And I’d argue that Locke wasn’t a liberal. Sigh, non-cognitivism, anti-statism, liberty over rights. He has a famous book clearing up loose ends of famous and contemporary liberals.
LOL. Thats a presumption of might makes right.
I don’t think I claimed he was . I merely stated his philosophy laid the groundwork upon which Liberalism as an ideology was founded
I don’t understand how this defines him as a liberal
Again, just because he is an anarchist, doesn’t define him as a liberal
The right to liberty, or the individual desire for liberty without moral precepts?
Rights which are given to man by Allah, via Muhammad. This would be Theocratic.
What is the difference?
As granted by God to man, as opposed to granted by Man to man.
How? It was a value free statement. “I will do what I want” is a different than “I should do what I want”.
That doesn’t seem to be the case at all though. However, Mises and de Jasay do claim to be liberals though, they would have the stronger case.
I don’t know what you are talking about, I never said it defined how he was a liberal. You asked me to sum up his positions, which I did.
Neither.
Nope, Istislah, there are secular laws, its a compromise.
They were still held to customary, constitutional, and… natural law when applicable.
Not necessarily, as urged by Jesus, not granted because its a right granted by god.
But this I say, He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully. Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.
Also, much of liberal natural rights theory itself is comes right from the rights being granted from God. So liberals aren’t liberal.
Its still a presumption of rights, rights not given by god, but of man. There have been several famous non-cognitivist liberals, Hobbes, Hume, Rorty and I believe, Dennett come to mind.
Interpretation of history is subjective, I don’t see how can decidedly resolve this particular dispute.
I don’t really know understand how that proves anything. I claim to be emperor of Antarctica.
I’m sorry, I figured you were summing up his ideals in order to correlate them to Liberalism.
He doesn’t claim a right to liberty (for himself or others), and he doesn’t merely desire it for himself, either. I don’t understand how he is a proponent of it.
They don’t follow sharia? Who determines the right to rule of the Ayatollah? How about islamic dictatorships (pre-911 Taliban, for example).
But that doesn’t explain why they are allowed to rule. What about Pharaohs?
So the Bible is just suggestions, not God’s eternal laws to man?
I don’t understand how.
But that isn’t the point. Just because you don’t have complete assurance that your beleifs are true or not, doesn’t mean you can’t still believe. Most religious people can tell you that. That’s why it’s called faith. I’ve read and seen a few things by Dennett, and he’s a big time humanist.
LaRose, I’m really interested about egoism, it does fall in line with much about what I think. Couldn’t however, an egoist adopt certain liberal axioms such as the Non-Aggression Principle without being contradictory? Much the same way you accept using english in order to communicate with others?
Because if so, that’s how I feel egoism can be compatible with non-objectivist liberalism. Liberalism being not an absolute ethics, but only an employable guideline for interpersonal relations.
In which case, this was you just wasting time.
People who are generally held to be liberals and admit to being liberals, normally are liberals.
He explains it on logical and epistomological grounds, not an ought, an if-then. I’m sure he does desires it for himself, however that’s not what his work is composed of.
They follow some Shariah, not all, its basically a compromise, some even hold it to be the foundation of Sharia law.
Don’t know, Ayatollah’s have used Istislah frequently though, even in Shi’a communities. Ayatollahs are experts in Islamic law and aren’t accepted as rulers everywhere.
I don’t know if dictatorships are even compatible with Sharia law, however the Taliban did enforce Pashtun common laws, used various democratic-ish councils and weren’t supposed to be permanent. Nor were they consistent about much.
Custom, people didn’t know any better, and in many cases their “rule” wasn’t respected or noticeable for common peasants.
Very “liberal” in some instances, men and women did have equal rights. But little is known about Egyptian law.
There isn’t a law in there about communism, possibly a suggestion made by Jesus.
There isn’t proof that your right comes from might, just as there isn’t proof that there isn’t proof that rights come from nature. They are all presumptions of rights from men
The point was that liberals aren’t necessarily 1) natural rights supporters, 2) humanists 3) believing in some form of granting of privilege. Consequential don’t support natural rights. Humanism is an absolutist moral philosophy, relativism, pluralism, and non-cognitivism aren’t. Not all say that privileges ought to be granted, they don’t deify man into something more. If they are still somehow rights supporting humanists at this point, then so are egoists and most other traditional “non-liberals.”
I’m sorry you feel that way. I was trying to defend my position on the definition of Liberalism.
If you use this meter to define the word Liberal, than here in the United States, Liberal would just mean “Democrat”, and not much else. I personally don’t find that satisfactory.
It’s still an ought, because who have to agree with his a priori basis on which he bases his logical conclusions. It is just using logic as his justification to the rights he believe exist.
They follow some Shariah, not all, its basically a compromise, some even hold it to be the foundation of Sharia law.
