Indeed, Long does use such an argumentation. But what people don’t seem to get is that this analogy does not constitute long’s argument for objective ethics. Really, has anyone here even read Long’s defense of objective ethics GROUNDED on praxeology? It’s the last chapter of his praxeological investigations… not so many pages… people should give it a try. I believe many would change theirs minds after reading it.
Long, Rothbard, Mises, Hoppe, etc… all ground their ontological/scientific sociology with praxeology. Sometimes there is a misunderstanding over the fact that a link between the two is possible without ruining what the essential nature of what ontological/scientific sociology and praxeology entail. I haven’t read Long (and he’s not mentioned in those links), but I find no reason to think he is out of that loop. They are all knowledgeable about praxeology and I’ve never seen anything posted in the forum that would say differently. It’s usually participants of the forum, me included, that have yet to attain an accurate insight into any one of those philosophers/economists at any one or more point while being here that leads to misconceptions and thus misrepresentations.
side A: “No, that’s not what he is saying.”
side B: “Look I found this here.”
side A: “Yes. And that doesn’t change anything he is still not saying what you think.”
misrepresentations and misconceptions.
Welcome to the Forum![:)]
There are some in the forum, such as the OP of this thread, that have studied Long intensively so you will find others that would probably agree with your sentiments.
Pedro:
Link ?
Adam
I’m well aware that all major austrian economists ground their ethics with praxeology. The difference about Long, i would say, is
1- His major aristotelean/wittgensteinian approach, which makes it MUCH more attractive (Aristotle, because he’s generally right in all the major philosophical issues (including ethics). Wittgenstein because he’s the best philosopher that we have seen since the whole primacy of concsiousness of modern philosophy, annihilating the crap that has been living since Descartes. He provides us with MAJOR insights for praxeology, by the way). You should really check out the way he makes wittgenstein philosophy pressuppose metaphysical realism.
2 - You should really read the last chapter of this book: http://mises.org/journals/scholar/long.pdf In it, Long shows how we are committed to objective judgements of value in every action of ours that commits us to accept the ultimate end as “the good”, and, using a fregean argument he shows how value judgements DO have logical consistency, and are not reducible to the emotivist BS. Then, using a Socratic/Wittgensteinian strategy, he shows how we can trace conceptual connections between our concepts that commit us to value suffering injustice more than doing injustice (to value more the good than the bad), for example. So, his grounding of ethics on praxeology is MUCH more broad, and not just a few axioms here and there. (besides, ethics of virtue kicks ass and is certainly the future for libertarianism)
Since I’ve been heavily learning about realism as of late, I probably will be going down this path eventually. Just the other day somebody brought up wittgenstein and now you have to, in relation to realism, so, I guess I’m on the epistemic peripheral of learning what that will all entail. Thanks! I’ll check out that pdf of long’s work.
edit: I just checked out the beginning of that pdf and it looks really awesome. yes indeed, I’ll probably end up reading that whole pdf.
Nice! If you ever want to talk about a related subject, I would enjoy very much. There are very few people that accept wittgenstein, aristotle and praxeology all together. I’m brazilian, btw, so, if i ever say something strange, it’s because english is not my natural language, hehe. Thanks for your welcome, btw.
I would have never thought english was not your first language. Your posts are very clearly written. Until next time. good evening[:D]
Nice summary. Have you listened to Long’s lecture series?
No, i haven’t. Thank you very much. Isn’t there any written material of this lectures? It’s kinda hard for me to understand the audio.
Yes, there’s a handout here.