Atheism and Ancap

Angurse · February 6, 2010, 4:57pm

Just as you mistakenly collectivised all of libertarianism to support natural rights, you have lumped liberalism together to support some social contract.

apehead · February 6, 2010, 5:04pm

Fair point, but I would argue that ontology is a part of epistemology. It’s just a subset of “knowledge” that you can persue to better understand your experience, thereby make judgements and deductions that will be more relevant or “correct” to “actuality”, if that makes any sense.

Angelus · February 6, 2010, 5:05pm

The difficulty I have with this analysis is that draws a line in the sand between religion & ideology, or philosophy. Religion serves the same purpose as those other terms - they are, in fact, interchangeable. For instance, and this should be obvious to everyone on a website dedicated to such immaterial concepts as ‘freedom’, and ‘liberty’ but for some reason it ain’t, the purpose of using terms like ‘religion’, ‘ideology’, & ‘philosophy’ is that these are immaterial presuppositions that we accept on faith.They are, to use Mencken’s term, ‘governing assumptions’, in terms of which we interpret any fact that we experience.

So, just quickly, you don’t have to have a supernatural being to have a religion if you define religion correctly. All you need is a governing philosophy, whether it’s historic Christianity or atheism, Buddhism or Sufism. They are just the glasses by which we view the world around us.

apehead · February 6, 2010, 5:05pm

Well, then what is liberalism?

Angurse · February 6, 2010, 5:15pm

Many different things, generally stressing the importance of liberty and if you include modern (social) liberalism its not so much liberty but privilege.

Angelus · February 6, 2010, 5:18pm

Now Max Stirner was a truly great man! His example concerning incest was devastating, and Marx had no answer to it except to respond with bile & invective.

I’m sorry, I just consider Aleister Crowley to be nothing more than a first-rate imbecile, which was the reason for my flippance concerning his name, and let’s face it, anyone with a name like ‘Aleister’ was bound to have issues later in life! And, umm, if by ‘Big J’, you mean ‘Yahweh’, then I can’t say I’m too afraid of Crowley. Unlike the aforesaid ‘big J’, Crowley doesn’t determine ‘whatsoever comes to pass’ in history, so he’s kind of irrelevant now that he’s dead, don’chathink?

Anyway, I gave you a wrap. So get on with giving it to these ‘atheists’.

assimilateur · February 6, 2010, 5:41pm

Are you implying that not being a dick towards each other is retarded?

Even if I did grant you that my differentiation between religion and ideology was arbitrary -and I am still not convinced - I would stick by it for its usefulness. This has to do with my antitheistic outlook, based on which I consider all religions (according to “my” definition, mind you) known to me as irrational, immoral and in many cases harmful.

I_Ryan · February 6, 2010, 6:27pm

I want to preface and say that I am interested in level-headed, substantive, respectful conversations. I know that you have not been around here for very long, but you are already beginning to suggest that you are not willing to conform to that ideal. I hope that that changes.

If you were to have just stuck to the standard form, it would have, of course, been much more easy to follow.

Craig:

Do I disbelieve the theory of plate tectonics? I, along with everyone else in the world, have a worldview into which such things have their place, so when you ask a question like that, I have to say that I’m not personally interested in geology. But I take it as a given that people that share my worldview, including geologists, would have reason to either hold or disbelieve that theory. I don’t pretend to understand geology becoz I have no interest in it.

What I would say is that, beginning from different presuppositions, it should be obvious that different conclusions are drawn, in the same way that Keynes & Mises started from different presuppositions and therefore drew different conclusions. But just quickly, and this’ll have you shaking your head, in so far as this plate tectonics disagrees with the Biblical record, I see no reason to believe it.

I mentioned the theory of plate tectonics simply because any sort of wholesale rejection of the content of the theory of evolution implies a rejection of the content of the theory of plate tectonics, too. It is, more or less, a theory of the evolution (a) of mountains, (b) the position of the continents, and (c) many other things. If you still do not reject the theory of plate tectonics, atleast for that reason, then, what portion, exactly, of the established theory of the evolution of forms of life do you reject?

