How might libertarians solve the Trolley Problem?

Economics Political Theory
, , , ,
321

“Mises never claimed that values do not point at something outside the subject.”

And therefore he was mistaken to claim they are purely subjective. I’ve pointed out that Mises was a much better social theorist than “methodologist” before, and it is true here too – his condemnation of socialism clearly shows that he understood that value judgments are NOT “merely” personal, since he thought he was giving us good reasons not to make that choice!

“I’m still not clear how calling something cowardly can be anything more than an expression of one’s own value judgments”

Of course they are expressions of one’s value judgments. But certainly they are also something “more” than that, or they would not be even that! (Nothing whatsoever could be “nothing more” than an expression of a value judgment, since there is an evaluation of something as actually good or actually bad involved in a value judgment.)

“value judgments which can neither be verified nor refuted, and thus are of no use in questions of truth and falsity.”

Just so – practical reasoning is NOT about verification or refutation, and practical judgments are neither true nor false. This is the very point I keep trying to make in this thread. That does not mean such judgments can’t be judged as good or bad, and recognized as so intersubjectively, e.g., “You were an idiot to try to drive home drunk like that!” Judgments like deciding to drive home drunk can’t possibly be refuted or verified, since they aren’t truth claims, but actions.

PS – I’m gonna have to run folds. Good discussion – it’s helped me clarify some things I’ve been saying.

322

And therefore he was mistaken to claim they are purely subjective.

He uses the term “subjective” differently than you do. It is not a “mistake” to define a word differently.

his condemnation of socialism clearly shows that he understood that value judgments are NOT “merely” personal, since he thought he was giving us good reasons not to make that choice!

Those were only “good reasons” given certain personal ends. He distinguished between the science of praxeology and the political doctrine of liberalism. Praxeology assumes no ends. If a person values mass starvation above all else, praxeology cannot be “condemning” of socialism, given that person’s ends. Liberalism on the other hand simply addresses itself to the immense majority of humanity who prefer abundance to privation, health to sickness, and life to death; it assumes those preferences on the part of its addressees. Mises exhaustively describes socialism as a praxeologist; but he “condemns” it only as a liberal. And liberalism is a political doctrine: not a theory.

Of course they are expressions of one’s value judgments. But certainly they are also something “more” than that, or they would not be even that! (Nothing whatsoever could be “nothing more” than an expression of a value judgment, since there is an evaluation of something as actually good or actually bad involved in a value judgment.)

The “something as actually good or actually bad” is a referent of the value judgment; it is not part of the value judgment. The existence of subjective values depend on the existence of the objective facts they refer to; it does not follow from that proposition that subjective values include objective facts.

Just so – practical reasoning is NOT about verification or refutation, and practical judgments are neither true nor false. This is the very point I keep trying to make in this thread. That does not mean such judgments can’t be judged as good or bad, and recognized as so intersubjectively, e.g., “You were an idiot to try to drive home drunk like that!” Judgments like deciding to drive home drunk can’t possibly be refuted or verified, since they aren’t truth claims, but actions.

Yes, but I wonder what value such intersubjective judgments have in discussions like these. It seems to me that expressing one’s judgment of another person’s approach to decision-making as “cowardice” would only distract from the primary goals of science: refuting invalid existential propositions and verifying valid existential propositions.

PS – I’m gonna have to run folds. Good discussion – it’s helped me clarify some things I’ve been saying.

Take care. Thanks for stopping by.

323

And therefore he was mistaken to claim they are purely subjective. I’ve pointed out that Mises was a much better social theorist than “methodologist” before, and it is true here too – his condemnation of socialism clearly shows that he understood that value judgments are NOT “merely” personal, since he thought he was giving us good reasons not to make that choice!

Read my last post. I actually made an error in that one of the 3 things I said has an other-directedness does not. I wonder if anyone can point out the error.

Anyhow, valuation is totally personal but you are conflating it with its corresponding act. Praxeology links methodological subjectivism with ontological objectivism. Mises understood that the full range of actions are not merely personal.

324

I stand corrected. I ought to have said “infantile.”

