Political Theory

Re: If objective morality doesnt exist, what justifies libertarianism?

Daniel James Sanchez — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 08:37:04 GMT

Lilburne:

Lilburne:
empathy is a natural, evolved feature of the human psyche.

Esuric:
That's just a fancy way to say it's been handed down to us by society. Unless you're saying it's genetic, somehow.

That's exactly what I'm saying.

Yet more evidence for this: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/science/01human.html?_r=1&8dpc

Re: If objective morality doesnt exist, what justifies libertarianism?

wilderness — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:54:54 GMT

Adam Knott:

I'm more interested in the question: what thing A, is the basis for our intuitive notions of liberty, B?

I'm less interested in the idea that intuition is intuition, and that liberty is liberty.

Are you talking about the origin of A? Such as, using what you said, the basis (origins) of liberty being B? Said again in which liberty is A, thus you are interested in knowing if B is the origin of A? This is good of you to bring this up because for a long time in these forums I've said numerous times I'm not discussing the "origins" of natural rights. I consider principles to be circumstances within the medium of the intellect, but this does not say anything about the origins of the principles in and of themselves. For one, I believe in God. Now I don't discuss what place God has in any of my theorizing for that includes my beliefs and I fully don't understand what God is. I don't go around thinking I can define what God is for any one person. God though is something I believe to be a Creator and thus origin of reality, but heck I don't know all the little details from God to natural rights or from God to how a tree is here. Secondly origins of any principles do belong to matters that are not simply of the intellect but principles are also mediums pointing to aspects of this world that are not only of the intellect. For instance, gravity is not solely of the intellect, yet gravity is identified as a law by the intellect. Intellect applies mediums, it's own unique tools to convey aspects of reality in the only way intellect knows how to.

Adam Knott:

Tying this into the OP, I would be more interested in what thing (A) "justifies" libertarianism (B).

What makes libertarianism just rather than unjust is your interest?

Adam Knott:

I would be less interested in the idea that justification is justification, and libertarianism is libertarianism.

Good. At least terms are what they are.

Re: If objective morality doesnt exist, what justifies libertarianism?

Daniel James Sanchez — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 03:13:47 GMT

Juan:
little burne:
I will no longer let you elbow your way into conversations among people who disagree but who are nonetheless trying to teach and learn from each other, only to obstruct their efforts.
You mean, if I don't take seriously your amoralist buddies you're going to ban me ?
One day ban. Next time it will be three.
Ah, the wise and powerful moderator showing how wise and powerful he is...
If you are unwilling to participate in civil discussion, then don't come back after your ban expires.
Can't make head or tail of that one. Is that an order ? An 'utilitarian' suggestion ? Or what ?

Juan,

I banned you for one day for flaming this thread. I warned you about flaming and obstructing civil discussion when you return. In that one precious day of your absence a fascinating conversation among thoughtful, gentlemanly students of human nature emerged in this thread. Yet the instant your ban was lifted, you staggered into that conversation like a drunk uncle at a family gathering, called Adam Knott a liar, attempted to mock me, called the Misesians here cult-members, and brought a discussion, which all participants were thoroughly enjoying, to a screeching halt.

I told you it would be 3 days if you started poisoning the well again, but, given the extent to which you've attacked other members here, I'm making it a week.

Re: If objective morality doesnt exist, what justifies libertarianism?

Juan — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 02:33:33 GMT

Nir:
I don't see how economic understanding is possible without praxeology.

I think I mentioned that classical liberalism and moral philosophers/economists like, for instance, Bastiat, Molinari, Spencer etc, did well without praxeology ? Hell, when the 'Austrians' entered the picture in 1870, classical liberalism was already on the wane and only after a hundred years Rothbard would 're-discover' the basic point made by Molinari in 1850. Mises however never got it...

Praxeology is by no means an all encompassing philosophy that can 'explain' 'human action' - that's mostly advertising and self-promotion. Now, some advertising and self-promotion is fine. Too much self-promotion is likely to produce opposite results to those intended...at least as far as I'm concerned.

yet i urge you to consider slacking off somewhat on those of your peers that, essentially, appraise moral acts along the same lines that you do;

At this point I don't think I much care, but I'd point out anyway that I don't see things the same way utilitarians do. I'm not even sure if 'we' arrive to the same conclusions or not. And, frankly, I'm not inclined to trust people who devote their time to undermine common sense morality and want to replace it with their 'subjectively preferred' utilitarianism.

