Indeed. A consequentialistic argument appeals to praxeological theorems whereas a deontological argument appeals to our intuitive moral code.
I will have to ask what you mean by deontological reasoning at this point, because it’s not exactly clear. Consequentialism is intuitionist at its core, as it is based on the intuition that consequences are all that matter morally - and one wishes to know how one plans, precisely, to divorce the intentions behind an action (which is where deontology is rooted) from its consequences.
The word “innocent” is important in that passage. Almost no one believes that the implication of “violence against innocents” is a popularly defensible position. However, different ideological positions imply a different application of the word “innocent”. As an example, a statist would believe that a tax evader is not innocent whereas an anti-statist would believe that a tax evader is innocent. And, therefore, you may believe that enforced taxation does imply “violence against innocents” whereas others many believe that enforced taxation does not imply “violence against innocents”.
a murderer can believe that anyone he wants to murder is not ‘innocent’. what does that demonstrate? aside from that some people are wrong about things. it is so convenient to be wrong about things when they let you pretend that you arent being wrong
what exactly is a tax-evader guilty of pray tell? guilty of being ‘bad’ prey…its laughable on its face. why do you credit statist with tenable positions. they arent even tenable let alone convincing…
If they are not convincing, why do most individuals subscribe to them?
a combination of not being made to examine the coherence of their arguments. like people believing the Broken Window fallacy, par example.
also, there are incentives for net tax consumers. (i said net because I want to stay on Lam’s good side :-o )
also liberalism('progressivism) is a mental disorder akin to mass transference of childhood psychology .. or so i’m told…
The term “deontology” may be ambiguous in this situation. I meant to imply that “deontological reasoning” is reasoning that merely appeals to our intuitive moral code. As an example, the judgment that “murder is morally wrong” merely because it is inherently emotionally repulsive would be “deontological reasoning”.
If a less ambiguous or more appropriate term exists, tell me.
Why is that an intuition?
I did not think that deontology relied on intention. From Wikipedia.org:
“Deontological ethics or deontology (from Greek δέον, deon, “obligation, duty”; and -λογία, -logia) is an approach to ethics that holds that acts are inherently good or evil, regardless of the consequences of the acts.”
Yes, the “good” or “evil” (or in less loaded terms, justifiability) is of the intentions of the act. The paradigmatic form of deontology - Kantian ethics - is anything but intuitionist, being based on negative demonstrations of a sort to “prove” itself, so to speak, and is in that regard far more praxeological than consequentialism. Hoppe’s arg. ethics, whether or not it succeeds, is also more praxeological than consequentialism. Consequentialism is fine and all, but as a form of ethics needs to supply a rationale for its core principle.
And as for consequentialism being intuition-based, how is its core tenet not an intuition? I’ve certainly not seen any proof that consequences and solely consequences matter, though I’ve seen it asserted. Personally I am not in favour of a hard divide between consequentialism and deontology; it’s a useful conceptual distinction but both matter and I don’t think one can carve an action up in that way for ethical purposes.
The question that remains is: Do you believe that those fallacies can be utilitarianistically/consequentialistically refuted via praxeological theory and expected wants or do you believe that those fallacies can be deontologically/morally refuted via intuition or some other method?
If you want to merely use intuitive moral arguments, how would you persuade some one to believe that taxation is morally incorrect?
Those incentives exist only in the short-term. And, the substantiation of the claim in the previous sentence would be inherently utilitarian/consequentialistic.
Democracy breeds child-like adults . . . or so i am told . . .
Many times they differ from one another, so they certainly both cannot be correct, I don’t see how/why one could be an indirect form of the other. Unless some people evolved with an incorrect “moral code” and some with a correct one, but that doesn’t seem plausible.
Thats an interesting theory, one could chastise someone who violates the “moral code” as being “Counter Evolutionary!” But do all people even have the same " moral code" at all?