With respect to Rothbardian dislike for utilitarian doctrines, I think there are problems with at least specific utilitarian doctrines (at least to the extent that they consist in narrow or problematic definitions of what constitutes “utility”, or to the extent that they are “collectivist” doctrines). However, I don’t agree with Rothbard’s move towards total anti-consequentialism and “natural law” theory, as it is full of philosophical problems and amounts to a ridiculously rigid moral absolutism. Of course, since I have a “pragmatist” bent, I don’t believe in “metaphysical foundations” for ethics or that such a thing is necessary, and “natural law” is basically a gigantic attempt to “metaphysically ground” an absolutist morality.
Well, I’d at least say that it’s hard to completely avoid consequentialist considerations in any ethical discourse. I think most people are implicitly at least partly consequentialist, even many self-proclaimed deontologists.
I don’t intend to go too far off-topic here though.
With respect to Rothbardian dislike for utilitarian doctrines, I think there are problems with at least specific utilitarian doctrines
Well, two list two, any one that proposed to intersubjectively measure utility is obviously wacky, likewise ‘maximizing the greatest good of the greatest number’ may just be mathematically impossible under many situations.
However, I don’t agree with Rothbard’s move towards total anti-consequentialism and “natural law” theory, as it is full of philosophical problems and amounts to a ridiculously rigid moral absolutism.
Right, and it’s also not convincing to anyone who isn’t already a libertarian.
Of course, since I have a “pragmatist” bent, I don’t believe in “metaphysical foundations” for ethics or that such a thing is necessary
I don’t even believe in morality in the way most people might use the term, and I don’t find it useful to argue about sort of emotional-laden nonsense that most people think of as their ‘moral’ feelings. I figure if a person can’t take consequences and simple logical consistency into account, there isn’t much point in talking to them about mystical reasons they get offended.
I think most people are implicitly at least partly consequentialist, even many self-proclaimed deontologists.
Of course they are, deontic ethics are the province of mad-men.