I am not amazed, actually. I guess that my next move, then, is to question why you consider the record of the bible to be infallible, to be the words of God. It was written by ordinary men, mortal, fallible men, after all.

Craig:

In answer to the quote you gave from Mises, I disagree (gee, go figure, huh?). I do not see that ethical problems/concerns can be reduced to pure emotionalism. Saying things like “These feelings are the source of man’s most delightful and most sublime experiences. They are the most precious adornment of life; they lift the animal species man to the heights of a really human existence.” do not exactly fill me with confidence. To reduce the domain of the ethical to what amounts to basically a ‘If it feels good, do it’ mentality does not hold the same force as ‘This do and live!’. Aside from that, there is nothing in Mises’ statement that can draw the ethical line in the sand. There would be no concrete universal reason why a homocidal maniac like ‘Jason Voorhees’ from the Friday the 13th movie series, in the interests of his own happiness, should not be free to do what Jason Voorhees does. Like I said before, it’s just evolution, it just happens!

And this is where both out-&-out Marxists and Anarcho-Capitalists, who are supposed to hate each other with a passion, are in fact blood-brothers. Neither can concieve of an ethics that is at the same time both universal and eternal, holding true for all times and in all places. It always amazes me when non-Christians throw this problem of ethics at us when the ground upon which they sit is so unstable!

I am not bothered that the doctrines of the “Marxists” and the doctrines of the “anarcho-capitalists” intersect in some ways. I also, of course, am not bothered that neither the “Marxists”, the “anarcho-capitalists”, nor any other set of people are able to “conc[ei]ve of an ethics that is at the same time both universal and eternal, holding true for all times and in all places”, for I do not even believe that such a venture is possible!

I understand why you believe that the quote that I provided somehow aspires to solve any ethical problem, but it, I assure you, does not. It merely exemplifies his judgements of value pertinent to his discussion. I quoted it, though, for a different reason. I merely wanted to exemplify that to accept the ideas of the theory of evolution does not mean to accept some sort of diminished, barbaric state of the world, it merely means to understand from where we came, not from where we must remain.

I will now turn to a lengthy quotation of a discussion that happened a few months ago and that engages your very criticism and substantiates my skepticism of the possibility of what you called “an ethics that is at the same time both universal and eternal, holding true for all times and in all places”. It does not end well, though. It implies that we do not occupy a higher ground than those people who we consider to be the scum of the earth, the murderers, bandits, rapists, and whatever. It implies merely that, as the majority, we beat such characters into submission. It could not, though, unless we are prepared to acquiesce to the poverty of the “lower” animals, unless we are prepared to forgo the “advantages” of the division of labor, the very institution, after all, that explains the origination of morality, benevolence, and the values of your religion, be any other way!

I. Ryan:

Adam Knott:

[…] does what I write here make sense?

Yes.

Adam Knott:

You wrote with respect to this statement:

“I or we do not desire that Y occurs.” That it is a proposition of normative ethics.

For the sake of discussion, let’s agree that this is not strictly correct. Because if I make the statement: “I do not desire that Y occurs” or “I desire that Y occurs,” this is simply an “is” statement. It is the statement of a fact—i.e., that I desire that Y occur.

I was getting ahead of things with my original question.

So stepping back for a moment, my revised question is now: If we assume that the statement “I desire that Y occurs” is an “is” statement, the statement of a fact, then, in what sense did you mean that this statement is the subject of normative ethics?

Can you clarify?

I think that I atleast clouded the issue or atmost completely erred when I called it a proposition of “normative ethics”.

1.1. If X occurs, only A occurs.

1.2. If Y occurs, only B occurs.

1.3. If Z occurs, only C occurs.

2.1. I or we desire that A occurs more than that B or C occurs.

2.1. I or we should desire that X occurs more than that Y or Z occurs.

The first three lines, 1.1., 1.2. and 1.3., are propositions of valueless economics. The second-to-the-last line, 2.1., is a proposition of _____. The last line, 3.1., is a proposition of _____.

