If objective morality doesnt exist, what justifies libertarianism?

[zefreak]

@wilderness

@zefreak

It is based on the (flawed) notion that the act of arguing is essentially a synthetic apriori from which libertarian ethics can be deduced.

You always make these ad hoc statements. I have never read anything of yours that actually explains with certainity why anything is flawed. I say anything meaning I’m not only talking about this particular discussion, but go on and discuss this particular “flaw”. I’ve been waiting.

I’ve given it. I made my argument in other threads. I’m not going to remake my argument every time it is relevant.. I can just allude to it and if someone is not familiar they can ask me.

[wilderness]

I’m not surprised by your response.

[zefreak]

@Solid_Choke

Arguments using epistemological premises AND ethical premises ARE NOT epistemological arguments (in the way that I stipulated it). Also, I didn’t say that application of Jasay’s reasoning leads one to accept the NAP. Instead it shows that statists (and anyone who would restrict liberty) aren’t in a position to know what they must know in order for their arguments to pull their own weight. They literally require what is unthinkable in order to justify statism. Of course they could reject any attempt to justify statism altogether and simply do it whether they have a reason or not and the epistemological arguments for libertarianism would have nothing to say about it. You must look beyond epistemology to justify getting up in the morning, but epistemological arguments tear the hell out of statism while basically leaving libertarianism relatively untouched.

I agree with this, although I think epistemological arguments do much more than leave libertarianism ‘relatively untouched’. It destroys a central tenant of libertarianism, the NAP.

[zefreak]

@wilderness

I’m not surprised by your response.

You shouldn’t be. It is pretty standard behavior in any discussion. Do you explain Rothbard’s attempted logical proof of the NAP every time you mention it?

[wilderness]

you can find Rothbard’s explanation, but I’ve never found yours.

good night

[E_R_Olovetto]

@zefreak

@Solid_Choke

Arguments using epistemological premises AND ethical premises ARE NOT epistemological arguments (in the way that I stipulated it). Also, I didn’t say that application of Jasay’s reasoning leads one to accept the NAP. Instead it shows that statists (and anyone who would restrict liberty) aren’t in a position to know what they must know in order for their arguments to pull their own weight. They literally require what is unthinkable in order to justify statism. Of course they could reject any attempt to justify statism altogether and simply do it whether they have a reason or not and the epistemological arguments for libertarianism would have nothing to say about it. You must look beyond epistemology to justify getting up in the morning, but epistemological arguments tear the hell out of statism while basically leaving libertarianism relatively untouched.

I agree with this, although I think epistemological arguments do much more than leave libertarianism ‘relatively untouched’. It destroys a central tenant of libertarianism, the NAP.

Why? Stuff like this is why I usually don’t bother with these 10+ page threads on natural rights. Also, why do you say “a central [tenet]” rather than “the central tenet”, as if there is something else?

[Telpeurion]

@Marko

@scineram

@Marko

@nandnor

If objective morality doesnt exist, what justifies libertarianism? Why go through the trouble to make the world better and more libertarian instead of pragmatically making one’s own life better and more comfortable, whatever its ideological implications be?

Why would you want to make your own life better and more comfortable?

Cause it is better? And he likes comfort?

It is not better. There is no “better” in a world without objectivity. It is just a preference. But then everything else is also a preference and therefore equivalent. So why presume that the “instead” instead of striving for libertarianism must be making your life more comfortable? Why not have the “instead” be tortuting yourself and inflicting bodily harm onto yourself?

Or why not have the “instead” instead of striving for libertarianism be striving for libertarianism?! What does it matter? Where everything is a preference you can not make a case for striving for X over striving for Y, therefore you can not based on this make a case for striving for X over striving for a libertarian world as the OP attempted.

That’s why its called SUBJECTIVE VALUE THEORY. Each individual has their own preferences, and then you go from there. Want objective value? What is the value of any given chair? Hmm? There are no objective values in the social sciences. Think about it.

[Conza]

@Telpeurion

That’s why its called SUBJECTIVE VALUE THEORY. Each individual has their own preferences, and then you go from there. Want objective value? What is the value of any given chair? Hmm? There are no objective values in the social sciences. Think about it.

Ahhh… haha

“You are conflating the Austrian subjective theory of value and a rational, objective ethics. Rothbard, in The Ethics of Liberty, makes the case that an objectivist ethics is possible. This is political philosophy, not economics.”

[Telpeurion]

@Conza88

@Telpeurion

That’s why its called SUBJECTIVE VALUE THEORY. Each individual has their own preferences, and then you go from there. Want objective value? What is the value of any given chair? Hmm? There are no objective values in the social sciences. Think about it.

