Hello,
I don't know whether this is the right place to post this so feel free of course to move it.
I wrote my thesis on Libertarianism and figured it might interest some people here. I'll provide the link and a short overview.
http://www.rothbard.be/bestanden/ccieters/Christophe-Cieters-Masterproef.pdf
The idea behind the thesis as a whole is this (excerpt from Chapter 7): "Libertarianism itself is not as straightforward and universal as some of its followers would like to have one believe. It has many detractors from other ideologies, and as we have seen in previous Chapters, intellectual honesty compels even its promoters - myself included - to recognize that some issues at least still remain in need of further philosophical examination and debate. Undoubtedly, these various issues will never be solved and agreed upon indefinitely by humanity as a whole, but I contend that this of course need not be an issue that by itself destabilizes any of the libertarian argumentation as such. It is nonetheless a straightforward fact that libertarianism (at least superficially and as it is generally presented and intended) suffers from the same disease as other moral frameworks do: an underlying claim to objective truth about good and evil; i.e. a claim to an objectively quantifiable universal morality which is supposed to trump all others universally. Yet, as we have discussed in previous Chapters, morality by its very nature is an inherently subjective and non-universal concept. This, to be clear, is one thing at least which I do maintain to be a "universal truth" (although in using this kind of terminology one is perhaps at the risk of being misinterpreted). Taking all of the above into account, the novelty of the approach which I opted to take as I decided upon the focal point of my thesis lies in explaining the existing principles and ideas which constitute libertarianism as it is generally understood today, but this in combination with leaving the dead-end path of vying for a coinciding objective universal morality to follow suit. Instead, moral relativity is fully recognized and its consequences taken into account. For this, I feel that Nietzsche offers a way out of the treacherous swamp of nihilism and opens the door for libertarianism and its anarchistic principles to come into their own." The structure of the actual text: Introduction ... 3 "Everything which follows from this point on is based on my personal interpretation and usage of the thoughts and words of the people who I cite throughout this paper. Five of them in particular have allowed me to take that which I have from childhood on instinctively felt, and over the years helped shape it into fully conscious and above all explainable thought. This warrants them a special mention from the start. These individuals are Friedrich August von Hayek (minarchism), Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche (the will to power), Murray Newton Rothbard, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, and, last but certainly not least, Ludwig Heinrich Edler von Mises (libertarianism). I have no doubt that any one of them would severely disagree with several things discussed in this paper. But this, in fact, is exactly what this thesis is about: a differing view on the things that kept these great minds enthralled for many of their countless restless days and sleepless nights, distilled and synthesized during those of my own. I wish to be clear in recognizing that the separate components as such are neither new nor unheard of, but I do believe that there is something to be said for the peculiar relevance of their combination, however unlikely a synergy it may at first glance appear to be. This thesis is part of my work in promoting human liberty and dignity as I myself see it, to the best of my abilities and in the hopes of inspiring others to do the same." 1. On Freedom ... 6 "The content of human freedom is often experienced as a confusing and rather vague concept (Sen, 2003:7). There are several ways of defining freedom, and one needs to be very clear about the one that is being aimed for (Berlin, 1969:Ch. 3.1) as the use of the term is highly dependent on the freedom interpretation of the interpreter who wishes to apply it (Cieters, Schietse, 2009:10)." Both individualist as well as collectivistic ideologies claim to strive for "freedom". So what is "freedom"? (positive versus negative liberty) 2. Self-Ownership ... 15 "Self-ownership has been voiced by many authors, but generally its official origin is traced back to Locke's saying that every person "has a right to decide what would become of himself and what he would do, and as having a right to reap the benefits of what he did", or more concisely: "every man has a Property in his own Person" (Locke, 1690:Ch. 5). To many individuals this axiom may seem obvious and in need of little explanation; few would argue that their body and mind are not their own, but this in itself does not prove anything per se. Even from personal experience I know that there are in fact people who oppose the principle of self-ownership, so I believe it best to not just let ourselves be satisfied with a priori statements but instead explain the reasoning behind the concept in full. In this regard there are three possible conditions of ownership of the self (Rothbard, 1998:45): 1. each person owns a part of everybody else (collectivism) 2. some (groups of) people own (groups of) others completely 3. each person owns himself (individualism) It could be argued that there is a fourth condition, in which nobody is owned by anybody, including themselves." What are the grounds for self-ownership and what is the difference with diverging interpretations (for example the collectivistic claim that everybody is part and property of the whole)? 