In the sequence above, what, then, is the role of “ethics”? I think that the role of “ethics” may be, in any case where the desires of one or more individuals contradict the desires of one or more other individuals in such a way that the actualization of one or more of the desires would prevent the actualization of one of more of the other desires, to determine which desire is the more “important” desire. But I think that such antagonism can develop only when atleast one of the individuals involved threatens the vitality of the division of labor and therefore the vitality of most or all of the other individuals.

I do not know whether you read my posts from the thread “Ayn Rand and Libertarianism”. But I will reproduce one of them below because it provides a good continuation of this post.

I. Ryan:

Eioul:

That whether or not capitalism “works” is not justification enough for capitalism. The only reason to advocate capitalism is that it is a moral system which allows you to live your own life. Only egoism could justify capitalism. I’m not sure how much I want to get into that in a small post like this. "Neither does it indulge in judgments of value." That’ s the main thing. Value judgments do matter. Some individuals honestly prefer force.

Justin Spahr-Summers:

Ah, but ultimate desires are open to analysis, and rightfully so. This is pretty much exactly what I’m trying to point out.

I erred when I quoted and adopted your phraseology, “open to analysis”. I will first demarcate the problem and then I will attempt to reconcile it with the system of praxeology which Mises enacted.

In the system of Ludwig von Mises, you cannot criticize the ultimate desires of any other individual, even the ultimate desire of an individual to murder, steal or rape, without the criticization of atleast the autonomity of the individual or atmost the very existence of what defines the individual, what defines his consciousness, what differentiates him from other individuals. For, (a) if the “consciousness” of oneself formulates the ultimate desires of oneself freely, you cannot criticize, via reason, the ultimate desires of an individual without the criticization of the metaphysical, ultimate nature of their consciousness, a task impossible to us, you can only forcibly remove the influence on the physical world of their consciousness and, (b) if the “consciousness” of oneself is merely a passive observer and the physical arrangement of the material of oneself instead determines the ultimate desires of oneself, you cannot criticize, via reason, the ultimate desires of an individual without the criticization of the physical arrangement of the material of them, what defines them, their very existence.

If, as an example, (a) individual X were to view the sustenance or any intensification of the division of labor as a benefit to himself and therefore desire to see the division of labor be sustained and intensified and (b) were to view any acts of murder, theft or rape as an obstacle or detriment to such sustenance and intensification, he would therefore desire to stop any individual who desires to perform such actions before that individual actualizes his desire. But, as a continuation of the example, if individual Y, contrariwise, were to ultimately desire to murder, steal or rape, regardless of any other consequences, he would therefore desire to stop or ignore any individual who desires to stop him before he actualizes his desire.

From “Theory and History”, Chapter 9:

"The human search for knowledge cannot go on endlessly. Inevitably, sooner or later, it will reach a point beyond which it cannot proceed. It will then be faced with an ultimate given, a datum that man’s reason cannot trace back to other data. In the course of the evolution of knowledge science has succeeded in tracing back to other data some things and events which previously had been viewed as ultimate. We may expect that this will also occur in the future. But there will always remain something that is for the human mind an ultimate given, unanalyzable and irreducible. Human reason cannot even conceive a kind of knowledge that would not encounter such an insurmountable obstacle. There is for man no such thing as omniscience.

In dealing with such ultimate data history refers to individuality. The characteristics of individual men, their ideas and judgments of value as well as the actions guided by those ideas and judgments, cannot be traced back to something of which they would be the derivatives. There is no answer to the question why Frederick II invaded Silesia except: because he was Frederick II. It is customary, although not very expedient, to call the mental process by means of which a datum is traced back to other data rational. Then an ultimate datum is called irrational. No historical research can be thought of that would not ultimately meet such irrational facts."

In the passage above, Mises evidently realizes that the ultimate desires of an individual are indeed “open to analysis” but that to question the ultimate desires of an individual is to question the very existence of that individual, what defines that individual. Thus the obvious extrapolation of this realization is that one cannot criticize the ultimate desires of an individual via reason but can only “criticize” metaphorically the actions, to which the ultimate desires translated, via force.