Don’t know, Ayatollah’s have used Istislah frequently though, even in Shi’a communities. Ayatollahs are experts in Islamic law and aren’t accepted as rulers everywhere.
I don’t know if dictatorships are even compatible with Sharia law, however the Taliban did enforce Pashtun common laws, used various democratic-ish councils and weren’t supposed to be permanent. Nor were they consistent about much.
Custom, people didn’t know any better, and in many cases their “rule” wasn’t respected or noticeable for common peasants.
Very “liberal” in some instances, men and women did have equal rights. But little is known about Egyptian law.
There isn’t a law in there about communism, possibly a suggestion made by Jesus.
Although interesting commentary, in this context it just seems like jumping through hoops to avoid the fact that the fundamental justification for these state’s legitimacy is a supposed mandate from “God” (or whatever deity applies)
I don’t claim a right. I don’t believe rights exist. I think they are a construct to moraly justify desires an individual or group may have. I don’t feel the need to justify my actions.
That was a straw man you set up. I never explicitly stated they were.
many are, but I will agree, not necessarily.
This is the sticking point right here. You have still not given an example of one group of liberals that isn’t. The relativist and the pluralists all rely on a moral justification for their actions, whether it be natural rights, humanism, logic, biology, psychology, whatever.
Again, the absolutism is a strawman you set up to knock down, I never claimed that.
By the act of moraly justifying action, that’s exactly what they are doing.
Do animals make moral decisions? How about illogical humans?
No. Again, egoists don’t believe in the need for justification of action. The only “non-liberals” I can think of are Deists, and they also believe in rights, but as a mandate from God, not from Man.
Don’t care. Its better than using wikipedia then ignoring part of it.
Perhaps… if you have no idea what “ought” means. Maybe you should actually read the book. However, that last sentence is laughably false and just reveals so much ignorance.
I guess the hoop is just lying on the ground as it was pretty easy to jump through it, as, well.. suggestions aren’t mandates.
Are you just writing out of sheer ignorance? Logic, biology, and psychology aren’t morals at all… at all. And now its gone from Humanism to granting of privilege to moral justification yet its still wrong. Already mentioned the non-cognitivists.
Humanism is absolutism. We’ve already been over it
Humanism is a broad category of active ethical philosophies that affirm the dignity and worth of all people, based on the ability to determine right and wrong by appeal to universal human qualities—particularly rationalism. Humanists endorse universal morality based on the commonality of human nature, suggesting that solutions to our social and cultural problems cannot be parochial.
Notice: All people, universal human qualities, universal morality.
No, just no. They aren’t morally justifying the action at all, in fact, they aren’t even acting. I don’t think you know what morals are.
Illogical humans yes, as logic and morals aren’t the same, and they frequently clash.
Yes they do, acting in itself is justification.
My question drowned in a stream of quotes [:O]
Yes, an egoist could follow the NAP because he finds it in his best interest.
Egoism says nothing about what values and/or principles you use to attain your ends, so long as you use the principle for your own, rather than subjecting yourself to a principle for its sake.
So yes, egoism is compatible with almost any principle or ethic. It is not compatible with any kind of universal moral realism (at least according to Stirner. Rand etc may be considered ethical egoists. Stirner is simply an egoist.)
Whew! this is a real barn burner! As an aside, did you see that onside kick after the half? That was frickin’ nuts! Anyways, here we go:
This seems like a contradiction. “There is no correct definition of this word, yet yours is wrong”. Even if I take what you are claiming here as given, than the word Liberalism is of no value, because it doesn’t describe a coherent ideology, in even the broadest sense. Why bother to use it? So when you use the word, it supposed to mean “an ideology, stressing either liberty or privilege as important, for no particular reason”. Isn’t that a values based judgement? Without justification, that seems rather arbitrary.
It seems you aren’t too familiar with the definition of the word “hypocrite” either. Let us not forget your creative editing around the wiki-based consequentialist definition.
I’m sorry you’re right. The sentence is a little confusing as it was written it should read:
“The relativist and the pluralists all rely on a moral justification for their actions, whether it be derived from the application of natural rights, humanism, logic, biology, psychology, whatever.”
I hope that clears it up.
I’m only mentioning humanism because you brought up humanist based philosophies (consequentialists) and followers of humanism (Dennett) in defense of Liberalism after crying foul about natural rights. Now you are crying foul again for a reason I don’t quite understand.
Then what are they doing? So they aren’t using various a priori assumptions based on observation and knowledge of the nature of reality to deliniate which actions should be considered acceptable and which should not? So they are doing nothing? Then why does it matter?
Do you think that all humans should be granted privilige for being the only moral animals? Are the moral desicions made by humans sometimes wrong, since they are illogical?
How? Who made that determination?
I wanted to know what LaRose specifically thinks though.
Because what I wanted to show is that an ideology needs not to be believed on, for it to be useful to an individual… like math, like english, etc. It’s just a set of premises and axioms useful for discourse. But maybe I’m just playing semantics…
Of course. There is no “doctrine of Egoism”, you just have to realize that many beliefs you have are just that; beliefs. As long as you understand the illusory nature so many desperately cling to as truths, you have subjegated tham to your will. You are the master of the construct, rather than the slave.
If you are at all interested, I would suggest The Ego and It’s Own as the next book you read. It will change your life, or you will burn it, collect the ashes in a box, and bury it. The book is that powerful.
Sounds good, thanks [:)]
Perhaps I’ve misspoke, the Wikipedia entry simply wasn’t a definition. So it couldn’t possibly be the definition. The word has minimal value generally it has to be broken up between classical and contemporary though. The word basically means “a political ideology, stressing the importance of liberty for a variety of reasons.” It certainly isn’t a value-based judgement if the reasons aren’t moral.
I didn’t edit anything.
Thats not much better as that definition would include everyone.
You brought up Humanism before I mentioned consequentialist liberalism:
“Because they are still religious. They are humanist, as opposed to deist, but it is essentially the same.”
You re-introduced humanism “Perhaps this doesn’t constitute a humanist ideal, it seems so to me, though.” after your prior contention of liberals necessarily supporting natural rights was shown to be completely false. Now that humanism as a necessity to liberals you moved to something else.
Not acceptable and unacceptable, true and false within some application. As in “doing Y will lead to outcome X” nothing moral about it.
I didn’t say humans are the only moral animals so… random question. A moral decision could be false if it doesn’t lead to the desired outcome. There may not be any logic to it though.
Common sense. Maybe Stirner, I haven’t read the book in years so I’m not sure.
How come?
Why the arbitrary distinction?
Without the application of values, how can something be said to be “more or less important” than something else?
Why?
I’ll concede that my definition of humanism was incorrect. Let’s say : “deification of man as lawgiver”. I don’t know of another word other than liberalism to describe that, though.
Could I possibly have an example of this?
As a continuation of the last question, how would you determine a moral decision in the first place? Without that, this respone seems non-sensical. Do you mean false as in “bad” (in the moral sense)?
What is common sense. Is it a universal human quality, a truth? I can assure you, Stirner says no such thing, as justification of action is a construct, and unecessary for action to occur.
It doesn’t fit the definition of definition.
Non-arbitrary differences between the two groups.
By if-then factual statements.
Too broad, all positions are derived from something.
Sure, it certainly doesn’t fit liberalism, as they’ve been known to hate man as a lawgiver.
“As in ‘doing Y will lead to outcome X’” “If you want the GDP to rise then you are going to have to reduce taxes.”
Depends on whether the persons moral, but when a choice arises where one isn’t certain about an option, or all options as being “good.” No, false as in incorrect.
Look it up, no. And no. Justification is always necessary, for Stirner the Justification would be in the fact that he wanted to act in such a manner.
How can this not be a claim objective importance if it is an ideology?
“An ideology is a set of aims and ideas that directs one’s goals, expectations, and actions. An ideology can be thought of as a comprehensive vision, as a way of looking at things (compare worldview), as in common sense (see Ideology in everyday society below) and several philosophical tendencies (see Political ideologies), or a set of ideas proposed by the dominant class of a society to all members of this society (a ‘received consciousness’ or product of socialization). The main purpose behind an ideology is to offer change in society, and adherence to a set of ideals where conformity already exists, through a normative thought process. Ideologies are systems of abstract thought (as opposed to mere ideation) applied to public matters and thus make this concept central to politics. Implicitly every political tendency entails an ideology whether or not it is propounded as an explicit system of thought.” -Wiki
Could you give an example of an “if then” statement exemplifying this?
"Common sense (or, when used attributively as an adjective, commonsense, common-sense, or commonsensical), based on a strict construction of the term, consists of what people in common would agree on: that which they “sense” as their common natural understanding.[citation needed] Some people (such as the authors of Merriam-Webster Online) use the phrase to refer to beliefs or propositions that — in their opinion — most people would consider prudent and of sound judgment, without reliance on esoteric knowledge or study or research, but based upon what they see as knowledge held by people “in common”. Thus “common sense” (in this view) equates to the knowledge and experience which most people allegedly have, or which the person using the term believes that they do or should have." - wiki
I don’t see how consent of the majority is necessary to justify my action.
Why?
I don’t understand why you need to justify anything, if you don’t believe in justice.
I don’t know what you are asking, use more prepositions.
Thats should be pretty obvious, especially for an egoist, the majority has might in their numbers.
Its always present.
Everyone believe in some form of justice though.