolutist moral philosophy, relativism, pluralism, and non-cognitivism aren't. Not all say that privileges ought to be granted, they don't deify man into something more. If they are still somehow rights supporting humanists at this point, then so are egoists and most other traditional "non-liberals."
Angurse:In which case, this was you just wasting time.
I'm sorry you feel that way. I was trying to defend my position on the definition of Liberalism.
Angurse:People who are generally held to be liberals and admit to being liberals, normally are liberals.
If you use this meter to define the word Liberal, than here in the United States, Liberal would just mean "Democrat", and not much else. I personally don't find that satisfactory.
Angurse:He explains it on logical and epistomological grounds, not an ought, an if-then. I'm sure he does desires it for himself, however that's not what his work is composed of.
It's still an ought, because who have to agree with his a priori basis on which he bases his logical conclusions. It is just using logic as his justification to the rights he believe exist.
Although interesting commentary, in this context it just seems like jumping through hoops to avoid the fact that the fundamental justification for these state's legitimacy is a supposed mandate from "God" (or whatever deity applies)
Angurse:There isn't proof that your right comes from might, just as there isn't proof that there isn't proof that rights come from nature. They are all presumptions of rights from men
I don't claim a right. I don't believe rights exist. I think they are a construct to moraly justify desires an individual or group may have. I don't feel the need to justify my actions.
Angurse:The point was that liberals aren't necessarily 1) natural rights supporters,
That was a straw man you set up. I never explicitly stated they were.
Angurse:2) humanists
many are, but I will agree, not necessarily.
Angurse:believing in some form of granting of privilege.
This is the sticking point right here. You have still not given an example of one group of liberals that isn't. The relativist and the pluralists all rely on a moral justification for their actions, whether it be natural rights, humanism, logic, biology, psychology, whatever.
Angurse:Consequential don't support natural rights. Humanism is an absolutist moral philosophy, relativism, pluralism, and non-cognitivism aren't
Again, the absolutism is a strawman you set up to knock down, I never claimed that.
Angurse:Not all say that privileges ought to be granted
By the act of moraly justifying action, that's exactly what they are doing.
Angurse:they don't deify man into something more
Do animals make moral decisions? How about illogical humans?
Angurse:If they are still somehow rights supporting humanists at this point, then so are egoists and most other traditional "non-liberals."
No. Again, egoists don't believe in the need for justification of action. The only "non-liberals" I can think of are Deists, and they also believe in rights, but as a mandate from God, not from Man.
Jackson LaRose:I'm sorry you feel that way. I was trying to defend my position on the definition of Liberalism.
1) That wasn't the definition. 2) There isn't A definition.
Angurse:[Liberalism is] Many different things, generally stressing the importance of liberty and if you include modern (social) liberalism its not so much liberty but privilege.
Jackson LaRose:If you use this meter to define the word Liberal, than here in the United States, Liberal would just mean "Democrat", and not much else. I personally don't find that satisfactory.
Don't care. Its better than using wikipedia then ignoring part of it.
Jackson LaRose:It's still an ought, because who have to agree with his a priori basis on which he bases his logical conclusions. It is just using logic as his justification to the rights he believe exist.
Perhaps... if you have no idea what "ought" means. Maybe you should actually read the book. However, that last sentence is laughably false and just reveals so much ignorance.
de Jasay:The notion of "rights" appears to cover nothing less than all acts that people ought to be able to perform, all acts that ought to be performed in their favour in order to promote their important interests as well as all immunities from acts that would harm these important interests. The notion floats between the impractical and the absurd.
Jackson LaRose:Although interesting commentary, in this context it just seems like jumping through hoops to avoid the fact that the fundamental justification for these state's legitimacy is a supposed mandate from "God" (or whatever deity applies)
I guess the hoop is just lying on the ground as it was pretty easy to jump through it, as, well.. suggestions aren't mandates.
Jackson LaRose:This is the sticking point right here. You have still not given an example of one group of liberals that isn't. The relativist and the pluralists all rely on a moral justification for their actions, whether it be natural rights, humanism, logic, biology, psychology, whatever.
Are you just writing out of sheer ignorance? Logic, biology, and psychology aren't morals at all... at all. And now its gone from Humanism to granting of privilege to moral justification yet its still wrong. Already mentioned the non-cognitivists.
Jackson LaRose:Again, the absolutism is a strawman you set up to knock down, I never claimed that.