3. Property & Homesteading ... 19 "Along with and resulting from self-ownership there is another central concept which lies at the core of all capitalistic ideologies. Private property in its capitalistic sense means that somebody is the owner of a certain thing. Such ownership need not - and often does not - coincide with or relate to legal ownership. [...] Having such ownership means that the owner is morally legitimized in full control of the use of his property (which includes the right to exclude others from using it)." Where does the concept of "property" come from, where is it based upon (homesteading) and with what kind of moral right are such claims made? What with claims like "property is theft" and the idea that all people have equal rights to all material things? After explaining property and homesteading, both concepts are further explored through the concept of intellectual property and its incompatibility with libertarian morality. 4. On Morality ... 34 "All different systems of morality - be they religious, economic or political (and which more often than not intermingle) - have at their core the antonymous concepts of "good" and "evil". But rarely does one seem to stop and wonder where these concepts come from: who or what decides what is good, who or what decides what is evil, and by what knowledge or what right? How does humanity establish the neutral point from which all deviation is a movement in the continuum of those two outcomes? All too often these questions are resigned to the background, but anybody wishing to explain his or her own version of a philosophical right and wrong (as compared to good and evil) needs to have the courage and integrity to not only sketch the foundation of a theory, but also the very soil these fundamentals themselves have been grounded in. [...] In thinking about morality, on its own terms - in the form of honesty - it compels us to deny morality itself as it is generally understood (Nietzsche, 1968:s404). In the absence of a deity who personally comes to make his verifiable claim, "there are no moral facts" (Nietzsche, 1888:66, emphasis added). And even if we were to say that there did appear some deity today or tomorrow: then what of it?" Here Nietzsche enters the picture for the first time. Different things are discussed. For starters, moral relativism ("the death of god") and its effect on libertarian ethics. This is followed by an explanation of passive versus active nihilism and the socialist origins of democracy and calls for "equality" out of slave morality. 5. Death and Taxes ... 48 "In this Chapter we will now begin to make the translation from theory into practice with the help of examples from past and present." 5.1 Free Riding on Free Riding ... 48 "Today it is nigh impossible to find a mainstream economics textbook that does not make the distinction between private goods on the one hand, "for which the truth of the economic superiority of capitalist production is generally admitted", and public goods "for which it is generally denied" on the other (Hoppe, 1989b:28).92 We are inclined to wonder where this distinction comes from and through which kind of process it supposedly makes market mechanisms applicable to some goods (private), and inapplicable to others (public)." Private versus public goods, the idea behind "free riding" and government intervention that results from it, along with the desastrous consequences. This is followed by libertarian value theory and an explanation and examination of the "how many men" principle. 5.2 Shooting the Messenger ... 70 "Of course, nobody would deny that "it is true enough [...] that a termination of the State's current practice of providing public goods would imply some change in the existing social structure and the distribution of wealth. [...] However, this fact cannot be accepted as a valid argument demonstrating the supposed failure of markets." An examination of some present day effects of State intervention (Zimbabwe, Venezuela, South Africa, Sweden, etc.), the effect of "minimum wages" and globalisation, a closer look at "speculators" and the price mechanism (and its disturbance by State-enforced minimum and maximum prices) 5.3 The Broken Window ... 87 "The absurdity of the reasoning by people who maintain the existence and consequent legitimacy State provision of public goods through expropriated funds, who applaud so-called "stimulus packages" and everything else that is to serve as a justification for the robbery of taxation by Keynesians of all ages, was explained most eloquently by Bastiat's famous Broken Window Fallacy." Followed the "negative railroad" and a look at how States grow like cancer as special interest legislation spirals out of control. Also an examination of anti-trust policies and a closer look at the concept of "predatory pricing" and monopolies. 6. In Defence of Defence ... 