In other words, partially of Mises, partially of me, in relation to my previous example, “no answer to the question why” individual Y ultimately desires to murder, steal or rape exists “except: because he [is]” individual Y. Thus to criticize that individual Y ultimately desires to murder, steal or rape is to criticize his very existence, his influence on the physical world.

Now, the question is: “Which of these individuals is “right” or “moral”, which is “wrong” or “immoral”? How, if we cannot criticize the ultimate desires of an individual, can we responsibly or “justifiably” ‘choose sides’, choose who to endorse? If to criticize the desires of one of these individuals is to criticize the existence or autonomy of one of these individuals, how do we choose whose “existence” is worth more? How do we decide who does ‘have the “right”’ to exist and who does not ‘have the right’ to exist?”

The answer to that question is:

1.1. The metaphorical “desire” of the replicators which underlie us, our genes, is to perpetuate the existence of themselves.

1.2. If we do not survive, they do not survive.

1.3. Thus they impute to us the desire to survive.

2.1. To allow murder, theft and rape is to allow the division of labor, society, to unravel.

2.2. To allow society to unravel is to threaten our survival.

2.3. Therefore, we desire to disallow murder, theft and rape.

In that thread, Justin Spahr-Summers responded to my post above with these passages from Ayn Rand:

Justin Spahr-Summers:

From “The Objectivist Ethics”:

To challenge the basic premise of any discipline, one must begin at the beginning. In ethics, one must begin by asking: What are values? Why does man need them?

“Value” is that which one acts to gain and/or keep. The concept “value” is not a primary; it presupposes an answer to the question: of value to whom and for what? It presupposes an entity capable of acting to achieve a goal in the face of an alternative. Where no alternative exists, no goals and no values are possible.

. . .

Only a living entity can have goals or can originate them. And it is only a living organism that has the capacity for self-generated, goal-directed action. On the physical level, the functions of all living organisms, from the simplest to the most complex—from the nutritive function in the single cell of an amoeba to the blood circulation in the body of a man—are actions generated by the organism itself and directed to a single goal: the maintenance of the organism’s life.

. . .

An ultimate value is that final goal or end to which all lesser goals are the means—and it sets the standard by which all lesser goals are evaluated. An organism’s life is its standard of value: that which furthers its life is the good, that which threatens it is the evil.

In answer to those philosophers who claim that no relation can be established between ultimate ends or values and the facts of reality, let me stress that the fact that living entities exist and function necessitates the existence of values and of an ultimate value which for any given living entity is its own life. Thus the validation of value judgments is to be achieved by reference to the facts of reality. The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do. So much for the issue of the relation between “is” and “ought.”

. . .

Rationality is man’s basic virtue, the source of all his other virtues. Man’s basic vice, the source of all his evils, is the act of unfocusing his mind, the suspension of his consciousness, which is not blindness, but the refusal to see, not ignorance, but the refusal to know. Irrationality is the rejection of man’s means of survival and, therefore, a commitment to a course of blind destruction; that which is anti-mind, is anti-life.

I objected to your characterization for a very simple reason, that the theory of evolution is not a theory of chance, it is, indeed, quite the opposite!

I am not sure that I understand, what is this “problem” that makes “evolutionary theory fail at the outset”?

Craig:

Perhaps you might wanna have a look at the history of western philosophy. (I bet I’m treading on some toes here!) From Descartes to Hume, we see empiricism fall flat on its face. Kant comes along and says, “It appears science has been killed off, but I’m gonna save science!” Yeah good. What he really did was divorce the noumenal (ideas) from the phenomenal (matter). Hegel comes along & says, “The rational (which is the noumenal, the world of ideas) is the real”. Marx comes along next and says, “Great! We can remake the world of matter with our ideas! The goal of philosophy, therefore, in the past has been to understand the world. That was stoopid. The goal of philosophy is not to understand the world, but to change it.” Hence, the Revolution, and Statism until we’ve evolved to such a degree we won’t need a ‘state’ at all. Like I said, Yeah good.

What is the relevance of that?

