“Spoken like a true statist”
Name calling – the ultimate argument!
The poster did not write that morality is about avoiding culpability… so … ?
I try to avoid culpability for all sorts of crimes by not performing them in the first place. Would you say that proves i don’t understand morality?
Hey, some people made really good and interesting situations. I like about “bouncing”. If someone throws a brick at me, I duck and the brick hits 3 years old child and kills him. Am I guilty?
To complicate the task consider this:
-
I know about the kid behind me.
-
I don’t know about the kid behind me.
Can someone offer some thoughts? I am rather confused on this one. I believe that in both ways I wouldn’t be considered guilty of “killing a child”, because it wasn’t me who threw a brick and I just ducked and didn’t initiate force on the kid. Seems legit. Trolley dilemma is easy one.
Mr. Callahan, you ought to keep in mind what libertarianism is. It is a system of punishment, not an all-encompassing “philosophy of life”. For instance, we only ask, “Is it a criminal action to determine what plants grow in my backyard or what chemicals enter my own bloodstream?”, not, “Ought I grow pot or smoke crack?”
It’s pretty sad when someone abandons a philosophy, it appears they never actually understood in the first place.
“The error here…is to confuse the question of the moral course of action for the person in such a tragic situation with the totally separate question of whether or not his seizing of lifeboat or plank space by force constitutes an invasion of someone else’s property right. For we are not, in constructing a theory of liberty and property, i.e., a “political” ethic, concerned with all personal moral principles. We are not herewith concerned whether it is moral or immoral for someone to lie, to be a good person, to develop his faculties, or be kind or mean to his neighbors. We are concerned, in this sort of discussion, solely with such “political ethical” questions as the proper role of violence, the sphere of rights, or the definitions of criminality and aggression. Whether or not it is moral or immoral for “Smith” - the fellow excluded by the owner from the plank or the lifeboat - to force someone else out of the lifeboat, or whether he should die heroically instead, is not our concern, and not the proper concern of a theory of political ethics.[5]” - Lifeboat Situations, TEOL - MNR
These last two posts really shine light on what libertarianism is about. The quote is really helpful in understanding those “fringe” cases.
Thanks, guys.
‘Mr. Callahan, you ought to keep in mind what libertarianism is. It is a system of punishment, not an all-encompassing “philosophy of life”. For instance, we only ask, “Is it a criminal action to determine what plants grow in my backyard or what chemicals enter my own bloodstream?”, not, “Ought I grow pot or smoke crack?”’
Mr. Olovetto, you ought to keep in mind what the question that started the thread was: ‘Should you flip the switch?’, not ‘Should failure to flip the switch be illegal?’
‘It’s pretty sad when someone abandons a philosophy, it appears they never actually understood in the first place.’
It’s also pretty sad when commas pop, up at random in sentences.
In any case, that’s a very nice quote, except that what the original poster asked was, ‘Is it moral to flip the switch?’ So, what is the point of quoting that here?
(Oh, and libertarianism is not ‘a philosophy.’)
Gene Callahan, have you read any of the non-natural rights, non-utilitarian liberals/libertarians like Anthony de Jasay?
Mr. Olovetto, you ought to keep in mind what the question that started the thread was: ‘Should you flip the switch?’, not ‘Should failure to flip the switch be illegal?’
Actually, the OP ends by asking, “how would a libertarian solve the trolley problem?”, which I answered. I still don’t understand who or what your original comment is directed at:
Just shedding responsibility. Moral cowardice in the first degree.
What is your answer to the problem anyhow?
(Oh, and libertarianism is not ‘a philosophy.’)
If it isn’t, what would it be? I was thinking of writing an essay on what libertarianism is. To me, the word can represent a range of political ideologies. At the same time, following praxeological reasoning leads to a legal philosophy, which in turn has the concomitant ideology of plumbline libertarianism. Divergent “libertarian” ideologies fail to form legal doctrines due to their internal contradiction.
Solid_choke, yes.
Sounds like his solution would be to make flipping the switch compulsory.
“If it isn’t, what would it be”
An ideology.
“following praxeological reasoning leads to a legal philosophy, which in turn has the concomitant ideology of plumbline libertarianism.”
How did Mises miss all that?
