Danny's Article Feedback Request Thread

[Nielsio]

On Morality and Utility now hosted here.

Bravo, Danny.

[Truth_and_Liberty]

Another corker Danny.

@Danny

Furthermore, all things made my men are made for a purpose, and the only standard by which a man-made thing can be judged is according to how well it fulfills the purpose for which it was made.

This made me think about language. It’s very common to hear people say ‘this definition is correct’ or ‘your definition is wrong’, or talk about the ‘correct’ rules of grammar, etc, when all that really matters is whether a definition or a grammar style is useful for communication.

@Danny

Moral standards are initially adopted to please one’s parents, peers, or divinity; then as adherence to them becomes habitual through repetition, they are internalized as one’s own conscience. This internalization can become so complete that people can come to think of their moral standards as facts of nature, and not as human devices; philosophically-minded people will even attempt to concoct rationalizations for this conclusion.

In this paragraph, I am not sure if you’re talking about within the lifetime of an individual, or over a generational time-span. I assume the latter, but it can be read either way I think. I’m not sure if you’re making the same point as Hasnas or a different point:

@Hasnas

In short, the inconveniences of the state of nature represent problems that human beings must overcome to lead happy and meaningful lives. In the absence of an established civil government to resolve these problems for them, human beings must do so for themselves. They do this not through coordinated collective action, but through a process of trial and error in which the members of the community address these problems in any number of ways, unsuccessful attempts to resolve them are discarded, and successful ones are repeated, copied by others, and eventually become widespread practices. As the members of the community conform their behavior to these practices, they begin to behave according to rules that specify the extent of their obligations to others, and, by implication, the extent to which they are free to act at their pleasure. Over time, these rules become invested with normative significance and the members of the community come to regard the ways in which the rules permit them to act at their pleasure as their rights. Thus, in the state of nature, rights evolve out of human beings’ efforts to address the inconveniences of that state. In the state of nature, rights are solved problems. (Link)

Assuming you’re making the same point, I prefer “invested with normative significance” over “internalized”.

Hasnas of course calls what he is talking about “empirical natural rights”; rights that evolve naturally in human societies in the above way. I think he is right to retain the word ‘natural’. There IS something natural about the libertarian position. Precisely for the reasons you lay out in your article (the expediency of libertarianism, or rather capitalism) evolution has selected a libertarian ‘trait’ within humans: the idea that killing and stealing is wrong feels very natural to us, because that’s how we evolved.

@Hume

“…the obligation to justice is founded entirely on the interests of society, which require mutual abstinence from property"

I don’t understand this sentence. What does he mean by ‘obligation to justice’, ‘interests of society’ and ‘mutual abstinence from property’?

“all things made my men” → by

"it is very foundation " → the

[mikachusetts]

From In defense of:

“To the contrary, he held that all science was necessarily value-free, or in in German, wertfrei.” (p. 2)

“Instead their decision in immediately determined by social pressure and conscience.” (p. 4)

"An economist investigates whether a measure a can bring about the result p" (p. 5) “a” needs italicization

The word “featherbedding” is used way too much. I think you could substitute a definition of the term in some places and use a synonym (make-work?) in others.

Also, if you are choosing between “In defense of Mises” and “Morality and Utility” I think in defense of is the stronger article.

[Nielsio]

In the second:

“All such objections would BE pushing against an open door with regard to Mises’ utilitarianism.”

[Charles_Anthony]

On Morality and Utility

bottom of first page: “Utilitarian liberals recognize that all codes of conduct are “artificial” in that they man-made things. Ludwig von Mises, the greatest utilitarian liberal, wrote:” I think you meant to write that they are man-made things.

top of second page: “Furthermore, all things made by men are made for a purpose, and the only standard by which”

[Lilburne]

Thanks for catching all those guys.

And Nielsio, thanks for hosting.

I’ve also hosted the new ones on my own web site.

I’ve renamed On Morality and Utility as The Utilitarian Foundation of Morality (which expresses the thesis of the article more directly).

And here is In Defense of Misesian Utilitarianism (my site doesn’t like apostrophes in titles, apparently)

Also, the following articles were recently posted as Mises Dailies, in case anybody missed them.

Production, Sustainable and Unsustainable (the title they picked is too narrow. “Mises on Production” is more accurate. It covers value derivation, savings and capital goods, and the law of returns.)

Why Liberalism?

The Profound Significance of Social Harmony (formerly “Concordia Rex”. FWIW, of all the essays I’ve written, this is my favorite.)

Anarcho-Syndicalism: A Recipe for Ruin (this one got a lot of traffic, as well as a lot of ire from lefties)

[Nielsio]

I didn’t notice your last post where you renamed the title. Oh well..

On Morality and Utility (by Daniel James Sanchez)

The Utilitarian Foundation of Morality | Dan Sanchez

[Lilburne]

Update on my articles:

A Utilitarian Foundation of Morality

In Defense of Mises’s Utilitarianism

Two’s Company: The Basics of Property

What Gives Rise to Society?

A Note from the Editor

And attached is one I just finished, “The Sentinels of the Market”, an article explaining marginal-pair price theory. Thanks.

[Lilburne]

@Daniel James Sanchez

And attached is one I just finished, “The Sentinels of the Market”, an article explaining marginal-pair price theory. Thanks.

It was posted today, renamed, and some errors in the analysis fixed: The Mystery of the Marginal Pairs

If you want to know Austrian price theory, I think this piece is a great place to start!