I’m sorry, I am not aware of any infants that might have written what I wrote.

325

Does anyone know what he is talking about Mises changing Human Action in response to Rothbard? Is that just a complete lie?

326

I think you mean “method” not "methodology.

Methodology is a system of methods and principles for doing something… so…

if by that you mean makes them capable of deductive certainty

I didn’t mean that.

consider whether there is a “rigorous method” for deciding what is the right thing is to say in a conversation

One can judge better or worse methods at least when in respect of definite aims. For reference see psychology and the science of communication if you need help with methods of effective conversation.

At least we have got to the point where you have lowered the force of your claims to so much whining. You call someone a moral coward, so what, I can call you a moral monster (or anything)… so where does this get us?

327

“Methodology is a system of methods and principles for doing something…”

No, methodology is the study of such systems of methods.

“you have lowered the force of your claims to so much whining.”

I remember how in Middle School I used to act like this.

In any case, I just popped in to post a nice quote – next post.

328

“What can never be done is to reduce what has had to be learned in order to excel at such a type of [concrete] activity to the application of rules. There will of course at any particular stage in the historical development of such a form of activity be a stock of maxims which are used to characterize what is taken at that stage to be the best practice so far. But knowing how to apply these maxims is itself a capacity which cannot be specified by further rules, and the greatest achievements in each area at each stage always exhibit a freedom to violate the present established maxims, so that achievement proceeds both by rule-keeping and by rule-breaking. And there are never any rules to prescribe when it is the one rather than the other that we must do if we are to pursue excellence.” – Alasdair MacIntyre

329

You are simply wrong,. look in a dictionary. As i refer to not only the methods themselves but also to meta issues concerning them my use of methodology is entirely appropriate.

I remember how in Middle School I used to act like this.

so you have lost your short term memory and now only have your long term memory? my grandma is like that bless her.

330

“Does anyone know what he is talking about Mises changing Human Action in response to Rothbard? Is that just a complete lie?”

Cult members are always so nasty when anyone challenges their cult dogma. IF I turned out to be wrong about this, it couldn’t be that I am mistaken – no, I must be LYING! Because, after all, I am an EVIL STATIST!

Check out the many additions Mises made between editions one and three laying out the many legitimate tasks of government. Now, who would it be, who Mises knew, who was denying those tasks were legitimate, and made Mises feel he had to add that defense? And why do you think the Mises Institute went back to edition one for their “scholar’s” version? These were Mises own changes, and LVMI decided to try to blot them out of history! Why? Right in the intro it says “Because they were not for the better” (I quote from memory).

The maintenance of a govern- ment apparatus of courts, police officers, prison, and of armed forces requires considerable expenditure. To levy taxes for these purposes is fully compatible with the freedom the individual enjoys in a free market economy" (third ed., p. 282).
Also, these later editions substantially alter the definition of free- dom itself. In the original,Mises states: “Aman is free as far as he can live and get on without being at the mercy of arbitrary decisions on the
part of other people” (p. 279). Mises does not define “arbitrary,” but he appearsto have in mind actions that infringe on someone’sperson or property without his agreement. Revised editions, in contrast, state: “we may define freedom as that state of affairs in which the individual’s decision to choose is not constrained by governmental violence beyond the margin which the praxeological law restricts it anyway” (third ed., p. 282). T h e phrase “praxeologicallaw” (meaning the law of cause and effect in human affairs) works here as qualifier; it is so 'expansively applied that any government activity, however arbitrary, that is said to preserve or achieve “freedom” might be deemedpermissible.Theoriginaldefinition,morespecificandsmn- gent, rules out arbitraryinterventionsaltogether.

331

"You are simply wrong,. look in a dictionary. "

You are simply wrong. Read Fritz Machlup’s paper on the misuse of the word ‘methodology’. Just because some dictionary has endorsed a misuse does not now make it a proper use.

332

what scholarly literature had Rothbard written that Mises had read on the topic? and where is this documented?

333

You are simply wrong. Read Fritz Machlup’s paper on the misuse of the word ‘methodology’. Just because some dictionary has endorsed a misuse does not now make it a proper use.