Ahhh… haha

“You are conflating the Austrian subjective theory of value and a rational, objective ethics. Rothbard, in The Ethics of Liberty, makes the case that an objectivist ethics is possible. This is political philosophy, not economics.”

You can say there is some all pervasive moral force in the universe all you want, it doesn’t make it true. “Good” and “Bad” are all subjective. It has everything to do with economics and praxeology.

[wilderness]

Argumentation is a specie of human action.

[Sage]

@Telpeurion

That’s why its called SUBJECTIVE VALUE THEORY. Each individual has their own preferences, and then you go from there. Want objective value? What is the value of any given chair? Hmm? There are no objective values in the social sciences. Think about it.

You’re assuming that explanatory value subjectivism (explanation in terms of the actor’s values) entails normative value subjectivism (the view that there are no objective values). Economics requires at least EVS, but it’s not at all obvious that the latter follows from the former. See this for discussion.

[Sage]

@Solid_Choke

To show that those who accept ethical subjectivism don’t actually escape the problems of ethical objectivism like they think they do.

Long argues here that since normative terms involve endorsement, using normative terms commits us to regarding goodness, wrongness, etc. as genuine properties. He then draws on Wittgenstein’s arguments on pain to show that these properties have the status of objective, conceptual truths. Hence using normative terms commits us to ethical objectivism.

[Angurse]

@nandnor

If objective morality doesnt exist, what justifies libertarianism?

Individual preference.

@nandnor

Why go through the trouble to make the world better and more libertarian instead of pragmatically making one’s own life better and more comfortable, whatever its ideological implications be?

Because I can’t experience the fruits of the free market until one exists.

@nandnor

Why even acknowledge moral ideas for oneself instead of ignoring any kind and working from there? Letting go of the morals seems like letting go of a big burden to me.

Maybe its not that easy to just “let go” of your conscience. I know I can’t “let go” of my other subjective preferences, why would that be any different.

[Lilburne]

EDIT: Never mind what I wrote here earlier. I thought scineram was responding to the OP.

[Lilburne]

@nandnor

If objective morality doesnt exist, what justifies libertarianism? Why go through the trouble to make the world better and more libertarian instead of pragmatically making one’s own life better and more comfortable, whatever its ideological implications be?

Why even acknowledge moral ideas for oneself instead of ignoring any kind and working from there? Letting go of the morals seems like letting go of a big burden to me.

I don’t think a person with a normal conscience who deeply understands Austrian economics (especially the workings of a society based on the division of labor and private ownership of the means of production) can help but be a libertarian.

This is why, even though I cannot accept objective ethics without lying to myself, libertarianism is the only justifiable position for me.

[Snowflake]

@Lilburne

I don’t think a person with a normal conscience who deeply understands Austrian economics (especially the workings of a society based on the division of labor and private ownership of the means of production) can help but be a libertarian.

Yes.

@Lilburne

This is why, even though I cannot accept objective ethics without lying to myself, libertarianism is the only justifiable position for me.

[Y][Y][Y]

[Esuric]

The answer to this question is ultimately, nothing. If objective morality doesn’t exist, then nothing justifies libertarianism. It’s not ‘better’ than any other ideology.

[wilderness]

to get to the value root of this that I think is better - is - liberty is better than tyranny.

Esuric I could be off-topic from what you are trying to say, but I took that last sentence of yours from a vaccum and projected into it. I’m not necessarily arguing against you. I know I am arguing with you.

[Esuric]

@wilderness

to get to the root of this the values that I think are deeper are better. liberty is better than tyranny.

Are you taking some kind of utilitarian position, where liberty leads to ‘greater net utility’? That position may or may not justify coercion in particular circumstances, but the real question is: why shouldn’t you be a tyrant? It seems that the best approach would be strategical hedonism. Kill, steal and plunder whenever you can get away with it.

[wilderness]

@Esuric

@wilderness

to get to the root of this the values that I think are deeper are better. liberty is better than tyranny.

Are you taking some kind of utilitarian position, where liberty makes more people happier then tyranny?

I am simply saying liberty is better than tyranny. Don’t you agree? I think sometimes it’s over-complicated. The issue. Liberty is better. I like it. It is good. I don’t want to live in tyranny. etc, etc…

@Esuric

That may or may not be so, and it leads to all kinds of other problems, but the real question is: why shouldn’t you be a tyrant? It seems that the best approach would be strategical hedonism. Kill, steal and plunder whenever you can get away with it.

Argue that position, but I don’t know why you would suddenly want to. I haven’t seen you argue that way as of yet. Why the sudden change of mind?