What is your verdict? I guess you don’t even have to even have libertarian values (for instance you could have progressive or conservative values) to be a “strict liberal” in the sense Jasay uses it. All you have to do is affirm the presumption of liberty and deny the legitimacy of the rule of submission.
“It’s also pretty sad when commas pop, up at random in sentences.”
Haha, bad habits. [sic? lol] Or just the lingering effects of a state tainted education.
“(Oh, and libertarianism is not ‘a philosophy.’)”
Yeah, it’s a political philosophy.
“If it isn’t, what would it be”
“An ideology.”
Interesting. How are you defining that? Are you going with Mises conception?
IX. THE ROLE OF IDEAS - HA, Chp 9 - Sec 2### 2. World View and Ideology
The theories directing action are often imperfect and unsatisfactory. They may be contradictory and unfit to be arranged into a comprehensive and coherent system.
If we look at all the theorems and theories guiding the conduct of certain individuals and groups as a coherent complex and try to arrange them as far as is feasible into a system, i.e., a comprehensive body of knowledge, we may speak of it as a world view. A world view is, as a theory, an interpretation of all things, and as a precept for action, an opinion concerning the best means for removing uneasiness as much as possible. A world view is thus, on the one hand, an explanation of all phenomena and, on the other hand, a technology, both these terms being taken in their broadest sense. Religion, metaphysics, and philosophy aim at providing a world view. They interpret the universe and they advise men how to act.
The concept of an ideology is narrower than that of a world view. In speaking of ideology we have in view only human action and social cooperation and disregard the problems of metaphysics, religious dogma, the natural sciences, and the technologies derived from them. Ideology is the totality of our doctrines concerning individual conduct and social relations. Both, world view and ideology, go beyond the limits imposed upon a purely neutral and academic study of things as they are. They are not only scientific theories, but also doctrines about the ought, i.e., about the ultimate ends which man should aim at in his earthly concerns.
And where exactly does libertarianism do that?
“Libertarianism, then, is a philosophy seeking a policy. But what else can a libertarian philosophy say about strategy, about “policy”? In the first place, surely-again in Acton’s words-it must say that liberty is the “highest political end,” the overriding goal of libertarian philosophy. Highest political end, of course, does not mean “highest end” for man in general. Indeed, every individual has a variety of personal ends and differing hierarchies of importance for these goals on his personal scale of values. Political philosophy is that subset of ethical philosophy which deals specifically with politics, that is, the proper role of violence in human life (and hence the explication of such concepts as crime and property). Indeed, a libertarian world would beone in which every individual would at last be free to seek and pursue his own ends-to “pursue happiness,” in the felicitous Jeffersonian phrase.” - TEOL, Chp 30 MNR
These are impracticle questions that are not worth calculating in most peoples lives, much less phathom the state of mental/physical condition your body will be in at the time.
Take an action and don’t beat yourself up over the consequences: even if your decision making is something “evil”, like choose the decision that pays better (something I may consider). There isn’t even a reason to ponder this, much less apologize for any action you make.
It’s funny that Callahan is so worked up about this. This track switch scenario originated as a part of a psychological study in which the choices of participants in this scenario were compared to the choices in a scenario where the choice was between directly pushing someone off a bridge onto a highway or allowing some larger thing to happen- can’t remember exactly. The point was to find how strong the impact of direct contact was in determining the choice that would be made. FYI, the choice to act in the case of flipping the switch was far higher, proving that calculation of casualties is insignificant compared to instinct (or whatever base impulse inhibits the pushing act).
“It’s funny that Callahan is so worked up about this.”
Yes, my blood pressure is up over 200, my eyes are bulging, and I’m frothing at the my mouth.
But you might notice that there are several hundred responses on this thread, only a few of which are by me. Why aren’t you remarking how “funny” it is that all these other people are “worked up” about it?
“There isn’t even a reason to ponder this…”
Yes, as Socrates said, “The examined life is not worth living.”
“Actually, the OP ends by asking, “how would a libertarian solve the trolley problem?”, which I answered.”
Yes, but ACTUALLY he asked how to answer a moral question, not a political one. (I love that snotty little “actually.”) So what was the point of your lecturing me on how libertarianism is not a moral philosophy, again?
“I still don’t understand who or what your original comment is directed at:”
The person who recommended just washing one’s hands of the whole situation, because “It’s not your fault.” Moral cowardice.