Avoid the question as much as you want, the point still remains: objective, libertarian ethics do not exist.
Ahem…
‘That does nothing to prove the [non] existence of objective, libertarian ethics.’ -Iaminustacitus
Let’s start with the simple grounds.
Why can’t there be objective rights?
And do you or do you not concede that everyone has a right to self-ownership, property, and the liberty to carry out their will in a non-aggressive manner?
There is no objective “good”, or “evil” outside of a theistic framework; in a non-theistic one, “good”, and “evil” are subjective categories that result from the each individual’s judgments of value for there is nothing objective to anchor them on. Even the state of eudemonia is brought about by cirumstances dictated by the individual’s valuations, and is hence subjective.
And theistic frameworks are not human made just like non-theistic ones? Do you actually believe that all holy texts are the word of God?
Well I never stated that what an individual’s eudiamonia is isn’t subjective. The objectivity of eudiamonia is that it can be applied to all individuals for we all have ultimate ends in some fashion.
A theistic framework can claim that there is an objective “Good” in the world: a deity, and when discussing objective ethics, I think it is important to differentuiate between theistic, and non-theistic frameworks regardless of the validity of theism.
How do you know we all have “ultimate ends in some fashion”?
As can non-theistic frameworks.
Because it is impossible not to have one. To state one doesn’t have one is in fact a performative contradiction.
Try.
That’s a ridiculous assertion; there is no reason why an individual cannot not have an ultimate ends.
You know my framework. Natural Rights/Law
Actually it isn’t. Trying not to have an ultimate end is in fact…an ultimate end. Hence performative contradiction.
I didn’t ask for your framework, I asked for you to derive a objective “good”.
Not if someone never thinks about their non-existent “ultimate end”. In addition, you assume that when individuals don’t have ultimate ends that they try not to have ultimate ends, rather than just not having an ultimate end.
This is a great example of how including ideas like “objective” notions of right and wrong in libertarianism (without coherently articulating such notions) leaves it wide open to easy criticism from outside. As the underdogs, we can’t afford the luxury of incoherent doctrine.
Prove it.
BTW, they’re definitely impossible within such a system if they’re the outcome of the being’s whims…
Aha.
Liberty, private property and life.
One not knowing about the consequences of action doesn’t not absolve the premise that there is an ultimate end. Anyways I find it highly unlikely that no one said 'when I grow up I want to be a fireman..astronaut etc.
They will run into the question of having an ultimate end. Everyone is asked what their goals in life are at one time or another,we all calculate what we would like to do or what will give us the most pleasure in doing over the course of our life. What’s your ultimate end? Just so you can’t move through life without the topic being brought up
Ask a suicidal communist how much values those three, and you will find that they are not objective “goods”. They are only good so long as individuals value them as so.
That does not equal an ultimate end, rather it is a mere end. Just because I want a glass of water does not mean that having a glass of water is my ultimate end.
There are no objective judgments of value to anchor the ethics to, and all attempts are generalizations of one’s own judgments of value.
The Euthyphro dilemma is unique to polytheistic systems, but in monotheistic ones the definition of a deity generally renders it an obsolete theological debate.
The former is an assertion (all attempts to show objective ethics are impossible fail), the latter is defining the problem away.
It is an assertion that has yet to be proven wrong, and since all judgments of value are subjective it is impossible to claim that there is something that can be objectively valued.
If you really want to get into the theology of the matter: in most monotheistic religions all that is good is rooted in a deity, hence the Euthyphro dilemma disappears since nothing that is good is not rooted in a deity. Hence there is no need to analyze whether a commandement is good because it is commanded by a deity, but was commanded by a deity because it is good; rather, it is good because it is rooted in a deity.
I’m a utilitarian because I prefer happiness to suffering.
I don’t agree that the only way to make money legally is to produce goods and services that other people value. How about speculations
No, you see, the burden of proof is on the person making that assertion, and so far the attempts to do so (the naturalistic “fallacy” and the “ought-is” gap) cannot rule out the possibility of objective ethics, because the former is nonsensical twaddle and the latter cannot rule out systems based on assertoric/problematic hypotheticals.
Silly. So it still means it’s based on the deity’s subjective whims. Convenient.