102 "The State is all that people of my generation know about. It seems impossible to most to imagine its absence as much as it is impossible to imagine the absence of the moon. The existence of the State has grown into an unquestioned fact of nature; democracy is the religion of the self-proclaimed free thinker and socialism the trademark of the righteous man. Discussion of such things is beyond taboo and ridiculous in itself. Or so one is led to believe. [...] "Security" is often seen as the archetypical public good.228 It is thought to be the most telling instance of the free rider problem, in which people - if they were left free from State enforcement - would supposedly be completely incapable of arranging their own defence, would refuse to pay for security and instead would rely on their neighbours to pay for defending the community; the aggregate of which would supposedly lead to no security being available to anyone at all and everybody bowing to the first malevolent person who sharpens a stick and thereby would come to dominate the world. Therefore, it is claimed, State aggression in order to provide security is supposedly justified. [...] Security is to be provided by the market, without State intervention, for the same reasons and along the same lines that butter and car repairs are. So how would private law and defence with competing producers of security work?" Along with a discussion of the counter-arguments by Nozick (and through the dismissal of Nozicks's minimal State the debunking of all larger forms of State as well). 7. The Zarathustra Principle ... 128 "Libertarianism itself is not as straightforward and universal as some of its followers would like to have one believe. It has many detractors from other ideologies, and as we have seen in previous Chapters, intellectual honesty compels even its promoters - myself included - to recognize that some issues at least still remain in need of further philosophical examination and debate. Undoubtedly, these various issues will never be solved and agreed upon indefinitely by humanity as a whole, but I contend that this of course need not be an issue that by itself destabilizes any of the libertarian argumentation as such. It is nonetheless a straightforward fact that libertarianism (at least superficially and as it is generally presented and intended) suffers from the same disease as other moral frameworks do: an underlying claim to objective truth about good and evil; i.e. a claim to an objectively quantifiable universal morality which is supposed to trump all others universally. Yet, as we have discussed in previous Chapters morality by its very nature is an inherently subjective and non-universal concept. This, to be clear, is one thing at least which I do maintain to be a "universal truth" (although in using this kind of terminology one is perhaps at the risk of being misinterpreted). Taking all of the above into account, the novelty of the approach which I opted to take as I decided upon the focal point of my thesis lies in explaining the existing principles and ideas which constitute libertarianism as it is generally understood today, but this in combination with leaving the dead-end path of vying for a coinciding objective universal morality to follow suit. Instead, moral relativity is fully recognized and its consequences taken into account. For this, I feel that Nietzsche offers a way out of the treacherous swamp of nihilism and opens the door for libertarianism and its anarchistic principles to come into their own." In the final chapter all the previous arguments (economic as well as ethical) are fused together through a combination of natural law and master morality, resulting in free market anarchism through economic active nihilism.
Any and all comments are welcome if anybody were to actually read any of it ;)
The Austrian economics portion certainly fits within the context of German perspectivism and various German philosophers of that ilk (Nietzsche, Kirkegaard, Stirner, Wittgenstein, etc).
Chapter 5 peaked my interest.
This is pretty BA.
At this point I already wish to point out to my readers that this presupposes a dubious image of human society as composed of nothing but Buridan donkeys, who - in being both equally hungry and thirsty at once - when placed precisely midway between some hay and a pool of water are expected to die of hunger and thirst, because it is supposed that it would not be rationally possible for them to move in either direction rather than the other. It is doubtful that a donkey has ever died in such a way. Yet it is as we shall see at its core precisely this absurd scenario - not a possible concern about investors not getting what is due to them - which among various utilitarians of all kinds and denominations "often elicits demands for State subsidies to encourage the valuable activity" (Lott, 2007:86, emphasis added).95
You have a big long paragraph listing all these "public" goods that are already produced privately, but as you point out, while some mainstream economists (wrongly) claim we cannot produce any public goods at all, others claim we merely underproduce them. So the real life examples of public goods got me thinking "what if the government subsidized haircuts? Good behaviour? There aren't a lot of these nice things on the market...". Of course, this reveals another presupposition of the public-goods advocates: knowledge of the optimal amount of good to be provided. Misesian calculation problem bam goodbye.
Anyway.. thanks for posting this online. I'llr ead more later but i hafta get back to work.
"It is nonetheless a straightforward fact that libertarianism (at least superficially and as it is generally presented and intended) suffers from the same disease as other moral frameworks do: an underlying claim to objective truth about good and evil; i.e. a claim to an objectively quantifiable universal morality which is supposed to trump all others universally".
Except it does no such thing. And as such, your whole thesis is a strawman and a waste of time. Congratulations.