I am wrong because Machlup says so? are you lecturing us on cultism now?

334

“I am wrong because Machlup says so? are you lecturing us on cultism now?”

Yeah, I’m one of the two members of the “Machlup cult.”

You are wrong because Machlup was right, not because “he said so.” Read the %^$%#$@% paper, mi ceffo.

335

“what scholarly literature had Rothbard written that Mises had read on the topic?”

Rothbard attended Mises’ seminar EVERY SINGLE WEEK FOR YEARS. Are you suggesting Mises was unaware of Rothbard’s views?

336

what is this paper called? is it available online?

337

Rothbard attended Mises’ seminar EVERY SINGLE WEEK FOR YEARS. Are you suggesting Mises was unaware of Rothbard’s views?

no.

Is your answer to the question that there is no such literature ?

338

Well, if you are not lying, and may only be mistaken, could you back up your assertions with more than motive as a conspiracy theory?

But that doesn’t prove anything. Based on what I know of Mises, he wouldn’t change what he thought if he didn’t believe it. This is a man who took a lot of risks with his own life, and made sacrifices with his career, and yet you portray him as someone who was easily bullied by Rothbard. It seems very inconsistent with Mises’ character.

Not to say it is impossible, but surely you realize the magnitude of your accusation?

And who in particular is masterminding this revision of history?

I kind of knew you by your reputation before you started posting to this thread, but you have exceeded everything I have heard by leaps and bounds. You constantly portray yourself as somehow being better than the people you are criticizing because they may be using the same tactics and language you are utilizing.

I pointed this out yesterday, and you disappeared rather quickly. Obviously you’re an intelligent man, but I am puzzled why you continue to act so foolishly unless you really think a different standard applies to you, or that no one is clever enough to see how uncommitted you are to productive and civil discussion.

You have shared no proof of anything you claim, but you do have a theory, and a theory is a start. But can you honestly promote your theory as fact, given that it seems to be based almost exclusively on your intuition?

Also, I really resent your portrayal of people in this community as cultists. First, because you are new to this community, and do not know many of the participants or the history of the discussion (this is not LvMI proper), and second, because more namecalling (which you don’t enjoy done to you) is embarassing to read, particularly given how many times your own work has been positively cited, referred and referenced here.

Perhaps you should take a break, and when you’re ready to have an honest discussion without the theatrics and logical fallacies, the pursuit of knowledge and a better understanding can result.

339

“These were Mises own changes, and LVMI decided to try to blot them out of history!”

In the introduction to the Scholar’s Edition, there is a list of the changes Mises made in later editions; you can also download the 4th edition with all the changes from mises.org. But in Gene Callahan’s crazy world, publishing something for free on the Internet counts as trying to blot it out of history.

340

Cult members are always so nasty when anyone challenges their cult dogma. IF I turned out to be wrong about this, it couldn’t be that I am mistaken – no, I must be LYING! Because, after all, I am an EVIL STATIST!

Check out the many additions Mises made between editions one and three laying out the many legitimate tasks of government. Now, who would it be, who Mises knew, who was denying those tasks were legitimate, and made Mises feel he had to add that defense? And why do you think the Mises Institute went back to edition one for their “scholar’s” version? These were Mises own changes, and LVMI decided to try to blot them out of history! Why? Right in the intro it says “Because they were not for the better” (I quote from memory).

Cult members? O RLY?

In the introduction to the Scholar’s Edition, there is a list of the changes Mises made in later editions; you can also download the 4th edition with all the changes from mises.org. But in Gene Callahan’s crazy world, publishing something for free on the Internet counts as trying to blot it out of history.

Yes, the intro lists changes in 2nd/3rd editions. I guess I could see if these are preserved into the 4th edition because it gives pages/excerpts. The one excerpt cited in the scholar’s intro is typical baseless assertions from Mises on his defense of statism.

ANYHOW, this whole charade by Callhan is a big fat strawman. The passage I was referring to exists back to the 1940 Nationalökonomie, and although my German is poor, I pointed out that it was unchanged from 1st-4th edition in English.