Deontological vs consequentialist libertarians

Economics Political Theory
101

Laughing Man,

It depends what you mean by “no reason.”

There are reasons for my libertarianism like there are reasons for my having brown eyes, i.e. causal explanations. However, if “no reason” means no justification, then I have no reason for being a libertarian. I don’t believe it is possible, necessary, or desirable for the premises of an argument to justify its conclusion.

My objection is the following metalogical proof, where “X” is any set of premises, and “A” is any logical formula,

If “X |= A,” then “X |= X, A”
If “X |= X,” then “X, A |= X”

From this, we get an equivalence,

If “X |= X, A” and “X, A |= X,” then “X =| |= X, A”

Therefore,

“X |= A” is equivalent to “X, A |= A”

If the above proof is valid, then there is no valid argument which does not beg the question. Thus justification, which can neither be invalid nor question begging, is impossible within a valid argument.

If my argument above is correct, then its own conclusion is unjustified. This is no problem, since a claim can be true and unjustified without inconsistency., and I merely claim that my argument is true. [EDIT: My signiture: “a criticism that can be brought against everything ought not to be brought against anything,” so if everything can be criticised for being unjustified, then nothing can be.] In consequence, I am neither a deontologist nor a consequentialist, since both concern how ethical positions (usualy placed as the conclusion of a valid argument) are justified, and I consider effort to reach this goal to be futile.

I prefer what I call a “problem-centered” approach to ethics with no pretense of justification. Rather than asking “how can I justify my beliefs?” I instead ask “what problems am I interested in solving?” This shift is very broad, but in the context of ethics, my basic concern is with how people can live peaceably despite their disagreements and conflicts of interest. Within this context, both the claims of deontologists and consequentialists (and even the statement of my problem) can be evaluated.

102

How can you know it is true without justification? You would have to be just as open to it being false as it being true if there is no justification for it. So you are merely postulating, without justification, that you are arbitrarily deducing what you think is true.

Sweet doublethink. I can only assume by your second statement that you value peace and non-aggression above aggression and war, therefore the justification of your behavior is such. If such is false why do you choose to be a libertarian [ knowing that libertarians are for such matters of peace and non-aggression ]…why not be a Communist or a Fascist? Or perhaps invent a new ideology? Why choose libertarianism [ while knowing your basic concern is living peaceably ]?

103

Laughing Man,

I don’t “know” it is true; I never claimed to know it was true. I merely conjecture that it is true. It being true does not depend on my being able to know it, because it being unjustified implies nothing about its truth. And my claims are not arbitrary, but have very specific goal in mind – truth. Moreover, I don’t justify my behaviour with my values because not only is it logically impossible, but what would it achieve ? WIll someone with different values care? I explain my actions by my values and beliefs, but I do not and cannot justify them.

By the way, asking “how do you know it is true?” is like asking “how do you justify it?” Failure to meet this challenge is no flaw in my opinion, because nothing can meet this challenge. Moreover, it says nothing of truth or falsity, but is an ad hominem, i.e. “you should not believe it, becuase you haven’t justified it.” In other words, the person did wrong, not the theory, proposition, claim, or whatever.

104

On the surface this seems to avoid any constant questioning by anybody that doesn’t understand your position and uses “questions” to try to poke holes in a person’s opinion for a “gotcha moment” implying if I fail in explaining a theory then somehow the theory is wrong (not to infer it’s begging the question, simply questioning of ones opinion in general is what I’m referring to here). So this seems to not only avoid tactics of questioning ones opinion, but to also avoid a semantics debate which again if the concepts are not defined to the satisfaction of a particular person questioning the theory/opinion it doesn’t mean the theory/opinion is wrong. It can simply mean I’m not explaining it to their satisfaction.

thoughts?

105

Um, no. Ad hominem would be a case where the argument is discredited not because of any factors bearing on its veracity but because of the person making the argument (your argument is wrong, e.g. because you’re ugly.) However, epistemic procedures outline what are methods for arriving successfully at knowledge, and are normative in the sense that they show what the agent should do should they wish to arrive at knowledge. So if the agent did wrong and did not give reasons for believing the veracity of their propositions then it is not ad hominem but pointing to the fact that they have failed to give any supporting evidence for their position, and thus no good reason to believe that the theory (or whatever) is true - and that is the important thing here, proffering reasons for adopting or rejecting an argument. Yes, they did wrong - and that is the problem! If this were considered fallacious, I’d sooner reject the so-called fallacy than the imputation of blame…

106

wilderness,

I think you have caught onto my implicit critique of irrationalism.

