marquise: It depends on what your moral values are. If honesty (by this I mean being honest with yourself) and coherence are part of it, then I am not sure that you can reach the same level of eudaimonia. I think that it also depends on what immoral act you are going to commit and according to whom this act would be immoral.
It depends on what your moral values are. If honesty (by this I mean being honest with yourself) and coherence are part of it, then I am not sure that you can reach the same level of eudaimonia. I think that it also depends on what immoral act you are going to commit and according to whom this act would be immoral.
I'm willing to grant this here for the sake of argument. Then in my argument, substitute for "attain my eudaimonia again," "attain a level of eudaimonia somewhat less than previously."
"It would be preposterous to assert apodictically that science will never succeed in developing a praxeological aprioristic doctrine of political organization..." (Mises, UF, p.98)
Adam Knott: marquise: It depends on what your moral values are. If honesty (by this I mean being honest with yourself) and coherence are part of it, then I am not sure that you can reach the same level of eudaimonia. I think that it also depends on what immoral act you are going to commit and according to whom this act would be immoral. I'm willing to grant this here for the sake of argument. Then in my argument, substitute for "attain my eudaimonia again," "attain a level of eudaimonia somewhat less than previously."
OK.
Nevertheless this is an open gate to further compromises.
Laughing Man:You implied that 'young, impressionable libertarians' are being brainwashed into Long's hype about eudiamonia. You treat them like underlings unable to choose for themselves which argument they prefer and you tell them to 'take a hard look at the real-world.' I have come to find that the 'real-world' is merely linguistic code for 'start thinking like me.'
I didn't say "real-world". I said "real-world truth-value". And the key term there is "hard look". The only way that I want them to "start thinking like me" is to be less credulous, not to merely change the direction of their credulity my way.
I've finally completed another critique, which I started back in June in another thread, of Long's eudaimonism, which I've made into a blog post: How Ends Contend. In it, I flesh out Long's Ice Cream/Fame example, and conclude that "final decisions between contending goals are always directly impelled by feeling, and it is not a matter of ratiocination regarding the maximization of some mysterious single ultimate end."