Now you’re changing your tune. Is it ethical subjectivism or is it objective positioning? Pick one. You’ve changed your position I don’t know how many times now even in one day.
Yes but like you said this has nothing to do with libertarianism. Ethical subjectivism and the NAP invalid each other. You are merely looking at rights from the supply side. Sure you can act according to the NAP and that would be subjective yet according to ethical subjectivism you cannot demand that people treat you according to the NAP [ which the NAP does demand ] Therefore what ethical subjectivists practice is ‘well I am going to be nice [ if I want to ] to everyone and hope they are nice [ if they want to be ] back to be and if they aren’t then well I can’t necessarily stop them out of some good/bad beyond my own ideals but only if I have the power to coerce them [ I will grant that it could be defensive ] into respecting my subjective ideals.’ Has anyone thought of the ramficiations this would have on a legal system?
I’m thinking about it in every single post I write.
Not only legal system and justice in general, but science and all other things that can help innovate society. It’s not prosperous at all.
Here is Machan’s thesis (taken directly from the linked article) and the thesis of objective ethicists generally, including Rothbard and Long:
“An individualism grounded in a theory of objective values thus supplies us with most of what we need to fend of authoritarianism, whereas the theory of subjective values can all too easily pave the way for the bad guys.”
This can easily be seen as an argument that a theory of objective values A, will lead to beneficial social consequences X (fending off authoritarianism, stopping the bad guys).
By contrast, the theory of subjective values B, will lead to harmful social consequences Y (allowing or inviting authoritarianism, paving the way for the bad guys).
In any case, the thesis is relatively clear and the relationships between A and X, and between B and Y are the relationships that need a proof or demonstration. I have seen the three social thinkers above assert that a social science and social theory based on subjectivism will lead to harmful social consequences, but I am not aware of any sustained demonstration that shows exactly how one’s approach to and understanding of social phenomena (objective ethics approach, subjectivist approach) inevitably must lead to a certain state of society.
As far as I know, this thesis is a belief that binds objectivists, but not a thesis that has been demonstrated, for example, by any of the three thinkers named above.
Adam,
Ok. Without the consequences of society argument what about the ethical subjectivists not being able to judge that any objective fact is either wrong nor right. Thus no matter how they feel, they can’t say if a murder is wrong nor right. So if a murder is neither wrong nor right, then there is no justification, either by feeling, to stop the murderer or even any justification to speak out against the murderer. Cause it’s the murderers own subjective preferences being acted out and therefore nobody can say if that’ wrong nor right. It’s merely two comets colliding in space. An ethical subjectivist can say they don’t like it. They feel it’s not desirable, but they can’t project such feelings or thoughts upon the murderer because that would then become an objective statement. Unless of course they are being objective about certain things in life and are only being dishonest.
Thanks.
Yes, ethical subjectivism doesn’t give anyone the moral authority to demand anything.
Sounds like the makings of a voluntary society to me.
Sure, because my ideals are not universal objective values. If I imposed them, that would be authoritarianism.
Non-sequitur.
And what of property rights?
If we are to deduce that ‘rights’ are only valid in the subjective individual then the claim to property is only enforced by power, not a moral/rights based system. Person A could feel the subjective need at objective X while X is already being used by Person B. It is obviously good for A to acquire X and whether B feels good or bad about losing X is really indifferent to person A. This degrades to mere thuggery and at the very least apathy towards the state apparatus.
Do you think that “universal objective values” (in the context of the NAP) means there is no aggression? yes or no; explain.
BUUTTT the NAP itself demands obligations from both parties. You can act non-aggressively but to be in accordance with NAP, so does the individual you are interacting with.
Then you are not followers of the NAP therefore not libertarians.
And if someone in that voluntary society steals…you cannot bring them to a legal system for reparations.
So demanding accordance with the NAP is authoritarianism. Interesting.
How does it not follow? You have no objective good/bad, you have no sense of obligations that anyone respect any of your rights, therefore the only thing you can do to retain your liberty, property etc. is coercion or pacificism. Coercion is imposing your ideals on them [ the premise that you own something and they therefore cannot take it from you] therefore you are a pacificist in which no one has the right to inititate any force against anyone because that would be expressing some ideal onto them.
Of course the better method is to create a false philosophy in order to inspire hatred towards the “state apparatus” because what is true does not inspire such emotion.
and lam. joins in with his ethical subjectivism. nice to see you’re here too. “Long live the State” seems to be the motto here anymore.
Fine, I’m not a libertarian then.
Praytell what is the discourse against government if there is no obligation? Or wait…am I going to get some witty statement about a black swan. As liberty said ‘ethical subjectivism places no obligation onto anyone’ therefore why do you expect government to respect anything that is yours and what claim do you have over such devices anyways.
I will hold you to that statement.
You used those words LS. Explain yourself or are you parroting concepts you don’t understand - humor me. Blast me away with your understanding. I’m willing and waiting.
Change your name. Dispose of it. You have now been honest. You are not Liberty Student. You are no student of liberty at all. Don’t disgrace liberty lovers everywhere with your name. You are only imposing us with that name. It’s very un-subjective of you. You can’t teach liberty or learn of liberty unless you can decide if somebody is of liberty or of criminality. And obviously you have made the case and have forth that you can’t. So now I know and can let it go. But I will ask of you to change the name so as not to impose that upon others as you will not be able to say if any liberty exists anymore so don’t be deceptive.
Really, I wonder how far you will take this Liberty. Only weeks ago you were implying a Blockian theory of libertarianism, now you are denouncing that as authoritative and rejecting the title of libertarian. Were you never really a libertarian?
He’s (?) been censoring too. I posted something on topic in another thread and I don’t know if it was L.S. or not, but it’s been erased. I didn’t even say anything at all other than ‘ethical subjectivists can’t say if the government is criminal or not’ and then I linked to this thread here to point out the current discussion. I posted it there because the discussion turned into the government and is it criminal or not. Somebody censored it and completely erased it. What the HELL is going on here?
Though your questions may be legitimate, at this point I prefer not to enter a serious dialogue with those who easily impugn the character of those they debate.
Pick another word. I didn’t say they are intentionally being dishonest. I’m trying to figure out what the hell they are trying to say whether or not it’s coming across the way they want it to for a positive or a negative is not my concern at this point.
So if they are being objective but are not knowingly being objective - that is my question. It’s usually called deception, but it by no means implies they are intentionally being deceptive.