"How about Professor Block's second premise, that evil is only the initiation of violence? Here I think it is possible to partially reconcile the Block and Halliday positions. It is a question of what context we are dealing with. I would agree with Block that within the context of libertarian theory, evil must be confined to the initiation of violence. On the other hand, when we proceed from libertarianism to the question of wider social and personal ethics, then I would agree with Halliday that there are many other actions which should be considered as evil: lying, for example or deliberately failing to fulfill one's best potential. But these are not matters about which liberty - the problem of the proper scope of violence - has anything to say. In short, qua libertarian there is nothing wrong or evil about breaking dates, being gratuitously nasty to one's associates, or generally behaving like a cad: here not only do I join Professor Block, but I would expect Mr. Halliday and all other libertarians to do the same. On the other hand, qua general ethicist, I would join Mr. Halliday in denouncing such behavior, while Professor Block would not." Recently; "Block: I'm shocked that I ever wrote it. I don't think I meant it. I agree, fully, with Murray."
Seems to me yet again someone reads into the philosophy, forgets the basics, arrogantly thinks they see errors and contradictions where none exist or are a result of their misunderstanding and then arrogantly contends its a failure of the authors or political philosophy, not them - who in actual fact have made the most basic of errors by failing to make the distinction between political philosophy and personal ethics.
Conza don't patronize someone who's trying.
The last part was more of a general rant at what happens fairly often here on the forums, not directed at the OP per se - so don't take it personally.
And patronize who? If someone is relatively new to the political philosophy I can definitely understand, but when someone is writing a damn thesis about it and sets up a strawman... come on!? Sure they tried, they also failed. But hey, maybe I'm reading this all wrong? lol
A little aggressive are we, komissar?
I don't know who you are but I don't need your attitude. Especially not when it is about "what happens fairly often here" and "does not relate to me per se". So pretty please, before you get your panties in a twist read what is said instead of jumping to hissyfit conclusions (which are unfound even based on the excerpt).
The word "superficially" is there for a reason. Relax with the inquisitional attitude or save it for somebody who sees tantrums as sound argumentation (hint: not me).
Having said that, if you want to just vent and flail your arms around I don't mind either; all I do is kindly request that you do it in a different thread.
On a last note, and that's the last word I want to spend on this, I hope you haven't turned too many interested people away from anarcho-capitalism who thought they could find out more about it here, only to find the Guiding Light of Libertarianism lunging out at them with holy dogma.
"And as such", you're for all intents and purposes an asset to socialism and "a waste of time. Congratulations. "
Get a grip.
I commented on your "home page"
"The word "superficially" is there for a reason."
Funny, I noticed that - and it doesn't seem to change anything that was said.
"It is nonetheless a straightforward fact that libertarianism (at least superficially and as it is generally presented and intended)"
Any argumentation to back up your assertion of a "straightforward fact"?
Also where does libertarianism make this claim?
"i.e. a claim to an objectively quantifiable universal morality which is supposed to trump all others universally".
It does not, as pointed out in the quote I used. Which is essentially Libertarianism 101. Or better yet, can you point out where someone has done so? Or maybe help me understand by elaborating? How are you even defining morality? To me it seems you clearly don't make the distinction between political philosophy and personal ethics.. how can you even content to understand what libertarianism is - if you blur that line? Or again, as I asked previously and you completely ignored - is there something I am missing here?
Rightio, I bothered to read it all.
You do realise the concept of god is completely irrelevent to political philosophy. Right? lol. Any reason why any discussion of natural law is pretty much non existent? What Mises means by the laws of nature, is v. different to that of Rothbard's. And yet you lump them in all together.
Why did you decide to transform the quotes of Mises from "Liberalism" straight into "Libertarianism"? And yet fail to note it.
You essentially set up a quote from a utilitarian [Mises], an oppontent of objective ethics - and then assign him under the same umbrella as the followers of an axiomatic-deductive objective ethics... lol!
"The economic aspect of libertarianism is value free..." ? there is no such thing..
Anyway, I'm done with this.
Yes, you're missing the entire point basically.
I wonder why. Perhaps it's because first you don't read anything and jump to conclusions based on nothing at all, then you read 1 thing, take it out of context and break out the unwarranted attitude in the process. And yet you don't appear to see the idiocy of talking to me about straw men arguments in the same post :) If you like quotes (I don't in discussions, but I'll make an exception especially for you), here's one: "When someone hides something behind a bush and looks for it again in the same place and finds it there as well, there is not much to praise in such seeking and finding". Take that as you will.