An underlying assumption of irrationalists is that one ought not to believe without justification. Since they consider everything unjustifiable, it follows that we ought not to believe anything. Moreover, because everything is equally unjustifiable, the decision to believe one thing as opposed to another is arbitrary. My position is that “a criticism that can be brought against everything ought not be brought against anything,” because it cannot help us choose among alternatives. In this case, the irrationalists criticise everything for being unjustifiable. However, if everything is unjustifiable, then the relative standing of all theories is unchanged (like moving all the rungs of a ladder down in unison), and so “it’s unjustifiable!” loses all force as a criticism.

Jon,

My point is that a theory (or proposition, idea, etc.) cannot be refuted by claiming that an adherent, believer, or proponent are unjustified in believing it to be true. It is a criticism directed at the person, with the implicit ethical assumption that one ought not to believe that which one has not justified. In other words, it’s a criticism of a person for not doing what he ought to, and not a challenge of whatever he is proposing.

107

I think the call to “justify” is easily switched into a now justify the justification. It is seemingly based on the mood of the person calling for the justification. They are not satisfied with the justification, therefore this affirms their own irrational/skeptical/illusionist view. But it is really the continual, personal dissatisfaction that is remaining and conditioning their view. There isn’t anything that could satisfy - dissatisfaction. They are contrary.

Basically I don’t see what stops an adherence of irrationality as it is based on a particular individual’s unresolved satisfaction and premise that they hold dear to him or her self. It’s a choice for anybody. If the irrationalist rejects something - then - it’s rejected and that’s an act of deciding which may make such a person feel that their unresolved satisfaction has some kind of purpose. People like to feel a sense of purpose and accomplishment. The change that happens in the act of deciding, by passing through the choices (reject or not reject) is a movement in time thus provides a sense of accomplishment (they’ve gone from possible rejection or not rejection to rejection; it’s a movement, a step, a construed accomplishment). So as long as they can muster a rejection even without any reasonable assertion thus merely saying, “I reject it.”, then it affirms their dissatisfaction, but not necessarily truth.

yeah that’s usually where skeptics/irrationalists veer discussions. It no longer becomes about the proposition and dedicating their own time and effort to do what might mean an enormous amount of research. I mean what if it’s unfruitful? Why should I learn this or that? (obviously not I, but an example of questions) What if after let’s say years of dedication to knowing the in’s and out’s of a particular subject it never pans out the way one initially had hoped. That’s the risk of any science, but I think skeptics get stuck in the “what if it’s not worth it” and don’t necessarily find out if something offers a kernel of truth or not.

108

I believe government without consent of the governed is unjust. I do not know what you mean by “even if socialism was ultimately better than liberty”. Better is completely subjective. If you are saying it would result in better technology, more capital, and I could retain my civil liberties, I would probably say let’s go socialist. But that is impossible to prove. And all evidence suggests otherwise.

109

Good points Lee.

Are you saying that in calling for B to justify his theory or idea A introduces an implicit prescriptive (ought) premise?

And that in so doing, A thereby asserts or proposes a norm for B’s behavior or activity, which, as a norm for B’s behavior or activity, cannot constitute a refutation of the idea or theory B proposes?

110

Amazing. I’m wondering…

Metalogics probably explains how logic works.

What sort of discipline explains metalogics ? Maybe meta-meta-logics ? And then there probably are ‘philosophers’ who study meta-meta-meta-logic as well ?

Perhaps they are already developing meta^4 logic ?

111

the purpose of arguing is to come to agreements over the truth of matters of contention between parties when one side is merely stating their opinion ’ X is true’, and gives no reason for this, the statement is not motivated, or backed up, i.e. it is just true, unjustifiably , well, this is not a form of argument at all. it is a form of not-argument. the question of its ‘rightness’ or ‘wrongness’ or its ‘refutedness’ or ‘unrefutedness’ (sic) is moot. those are issues with import in the context of arguing, they are beside the point in the context of shouting your beliefs loudly at whoever might hear you.

112

Tell me the difference between conjecture and claiming.

That can never be established because to do so is to justify. Basically it is like throwing someone into a room and asking them to point out a chair and them not know what a chair is and never finding out if what they guess is actually a chair.

It is impossible to logically deduce the way you act as in accordance with your values?

Before you said your concern is living peaceably [ unless that has changed? ], why do you want to live peaceably?

Ok so here is what I am understanding about your position. You ‘conjecture’ that something is true without actually knowing if it is true nor will you go about finding out if it is true because it would lead to justification which according to you is an impossibility? Tell me, how do you know the sky is the sky, the ground is the ground? Its a serious question, how do you know what you know about the ground is true?

113

No, it can’t be refuted that way (mere scepticism is not a refutation of anything), but claiming a theory has not been justified/proven/whatever is not ad hominem in and of itself.