Re: If objective morality doesnt exist, what justifies libertarianism?

nirgrahamUK — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 02:04:36 GMT

Juan:
I don't think so. Ain't Knott and company illustrating the wonders of 'praxeology' ? Well, it doesn't really look that wonderful to me...

I don't see how economic understanding is possible without praxeology. what else is there? neo-classicism?positivism?historicism?

say what you like about people that inherit their understanding of philosophy and morality from Mises and others in the Austrian school

this counts for nought against people that inherit their understanding of praxeology and economics from Mises and others in the Austrian school.

I sympathise with your disdain for moral theories grounded differently to your own. yet i urge you to consider slacking off somewhat on those of your peers that, essentially, appraise moral acts along the same lines that you do; yet do this for different reasons (i.e. subjective vs. objective). you need to save up your venom for those anti-libertarians who appraise moral issues incorrectly ; regardless of whether this flows from their flawed subjectivism, or some bizarre construction of ethics that they claim is 'objective', though we understand they are mistaken (they are not libertarian).

Re: If objective morality doesnt exist, what justifies libertarianism?

Juan — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 01:48:22 GMT

I don't think so. Ain't Knott and company illustrating the wonders of 'praxeology' ? Well, it doesn't really look that wonderful to me...

Re: If objective morality doesnt exist, what justifies libertarianism?

nirgrahamUK — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 01:35:49 GMT

that's too bad for you then...

Re: If objective morality doesnt exist, what justifies libertarianism?

Juan — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 00:59:13 GMT

you have to be kidding

Not at all.

Re: If objective morality doesnt exist, what justifies libertarianism?

Juan — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 00:58:28 GMT

So you are blind to sarcasm ?

Re: If objective morality doesnt exist, what justifies libertarianism?

Nitroadict — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 00:33:44 GMT

Juan:

If you are unwilling to participate in civil discussion, then don't come back after your ban expires.

Can't make head or tail of that one. Is that an order ? An 'utilitarian' suggestion ? Or what ?

Is this you playing dumb & innocent again?

Re: If objective morality doesnt exist, what justifies libertarianism?

nirgrahamUK — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 00:31:49 GMT

Juan:
As to abandoning so called 'praxeology', good riddance! 'Praxeology' is mostly a bunch of empty tautologies. Frankly the followers of the Mises cult are no different than commies who babble about 'scientific socialism'.

you have to be kidding

Re: If objective morality doesnt exist, what justifies libertarianism?

Juan — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 00:28:00 GMT

little burne:
I will no longer let you elbow your way into conversations among people who disagree but who are nonetheless trying to teach and learn from each other, only to obstruct their efforts.

You mean, if I don't take seriously your amoralist buddies you're going to ban me ?

One day ban. Next time it will be three.

Ah, the wise and powerful moderator showing how wise and powerful he is...

If you are unwilling to participate in civil discussion, then don't come back after your ban expires.

Can't make head or tail of that one. Is that an order ? An 'utilitarian' suggestion ? Or what ?

Re: If objective morality doesnt exist, what justifies libertarianism?

Juan — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 00:24:30 GMT

They mistakenly believe that this demonstration can only be accomplished meaningfully by a normative approach. They believe that Rand and Aristotle hold the key to this approach. And they begin their overall theory with a critique of Misesian and Humean utilitarianism, rather than with an understanding of it.

Aristotle was not a libertarian. And Rand was only partially a libertarian. Hume was no libertarian at all. And to what extent Mises was a libertarian is debatable. I mean, a pro-conscription amoralist can be a libertarian...? The thing is, 'misesian' and 'humean' utilitarianism are both bankrupt (and they are not exactly the same thing by the way).

This all adds up to an abandonment of theoretical subjectivism, methodological individualism, and praxeology as the search for exact moral or ethical laws.

Of course libertarians are not 'radical' subjectivists who believe that the legitimacy of say, killing people, is just a 'subjective preference'. The bit about abandoning 'methodological' individualism is just a lie since libertarianism is based on philosophical individualism.

