http://libertarianpapers.org/articles/2009/lp-1-18.pdf
discuss…
Interesting. I disagree with the author that utilitarian arguments are to always be avoided, though. Ethical arguments are necessary, but not always sufficient; that’s when appealing to utility comes into play. The article smacks of the utilitarian-deontology dichotomy, coming down of the side of deontology (I think that this is relevant here). On a related note, there is substantial disagreement among libertarians on what exactly the ethical basis of libertarianism is, while utilitarian arguments are generally the same across the board.
Also, his “government” vs. “capitalism” dichomoty is… odd.
All utilitarian arguments fail (in practical ethical situations), seeing as no subjective pleasures/pains (even one’s own) are quantifiable.
Of course, this isn’t every situation; there might be an argument for the market being the best system by valid libertarian arguments (purposive action etc.), but it definitely fails to apply to any situation in practical ethics.
So utilitarian arguments may well be incorrect, that doesn’t mean that eradicating poverty or whatever doesn’t have an effect of most people.
I don’t know where you see the him smacking of “the utilitarian-deontology dichotomy,” and I definitely don’t see him “coming down on the side of deontology.” Can you specify where exactly he does this? Maybe I just didn’t notice it but I don’t think he likes either one. He seems to be critical of both and if anything, advocating the Misesian, “if you want a high standard of living, socialism will not bring it,” (though he seems somewhat critical of this if applied in certain ways).
Government vs capitalism dichotomy is odd? C’mon I know you LL’s think it’s a false dichotomy; I agree with that to some extent myself… but you know this is how libertarians have been doing it for decades so don’t say it’s “… odd.” Unless you have a burning desire to do so that is.
@everyone else… c’mon this ain’t about the beaten to death topic of “utilitarianism fails!” he has lots of interesting things to say in the article… what do you think about them?
Unless I misread something (which is possible), the point of the paper was to show that moral arguments, not ones based in utility, are the only really effective ones, right?
As far as “government” and “capitalism” goes, I thought it was odd more because of his word choice than anything, and more with his definition of “government” than his use of capitalism. Even “the state” vs. capitalism would make more sense; not all government is necessarily aggressive. And if you define it as such, then “government” = state, and why have the word in the first place?
I’d agree with Wombatron here, it does seem like a false dichotomy and above all else a strange choice of words. In the first place government needn’t br coercive (as opposed to the state), in the second capitalism describes a specific economic arrangement (and as such would be best contrasted with socialism) whereas government doesn’t.
Well of course
Valid arguments and persuasive techniques are different
Of course. Both are important.
Ah thanks, that clears things up; I see what you’re saying now with both the utilitarian/deontologist dichotomy and government/capitalism. I agree that he definitely disagrees with utilitarian arguments, though it seems I don’t really see him siding with moral arguments either. From what he’s written I suspect he would toss out a great many of the moral arguments given by libertarians.