(Quote button does not seem to work here, my apologies for the inconvenience)
"Conza88 wrote the following post at Sat, Jun 19 2010 7:45 PM:
It does not, as pointed out in the quote I used. Which is essentially Libertarianism 101. Or better yet, can you point out where someone has done so?"
You yourself have been quite helpful in proving my point up to now.
""Conza88 wrote the following post at Sat, Jun 19 2010 7:45 PM:
you clearly don't make the distinction between political philosophy and personal ethics.. how can you even content to understand what libertarianism is - if you blur that line? Or again, as I asked previously and you completely ignored - is there something I am missing here?"
Yes, you're missing quite a lot.
Anyway, as I said in my previous post, I'm a bit boggled by your tone. Who are you exactly to react the way you do; i.e. who made you Mises Incarnate and the judge, jury and executioner? Did you put on your fool's crown yourself when you turned into "the nut" nobody really argues with anymore but nods at so you stop yelling in their ear? Perhaps stop and wonder whether they really agree or just take the short route to ignoring you by throwing you a bone. I've been here for a few hours but that's the vibe I'm getting from you :) I could be wrong, of course, in which case I present you with my most humble and sincere apologies. You are obviously a gentleman and a scholar.
So basicly, cut the attitude and we'll talk like we're positioned higher on the evolutionary ladder as compared to monkeys, or you are kindly invited to just stay out of this thread with your ridiculous chest beating, I have no use for it. Having said that, I've been down this road before and have no illusions about it being any different next time, so I suggest the latter and we'll both be on our merry way :)
NietzcheanMan, I am SO sorry all your hard work has met such a boorish reception here.
Dondolee, can you PLEASE copy and paste whatever you wrote on his site over here?
I promise both of you, I will delete any uncivil interjections from Conza88 henceforth. Please continue your conversation here.
"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 hope you'll enjoy reading Nietzsche as much as I have and often still do. In my experience people either love or hate his work. Those who hate it usually draw odd conclusions from it though in my opinion, but to each his own.
His work is mostly present in (and makes up the bulk of) Chapters 4 and 7 (I refer to those 2 chapters whenever he makes a chance appearance elsewhere). Do feel free to let me know what your opinion on those chapters are if you ever come around to reading them, I'd be very interested to hear your remarks (and in that regard also whether you had been getting the same message from twilight of the idols up to now, or whether you were expecting something different based on what you have read in twilight).
"I hope you'll enjoy reading Nietzsche as much as I have and often still do. In my experience people either love or hate his work. Those who hate it usually draw odd conclusions from it though in my opinion, but to each his own."
I like Nietzche in the way that I interpreted his work (I've only read beyond good and evil and Zarathustara) I liked his general idea of "promoting your own virtues" and the beyond good and evil thesis was magnificent, as is god is dead. I also generally like his idea of different moralities and his general work of characterizing general perspectives and memes is suprisingly impressive. However I think that the will to power thesis is B.S and the thing I least liked about Nietzche is exactly how easy it is to get totally different things from him.
From Nietzche I further understood morality, gained apreciation for a hate of the mob, and derived further the glory of individuality and personalized ethics. However I have experienced someone who derived from his work the doctrine of social cooperation, and another person (who I have to say appeared insane) who wanted to revert back to the middle ages in order to put "the sheep" back in their place and create an age of the ubermensch, and who also got the idea that the weak were just that, weak in every way who deserved to be slaughtered and that because "in nature strong forces overcome weak forces" that somehow there was no morality but at the same time because of this principle that strong forces dominating weak forces was good and moral and therefore it is how the world should be run...
So considering how vauge a lot of Nietzche's stuff is I really do believe that his work could be used to justify anything.
my comment on Nietzscheman's page earlier @ lilburne's request:
There are a small number of people here who it is kind of hopeless to get into a civil conversation with, just don't worry too much about them. Anyway, hopefully I'll have read that thesis within the next few days, it looks kind of up my alley.
However I think that the will to power thesis is B.S and the thing I least liked about Nietzche is exactly how easy it is to get totally different things from him. [...] From Nietzche I further understood morality, gained apreciation for a hate of the mob, and derived further the glory of individuality and personalized ethics. However I have experienced someone who derived from his work the doctrine of social cooperation, and another person (who I have to say appeared insane) who wanted to revert back to the middle ages in order to put "the sheep" back in their place and create an age of the ubermensch [...] So considering how vauge a lot of Nietzche's stuff is I really do believe that his work could be used to justify anything.