Humanism is absolutism. We've already been over it
Notice: All people, universal human qualities, universal morality.
Jackson LaRose:By the act of moraly justifying action, that's exactly what they are doing.
No, just no. They aren't morally justifying the action at all, in fact, they aren't even acting. I don't think you know what morals are.
Jackson LaRose:How about illogical humans?
Illogical humans yes, as logic and morals aren't the same, and they frequently clash.
Jackson LaRose:No. Again, egoists don't believe in the need for justification of action. The only "non-liberals" I can think of are Deists, and they also believe in rights, but as a mandate from God, not from Man.
Yes they do, acting in itself is justification.
My question drowned in a stream of quotes
yuberries: Couldn't however, an egoist adopt certain liberal axioms such as the Non-Aggression Principle without being contradictory? Much the same way you accept using english in order to communicate with others?
Couldn't however, an egoist adopt certain liberal axioms such as the Non-Aggression Principle without being contradictory? Much the same way you accept using english in order to communicate with others?
Yes, an egoist could follow the NAP because he finds it in his best interest.
yuberries: My question drowned in a stream of quotes
Egoism says nothing about what values and/or principles you use to attain your ends, so long as you use the principle for your own, rather than subjecting yourself to a principle for its sake.
So yes, egoism is compatible with almost any principle or ethic. It is not compatible with any kind of universal moral realism (at least according to Stirner. Rand etc may be considered ethical egoists. Stirner is simply an egoist.)
Whew! this is a real barn burner! As an aside, did you see that onside kick after the half? That was frickin' nuts! Anyways, here we go:
Angurse:1) That wasn't the definition. 2) There isn't A definition.
This seems like a contradiction. "There is no correct definition of this word, yet yours is wrong". Even if I take what you are claiming here as given, than the word Liberalism is of no value, because it doesn't describe a coherent ideology, in even the broadest sense. Why bother to use it? So when you use the word, it supposed to mean "an ideology, stressing either liberty or privilege as important, for no particular reason". Isn't that a values based judgement? Without justification, that seems rather arbitrary.
Angurse:Don't care. Its better than using wikipedia then ignoring part of it.
It seems you aren't too familiar with the definition of the word "hypocrite" either. Let us not forget your creative editing around the wiki-based consequentialist definition.
Angurse: Jackson LaRose:This is the sticking point right here. You have still not given an example of one group of liberals that isn't. The relativist and the pluralists all rely on a moral justification for their actions, whether it be natural rights, humanism, logic, biology, psychology, whatever. Are you just writing out of sheer ignorance? Logic, biology, and psychology aren't morals at all... at all.
Are you just writing out of sheer ignorance? Logic, biology, and psychology aren't morals at all... at all.
I'm sorry you're right. The sentence is a little confusing as it was written it should read:
"The relativist and the pluralists all rely on a moral justification for their actions, whether it be derived from the application of natural rights, humanism, logic, biology, psychology, whatever."
I hope that clears it up.
Angurse:Humanism is absolutism. We've already been over it
I'm only mentioning humanism because you brought up humanist based philosophies (consequentialists) and followers of humanism (Dennett) in defense of Liberalism after crying foul about natural rights. Now you are crying foul again for a reason I don't quite understand.
Angurse:No, just no. They aren't morally justifying the action at all, in fact, they aren't even acting.
Then what are they doing? So they aren't using various a priori assumptions based on observation and knowledge of the nature of reality to deliniate which actions should be considered acceptable and which should not? So they are doing nothing? Then why does it matter?
Angurse:Illogical humans yes, as logic and morals aren't the same, and they frequently clash.
Do you think that all humans should be granted privilige for being the only moral animals? Are the moral desicions made by humans sometimes wrong, since they are illogical?
Angurse:Yes they do, acting in itself is justification.
How? Who made that determination?
zefreak: yuberries: My question drowned in a stream of quotes Egoism says nothing about what values and/or principles you use to attain your ends, so long as you use the principle for your own, rather than subjecting yourself to a principle for its sake. So yes, egoism is compatible with almost any principle or ethic. It is not compatible with any kind of universal moral realism (at least according to Stirner. Rand etc may be considered ethical egoists. Stirner is simply an egoist.)
I wanted to know what LaRose specifically thinks though.
