Yes in the sense that it is an ethical system whose basis is that the maximization of social welfare is the highest end to be pursued. No in the sense of what that goal is.
Reason would be sufficient for me. How can you propound a system of economical theory concerning private property while also announcing that no one has a right to defend said property from trespassers, that we have a right to reside in an environment free of coercion? You say Austrian-ism is objective, but how can you have things like double inequality of value, or any subjective evaluation of goods and services if you don’t have a objective system of property rights and if you have such a system then why not also an ethical / legal system that espouses true ethical statements such as
Stealing is wrong
Taxation is stealing
Therefore taxation is wrong.
You can’t have a system of property rights without a system of legal codes and if you have such a system then you have an objective ethical system that applies to all who reside in a given area.
If you want to be nasty then that is your choice, I’m content with the knowledge that I at least made an effort to be kind.
It doesn’t depend. You either were (are) calling me a joker or not. Facts, you know. Realism. Although your thoughts are not material & ‘observable’, you do know what you were doing, and it was either A or not-A.
Anyway, I don’t really care if you call me a joker or not - it doesn’t make feel anything. I was just curious about your ‘personal’ ethics.
As to pretending that my accurate description of ethical subjectivism was comedy, well, thanks, if you laughed at it, that sort of concedes the point that ethical subjectivism is a joke.
Yet not all the Greeks agreed to the rules, nor were they ever proven as being. Its as silly as utilitarianism and the social contract theory in my opinion.
Economics deals with human action while ethical systems deal with which human actions are acceptable and unacceptable.
Cooperation over what? Without property rights what is there to cooperate over?
My comment was concerning the viewpoint of logical positives towards ethical theory. I don’t see how me saying that means you aren’t rude for making an insulting remark about me.
I’ll respond to your retorts on this topic tomorrow for anyone who has any.
## eth⋅icsA [Use **ethics** in a Sentence](http://ask.reference.com/web?q=Use+ethics+in+a+Sentence&qsrc=2892&o=101993)[See web results for **ethics**](http://ask.reference.com/web?q=ethics&o=100049)[See images of **ethics**](http://ask.reference.com/pictures?q=ethics&o=100049) -plural noun
(used with a singular or plural verb) a system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture.
the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.: medical ethics; Christian ethics.
moral principles, as of an individual: His ethics forbade betrayal of a confidence.
(usually used with a singular verb) that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions.