-
Clayton's first addition, which fleshed out what I was getting at when I said you need to define the term before saying whether it's subjective, was necessary. Once you define which "morality" you mean clearly enough, it becomes obvious what is subjective. Without this further distinction many will be left with objections due to misunderstanding
-
Atheism, skepticism, and rationalism have gradually been turned into the religion of scientism: the completely uncritical worship of authority. Religion dressed up with labcoats and equations. One dude told me that if there were enough evidence for square circles, he'd believe in them. That really sums up the scientistic position. Not a hint of
-
Define "morality" and you'll know whether morality is subjective.
-
"You Shouldn’t Shop at Walmart on Friday - A new study by the think tank Demos reports that raising the salary of all full-time workers at large retailers to $25,000 per year would lift more than 700,000 people out of poverty, at a cost of only a 1 percent price increase for customers." I couldn't find a single libertarian comment. Reddit
-
I think this more recent, brief thread elucidates more efficiently the confusion from which the notion of constitutive means arises, and also helps substantiate my stance Re: Clayton's points. This longer thread also went similarly to this one and fleshes out the main thrust of my points above regarding the approach of praxeology.
-
Want to be happy? Start reading Human Action. Want to stay happy? Continue reading Human Action. No need for blurry "constitutive means."
-
Then trying to move one's paralyzed hand must again not be classed as an action. I just don't think praxeology can be built on such a foundation. As soon as we start to judge the efficacy of another actor's ends, we have left praxeology and apodictic certainty and are doing something else. Similarly, Hayek writes that one actor may see a
-
[quote user="GoldenRetriever"]But if I just "wish" to make a physical movement, without actually trying, it's not an action. For example if I wake up in the middle of the night and figure out I'm paralyzed, then think "God, I wish I could move my hand now", but without actually attempting to (although I already
-
[quote user="Clayton"] Everything isn't based on the perceptions of the actor, else we fall into the abyss of pure logical relativism. Valuation (preference) and purpose (ends) are relative to the actor's perceptions, that is, they are subjective. However, time, uncertainty, causality... these are not relative, they are facts about
-
Praxeology admits as relevant to the actor whatever beliefs the actor himself has. This is the very essence of methodological individualism; everything is based on the perceptions of the actor. I wasn't even aware this was controversial.