“The ethical valuation ‘good’ or ‘evil’ can be applied only in respect of ends towards which action strives… Since action is never its own end, but rather the means to an end, we call an action good or evil only in respect of the consequences of the action.”
This is the exact opposite of natural law, its hardly beyond.
Its personal. (subjective)
You are missing the point. Yes you would become wealthier, but no wealth has been created, its just been transferred.
Well I find that difficult to believe especially with the distinction concerning instrumental and constitutive means. Also praxeology shows that some economic theories specifically Socialism is an impossibility. Socialism is certainly an ‘end’ yet if we cannot criticize ends how can we say it is impossible?
And what is it aimed at? How is it enforced if everything is on a personal basis?
A problem for you perhaps. Not for me, or anyone who deliberately uses “material stuff” as a metric for wealth. (Or uses the economic definition). Metrics are arbitrary after all.
So you are postulating that wealth must be created in order for it to count? Can I not achieve wealth through the ‘diamond in the mountain’ example? Must I create the diamond in order to assign wealth to it?
You are conflating economics with ethics.
The same thing all ethics are aimed at. Its personally enforced, just as I “enforce” my enjoyment of poutine.
Not at all. Our ends are choose by us, not praxeology. Therefore we start off with an ethical value statement concerning an end we would like to pursue. Yet praxeology says a productive socialist economy is impossible. Therefore, if one values an apodictic social science which is based on logic and action then by that very same token such an individual is diminishing a certain set of ends [ namely socialism in this example ]. Praxeology shows us that some ends that we desire are not achievable and therefore pursuit of such ends could be deemed irrational, unproductive etc. Thus criticism of ends becomes acceptable.
So you will personally enforce all dictums that you feel are acceptable onto any given person? Let us postulate you greatly dislike the color blue, and your neighbor paints his house blue. Do you have the ‘right’ to tell him he cannot do such a thing?
I see… you are kind of confused about Mises. Solution - read more Mises.
Yes all. Not all ends start via ethical value statements.
Sure they do. You value the end you pursue because it is good in some form and relieves unease. That is the whole point of value judgments. Establishing what is good for you.
Absolutely wrong. I’ll enforce my ethics on others like I’ll enforce my taste on others. Won’t.
The right. Ha. I have all the liberty to tell him he cannot. But I can’t force him to do anything. (due to my ethical considerations which is among many other reasons).
Well then I honestly hope you are not rob or harmed. Yes, taking someone to court is enforcing ethical obligations ie ‘rights’
So he has the right to be left alone. I think I am starting to understanding your dilemma, you are very good on the supply side of rights [ afford people considerations such as NAP, property rights etc. ] but not so bold on the demand side
Anyways can we pick this up tomorrow?
You are still conflating econ and ethics. Usefuleness with rightness and wrongness.
Well in terms of means/ends what is useless to your end is in fact wrong in terms of means.
Think about this though,
Why do we have ends? Because we value the state of B as opposed to the state of A. Why value B? Because it is good, better, less unease etc.
Or legal obligations i.e. the actual meaning of ‘rights.’
No, he doesn’t have the right to be left alone. Remember “I have all the liberty to tell him he cannot.” I can clearly bother him. He could have the right if we had a contractual agreement (in turn I am obliged not to bother him) but until such a time, he has no right. My ethical considerations don’t constitute a right on either side.
Same error. Useless/Useful are functions of utility, it would be true/false, correct/incorrect, in terms of means. Its easier to understand if you use good/evil instead of right/wrong. Nobody would say that what is useless to your ends is in fact “evil” in terms of means.