As to abandoning so called 'praxeology', good riddance! 'Praxeology' is mostly a bunch of empty tautologies. Frankly the followers of the Mises cult are no different than commies who babble about 'scientific socialism'. Political economy did pretty well before Mises 'discovered' that "humans act" or Ayn Rand invented the identity principle (TM).

Re: If objective morality doesnt exist, what justifies libertarianism?

Wade — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 23:38:14 GMT

"If objective morality doesn't exist, what justifies libertarianism?"

I, personally, think that libertarianism is about freedom of choice. It is an intuition that more freedom of choice allows for both success and failure, and that overall this will lead to more success than will less freedom of choice.

This isn't enough for me though. There has to be more than an intuition. This intuition has to be developed into something that says "this" causes "this". Or "less freedom of choice" causes "less success". For me, this would justify libertarianism.

If we look within ourselves there is something very basic that does exist for us. We have a priori knowledge that we have subjective values, and that we use the objective material world to satisfy those values. And I consider this consciousness.

Can this basic concept of consciousness derive a cause and effect relationship (justification) between less freedom and less success?

Re: If objective morality doesnt exist, what justifies libertarianism?

Adam Knott — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 23:29:38 GMT

wilderness:

Adam Knott:

Objective morality refers to the idea that the source of our moral sense or intuitions is to be found in "objective" reality; a reality that exists independent of conscioiusness.   A plain or basic definition of objective reality is: that part of nature that is in the realm of observation. If we think of it this way, then objective ethics (objective morality) has two parts: [objective reality], and [the moral obligation this imparts to the individual actor].   There is "objective reality" (first correlate), and there is me the actor, and what objective reality requires of me (second correlate).

By contrast, the correlates happiness and unhappiness are correlates of an individual consciousness. They can be conceived without referring to a posited or assumed objective reality. The correlates of consciousness happiness and happiness are what we might call the basis for a "subjective morality."   I.e., a morality based non on what objective reality requires of an individual, but instead based on what an individual's happiness requires of him.

If "objective" is dependent on this thread then probably a new thread is necessary cause of what I'm trying to point out. Going by what you say here Adam, the dependent origination of natural is a colloboration of intellect and reality devoid of intellect. The two colloborating are not to get bogged down in subjective and objective because in colloboration it is neither of these two independently but rather dependently. To incline towards one or the other is to forget the significance of the one or the other. To incline towards objective in accord with your definitions is thus devoid of subjective. But to incline towards subjective in accord with your definitions is thus devoid of objective. To get stuck on one or the other is therefore to conceptualize only one or the other.  For example, to incline upon objective (or subjective) is have knowledge that is void of subjective (or objective). As I think you brought up earlier about the third that's what I'm pointing out. The third is what natural philosophy has to do with this. The intellect (thus a human acting) in a world (objective reality). This colloboration of what somebody deems rational is in step with Mises use of the term rational (as well as Aristotle I would say, and others). The knowledge of what the intellect deems as being can take a materialist slant or a psychological slant. I would say what the investigator (materialist or psychologist approach, etc..) keeping in mind is not too dismiss one or the other. To fall into the trap of inclining objectively or subjectively too far to the point of making objective or subjective absent in their cognition. This is undoubtedly why a materialist may argue that they are fully aware of thoughts, words, mental images, etc... because the human actor taking on the role of a materialist very well indeed might be fully aware of all of these because such a human agent didn't go too far to void the individual. Same goes with a psychologist not going to far to void an external reality of the individual. Neither need to void the subjective or objective, but the trappings are present. The exclusion of the individual or a world outside of the individual may happen if either is taken as the extreme of what is.

Dependent origination is cause and effect where the A might be the cause one circumstance but the effect in another completely different circumstance. Thus A is the cause of B. B is therefore the effect. Yet B is the cause of C. Thus C is the effect.  Knowing if A is the cause or the effect is to have knowledge (episteme) of what A is (and to recognize that an A is - is metaphysics and whatever A is, meaning if A doesn't exist at all or A does exist - again that's getting into the theory or knowledge of what A is).

good evening

Perhaps Wilderness

I would argue that here, you are presenting a snippet of a larger world-view or philosophy within which these ideas might be better understood. As you write: "getting into the theory of knowledge of what A is"

I assume that requires a book or lengthy essay.

Without that, it may be hard to assess the theory you are summarizing here...