I understand what you mean; many people have indeed taken him to have said many different things (I've had a lot of discussions on the matter as you probably can imagine, so I've had my share of insanity coming my way as well, I feel your pain in that regard :). Personally though, I think he can only be used to "justify anything" when taken out of context.
Perhaps I can entice you to read those chapters 4 and 7? Will to power is present among the other concepts (death of god, passive and active nihilim, master and slave morality, the origin of socialism and statism, etc) and explained in the way I interpret it and think it is to be interpreted. I wonder if it could change your mind or conversely make you think I am one of the crazies too. Do be sure to let me know if you ever do.
I wonder why. Perhaps it's because first you don't read anything and jump to conclusions based on nothing at all, then you read 1 thing, take it out of context and break out the unwarranted attitude in the process."
I've actually read the whole thing. The chapters where you are generally explaining the fundamentals of libertarianism are all pretty good - not so much chapter 4 or 7. And yet all you've done is proceeded to tell me I have missed the entire point, yet don't say what. What point am I missing?
"You yourself have been quite helpful in proving my point up to now."
I have? How so?
Pretty sure I understand what you are trying to get across, though I don't think it's logically consistent. Nor am I a fan of the presentation.
Can I get your thoughts on this?
"...The view just canvassed confines ethics to rules that apply to everyone. Questions about the good life have no objective answers: here mere preferences reign supreme. In brief, the right is prior to the good:
"The general tendency has been to consider the good as essentially privatized and the right as universalized. The good. . .has come to be regarded as the object of one's own interest, the object of one's desires, or those things one regards as beneficial. It is said to stand in contrast to what one may do with any right. What one may do by right is what is allowed to, or demanded of, or required by, all agents equally and universally. . .there is an inevitable tendency in the distinction between the good and the right to deprecate the moral nature of the good to the enhancement of the right. In other words, what is impartial and universal tends to take precedence over goods, which are, almost by definition now, partial and particular."(pp.22, 26)
They defend instead an Aristotelian view. The good for a person does not consist of his whims and desires, whatever they may be---far from it. Rather, each person has a natural end or function: his leading a flourishing life. This view, which they term perfectionism, "holds that eudaimonia [happiness or flourishing] is the ultimate good or value and that virtue ought to characterize how human beings conduct their lives."(p.111)
Does not a problem at once threaten them? They deny that the good life reduces without remainder to preferences: the good is objective. Yet they are also favor a political system in which people are free to act as they please, so long as they do not initiate or threaten force or fraud. But are there not many actions that fall within these bounds that an objective ethics would condemn? Suppose that I spend most of my days drinking myself into a stupor. I threaten no one with force, but surely I am not living in accord with my Aristotelian natural end. I am doing what is objectively wrong: how then can I have a right to do it?
Many supporters of natural law view matters exactly as these questions suggest. There can be no right to violate the demands of morality. Thus, Heinrich Rommen, a distinguished historian of natural law, remarked that rights are: "the sphere of right that is 'given' with the nature of a person."(p.64) Your rights are defined by your duties, and there cannot be a "right" to do what is wrong.
The authors answer with their key thesis: The mandates of personal ethics do not directly determine the nature of political arrangements. Liberalism is not "a 'normative political philosophy' in the usual sense. It is rather a political philosophy of metanorms. It seeks not to guide individual conduct in moral activity, but rather to regulate conduct so that conditions might be obtained where moral action can take place. To contrast liberalism directly with alternative ethical systems or values is, therefore, something of a category mistake."(p.34)
The combination of an objective personal ethics with a political system of freedom is, then, logically consistent. But why should we adopt it? Why not, rather, enact a political system whose metanorms require that people conform to their objective end?
The authors' version of ethics excludes this suggestion. They embrace "individualistic perfectionism." There is no fixed pattern to which every individual, in his pursuit of eudaimonia, must conform. Rather, "the generic goods and virtues that constitute human flourishing only become actual, determinate, and valuable realities when they are given particular form by the choices of flesh-and-blood persons. The importance or value of these goods and virtues is rooted in factors that are unique to each person, for it is not the universal as such that is valuable. . . Human flourishing is not simply achieved and enjoyed by individuals, but it is individualized."(pp.132-33)
Saying roughly the same thing, no? Just presented differently.