Because what I wanted to show is that an ideology needs not to be believed on, for it to be useful to an individual... like math, like english, etc. It's just a set of premises and axioms useful for discourse. But maybe I'm just playing semantics...
yuberries:Couldn't however, an egoist adopt certain liberal axioms such as the Non-Aggression Principle without being contradictory? Much the same way you accept using english in order to communicate with others?
Of course. There is no "doctrine of Egoism", you just have to realize that many beliefs you have are just that; beliefs. As long as you understand the illusory nature so many desperately cling to as truths, you have subjegated tham to your will. You are the master of the construct, rather than the slave.
If you are at all interested, I would suggest The Ego and It's Own as the next book you read. It will change your life, or you will burn it, collect the ashes in a box, and bury it. The book is that powerful.
Jackson LaRose: yuberries:Couldn't however, an egoist adopt certain liberal axioms such as the Non-Aggression Principle without being contradictory? Much the same way you accept using english in order to communicate with others? Of course. There is no "doctrine of Egoism", you just have to realize that many beliefs you have are just that; beliefs. As long as you understand the illusory nature so many desperately cling to as truths, you have subjegated tham to your will. You are the master of the construct, rather than the slave. If you are at all interested, I would suggest The Ego and It's Own as the next book you read. It will change your life, or you will burn it, collect the ashes in a box, and bury it. The book is that powerful.
Sounds good, thanks
Jackson LaRose:This seems like a contradiction. "There is no correct definition of this word, yet yours is wrong". Even if I take what you are claiming here as given, than the word Liberalism is of no value, because it doesn't describe a coherent ideology, in even the broadest sense. Why bother to use it? So when you use the word, it supposed to mean "an ideology, stressing either liberty or privilege as important, for no particular reason". Isn't that a values based judgement? Without justification, that seems rather arbitrary.
Perhaps I've misspoke, the Wikipedia entry simply wasn't a definition. So it couldn't possibly be the definition. The word has minimal value generally it has to be broken up between classical and contemporary though. The word basically means "a political ideology, stressing the importance of liberty for a variety of reasons." It certainly isn't a value-based judgement if the reasons aren't moral.
Jackson LaRose:It seems you aren't too familiar with the definition of the word "hypocrite" either. Let us not forget your creative editing around the wiki-based consequentialist definition.
I didn't edit anything.
Jackson LaRose: I'm sorry you're right. The sentence is a little confusing as it was written it should read: "The relativist and the pluralists all rely on a moral justification for their actions, whether it be derived from the application of natural rights, humanism, logic, biology, psychology, whatever."
Thats not much better as that definition would include everyone.
Jackson LaRose:I'm only mentioning humanism because you brought up humanist based philosophies (consequentialists) and followers of humanism (Dennett) in defense of Liberalism after crying foul about natural rights. Now you are crying foul again for a reason I don't quite understand.
You brought up Humanism before I mentioned consequentialist liberalism:
"Because they are still religious. They are humanist, as opposed to deist, but it is essentially the same."
You re-introduced humanism "Perhaps this doesn't constitute a humanist ideal, it seems so to me, though." after your prior contention of liberals necessarily supporting natural rights was shown to be completely false. Now that humanism as a necessity to liberals you moved to something else.
Jackson LaRose:Then what are they doing? So they aren't using various a priori assumptions based on observation and knowledge of the nature of reality to deliniate which actions should be considered acceptable and which should not? So they are doing nothing? Then why does it matter?
Not acceptable and unacceptable, true and false within some application. As in "doing Y will lead to outcome X" nothing moral about it.
Jackson LaRose:Do you think that all humans should be granted privilige for being the only moral animals? Are the moral desicions made by humans sometimes wrong, since they are illogical?
I didn't say humans are the only moral animals so... random question. A moral decision could be false if it doesn't lead to the desired outcome. There may not be any logic to it though.
Jackson LaRose:How? Who made that determination?
Common sense. Maybe Stirner, I haven't read the book in years so I'm not sure.
Angurse:Perhaps I've misspoke, the Wikipedia entry simply wasn't a definition
How come?
Angurse:The word has minimal value generally it has to be broken up between classical and contemporary though.
Why the arbitrary distinction?
Angurse: "a political ideology, stressing the importance of liberty for a variety of reasons." It certainly isn't a value-based judgement if the reasons aren't moral.
Without the application of values, how can something be said to be "more or less important" than something else?
Angurse:Thats not much better as that definition would include everyone.