I do not call myself an “atheist”.
I am not sure why you believe that to advocate that we should respect “individual freedom” implies to advocate that we should be, in our thoughts about religion, in any way heterogeneous. In fact, if you get just one point from the works of Hans Hoppe, it is that liberty does not, in any way, imply tolerance.

I guess that you missed the point of my reference. In any case, the point of it was to show that you were implicitly assuming that, if the theory of evolution were true, the speed and the nature of the evolution of the general structure of our minds would be akin to the speed and the nature of the “evolution” of the “Pokemon”, which is, of course, clearly absurd.

The concept of “devol[ution]” is just the concept of evolution plus a specific set of value judgements. To explain that claim, I will merely cite this brilliant set of paragraphs of “Human Action”:

[quote=“Ludwig von Mises, “Human Action”, Section 8.6, “The Individual Within Society”, boldfaced text added by I. Ryan”]

One of the privileges which society affords to the individual is the privilege of living in spite of sickness or physical disability. Sick animals are doomed. Their weakness handicaps them in their attempts to find food and to repel aggression on the part of other animals. Deaf, nearsighted, or crippled savages must perish. But such defects do not deprive a man of the opportunity to adjust himself to life in society. The majority of our contemporaries are afflicted with some bodily deficiencies which biology considers pathological. Our civilization is to a great extent the achievement of such men. The eliminative forces of natural selection are greatly reduced under social conditions. Hence some people say that civilization tends to deteriorate the hereditary qualities of the members of society.

Such judgments are reasonable if one looks at mankind with the eyes of a breeder intent upon raising a race of men equipped with certain qualities. But society is not a stud-farm operated for the production of a definite type of men. There is no “natural” standard to establish what is desirable and what is undesirable in the biological evolution of man. Any standard chosen is arbitrary, purely subjective, in short a judgment of value. The terms racial improvement and racial degeneration are meaningless when not based on definite plans for the future of mankind.

It is true, civilized man is adjusted to life in society and not to that of a hunter in virgin forests.

[/quote]

I_Ryan · February 6, 2010, 6:46pm

He expressed his judgements of value pertinent to his discussion. What more do you want?

I_Ryan · February 6, 2010, 6:48pm

I am a very religious person, then.

apehead · February 6, 2010, 7:41pm

How does liberalism determine that liberty or privilege are valuable?

Angurse · February 6, 2010, 7:42pm

Umm… ask liberalism.

I_Ryan · February 6, 2010, 7:44pm

It does not. It is just a doctrine which people who themselves value liberty hold.

apehead · February 6, 2010, 7:44pm

Actually, he changed his name to that.

I meant Joshua (greek: Jesus) son of Joseph (or somebody else, depending on whose side you take)

Sorry to be a crank, but nobody gets a free pass!

apehead · February 6, 2010, 7:46pm

Are you implying that not being a dick towards each other is retarded?

[/quote]

“Ah may not be a smaht man, but i know what good is.”

[quote=“assimilateur”]

Well then, you admit that when you can’t find a reason for thinking differently about two ideas, you just maintain the arbitrary distinction for the sake of your argument. I wish more idealouges were that honest with themselves and others.

apehead · February 6, 2010, 7:52pm

If you jealously hold faith in a(ny) fixed idea, then yes, you are.

apehead · February 6, 2010, 7:53pm

Does Liberalism frequent the forum?

apehead · February 6, 2010, 7:54pm

Because it’s a doctrine of liberty?

I_Ryan · February 6, 2010, 7:56pm

Sure.

Angurse · February 6, 2010, 7:56pm

Maybe, do your own research.

Topic		Replies	Views
Libertarianism, Theology, and Religion General libertarianism , philosophy , ethics , god , religion	14	5052	December 8, 2011
Religious anarchists; please explain General	101	25173	October 17, 2010
Libertarians and Atheism General	216	41885	May 26, 2008
theism, athiesm, and a stateless society. Political Theory	67	11570	August 5, 2012
Why is it so important to justify religion from a libertarian perspective? Political Theory	50	12172	September 11, 2008

Atheism and Ancap

Related topics