Jeez, someone’s blood sugar is a little low… I thought sharing was caring.
OK, did a quick look on Wikipedia (sue me, that site is great).
It says That the philisophical foundations of Liberalism of the Enlightenment (the ideology I think come to all of our heads when thinking classic or original Liberalism) stem from John Locke, who based his philosophy on natural rights.
The first two states founded on Liberal principles, (the USA and the first French Republic), hold objective human right as foundations of the governments, as written in their founding documents:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
- United States Declaration of Independence
“Liberty consists of being able to do anything that does not harm others: thus, the exercise of the natural rights of every man or woman has no bounds other than those that guarantee other members of society the enjoyment of these same rights.”
- French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen
I think your definition of Liberalism might be a bit off.
I did not quite say that, I merely said that I might be tempted to do that.. Review the following sentence, paying close attention to it being in the conditional:
You aren’t doing your credibility a favor by disregarding grammar like that.
As to giving you explicit reasons for differentiating between secular and religious ideologies, the former don’t usually seem to make any metaphysical or cosmological claims, at least according to my admittedly limited knowledge.
Reading is difficult.
Well, Mises was a “classical liberal” but not an advocate of any sort of “objective” “human rights”.
Than maybe he wasn’t a classical liberal. How do you know he was?
The same reason you called Locke a liberal, Wikipedia. (Mises also called himself a liberal, I’m not so sure about Locke)
I am just following what seems to be the standard usage. For example, (a) the Wikipedia.org article of him says that he is, (b) he himself said that he is, and (c) the biography of him of Guido Hulsmann is subtitled “Last Knight of Liberalism”.
Hmm, the man was an econimist first and foremost, and his principles in economics would certainly jibe with the econimic tenants of classicla liberalso maybe he could be best described as an economic liberal. The confusing world of semantics.
Only if you let it be. Or you could walk away & dismiss anyone who argues remotely about semantics as ideologues.
Admittedly, staring into the abyss is never easy. It helps if you bring a flashlight & some spelunking gear.
What a cheeky monkey you are. Perhaps this doesn’t constitute a humanist ideal, it seems so to me, though.
Well, it’s tough enough to communicate nuance with language as it is, nevermind without any structure whatsoever. So for the sake of convenience, I voluntarily utilize the rules of english on my terms, I don’t let them rule me. That’s an important distinction.
So what? Let Voorhees do what he will… sooner or later, someone will cap his ass. The use of force lies outside the domain of ethics, which is a verbal discipline. The use of force entails only calculation of how to win, as in military strategy. When an individual refuses to cease the use of violence in order to engage in ethical discourse, then force will be used in retaliation. This is the natural order.
Clayton -
Hooray! One of the most sensible things I’ve read all day!
Mob-rule FTW.
I’m not really sure what “cheeky monkey” means but… did I say reading is difficult? Because if I didn’t I really should have.
Consequentialist liberalism is but one example of non-natural rights liberalism, I’m glad you’ve accepted that your narrow conception of the term was incorrect. If you look (read, read) back - The Human Contract, Bill of Rights (among many others) - this was about universal liberal support of a social contract (to which you didn’t disagree). However, even using the broad moral philosophy of humanism fails to fit every category of liberalism.
I know I did.
‘Thus, consequentialist liberals support liberal policies because they think that these policies best promote human well-being and happiness, and they desire human well-being and happiness.’
Does this make it more acceptable to you? You can value human life and well-being without being a moral realist. Many libertarians on this board do.
I don’t remember accepting that. Last I remember, the rest of the sentence on the wiki described consequentialist liberalism as essentialy humanist.
You’re right, reading is hard. I have no idea what you are trying to convey to me here…
Could I have an example to study?
This should also help clear up what a “cheeky monkey” is.
Like, all humans? Or should it be “personal well being and happiness”?