Why?
Angurse:Now that humanism as a necessity to liberals you moved to something else.
I'll concede that my definition of humanism was incorrect. Let's say : "deification of man as lawgiver". I don't know of another word other than liberalism to describe that, though.
Angurse:Not acceptable and unacceptable, true and false within some application.
Could I possibly have an example of this?
Angurse:A moral decision could be false if it doesn't lead to the desired outcome. There may not be any logic to it though.
As a continuation of the last question, how would you determine a moral decision in the first place? Without that, this respone seems non-sensical. Do you mean false as in "bad" (in the moral sense)?
Angurse: Jackson LaRose:How? Who made that determination? Common sense. Maybe Stirner, I haven't read the book in years so I'm not sure.
What is common sense. Is it a universal human quality, a truth? I can assure you, Stirner says no such thing, as justification of action is a construct, and unecessary for action to occur.
Jackson LaRose:How come?
It doesn't fit the definition of definition.
Jackson LaRose:Why the arbitrary distinction?
Non-arbitrary differences between the two groups.
Jackson LaRose:Without the application of values, how can something be said to be "more or less important" than something else?
By if-then factual statements.
Jackson LaRose:Why?
Too broad, all positions are derived from something.
Jackson LaRose:I'll concede that my definition of humanism was incorrect. Let's say : "deification of man as lawgiver". I don't know of another word other than liberalism to describe that, though.
Sure, it certainly doesn't fit liberalism, as they've been known to hate man as a lawgiver.
Jackson LaRose:Could I possibly have an example of this?
"As in 'doing Y will lead to outcome X'" "If you want the GDP to rise then you are going to have to reduce taxes."
Jackson LaRose: As a continuation of the last question, how would you determine a moral decision in the first place? Without that, this respone seems non-sensical. Do you mean false as in "bad" (in the moral sense)?
Depends on whether the persons moral, but when a choice arises where one isn't certain about an option, or all options as being "good." No, false as in incorrect.
Jackson LaRose:What is common sense. Is it a universal human quality, a truth? I can assure you, Stirner says no such thing, as justification of action is a construct, and unecessary for action to occur.
Look it up, no. And no. Justification is always necessary, for Stirner the Justification would be in the fact that he wanted to act in such a manner.
angurse:"a political ideology, stressing the importance of liberty for a variety of reasons."
How can this not be a claim objective importance if it is an ideology?
"An ideology is a set of aims and ideas that directs one's goals, expectations, and actions. An ideology can be thought of as a comprehensive vision, as a way of looking at things (compare worldview), as in common sense (see Ideology in everyday society below) and several philosophical tendencies (see Political ideologies), or a set of ideas proposed by the dominant class of a society to all members of this society (a 'received consciousness' or product of socialization). The main purpose behind an ideology is to offer change in society, and adherence to a set of ideals where conformity already exists, through a normative thought process. Ideologies are systems of abstract thought (as opposed to mere ideation) applied to public matters and thus make this concept central to politics. Implicitly every political tendency entails an ideology whether or not it is propounded as an explicit system of thought." -Wiki
Could you give an example of an "if then" statement exemplifying this?
"Common sense (or, when used attributively as an adjective, commonsense, common-sense, or commonsensical), based on a strict construction of the term, consists of what people in common would agree on: that which they "sense" as their common natural understanding.[citation needed] Some people (such as the authors of Merriam-Webster Online) use the phrase to refer to beliefs or propositions that — in their opinion — most people would consider prudent and of sound judgment, without reliance on esoteric knowledge or study or research, but based upon what they see as knowledge held by people "in common". Thus "common sense" (in this view) equates to the knowledge and experience which most people allegedly have, or which the person using the term believes that they do or should have." - wiki
I don't see how consent of the majority is necessary to justify my action.
Angurse:Justification is always necessary
Angurse: for Stirner the Justification would be in the fact that he wanted to act in such a manner.
I don't understand why you need to justify anything, if you don't believe in justice.
Jackson LaRose:How can this not be a claim objective importance if it is an ideology?
I don't know what you are asking, use more prepositions.
Jackson LaRose:I don't see how consent of the majority is necessary to justify my action.
Thats should be pretty obvious, especially for an egoist, the majority has might in their numbers.
Its always present.
Jackson LaRose:I don't understand why you need to justify anything, if you don't believe in justice.
Everyone believe in some form of justice though.