Don’t equate caring (emotional responses) with objective truths.
Also “devolve”, “nihilism” and “irrationalist” are just weasel words. Was Mises devolved, a nihilist and irrational? What is irrational to a praxeologist?
Bravo!
Of course. He was an amoralist. As to the ridiculous re-definition of rationality Mises made, it’s not to be taken seriously.
You see, any action is rational because it is an action. It’s an action because it’s rational and it’s rational because it’s an action. I can type any sort of nonsense. However, my typing nonsense is ‘rational’ otherwise I wouldn’t type nonsense.
Oh these great philosophers are sooo amazing…
- not involving questions of right or wrong; without moral quality; neither moral nor immoral.
- having no moral standards, restraints, or principles; unaware of or indifferent to questions of right or wrong: a completely amoral person.
Which definition are you using, #1 or #2?
You’ve also called me an amoralist but I tolerate such lies because I can be the bigger man. Spreading lies about people related to the institute however gets much less tolerance.
Explain yourself.
A reasonable post goes un-noticed by those who see witches. This thread is proving to be pretty dis-heartening when “uncaring = nihilism”.
Why don’t we just say that “uncaring people have cooties & should be crusaded against for not agreeing with me” & get the intellectual de-evolution over with?
I think Mises in a sense is like many on these forums. They talk of relativism but really underneath they assume something like natural rights. They hold private property as a universal good which is more in tune with human nature and they extend the theory of non-aggression to foreign individuals. I sometimes get the feeling that the only thing stopping them from becoming natural rights theorists themselves is a hesitation to be called such.
Mises made it very obvious that he was a utilitarian, a far, far cry from a Natural Rights Theorist. He displayed his complete hostility toward natural rights many multiple times.
That is a non-answer.
And yet he assumed that people held prosperity, life and liberty as positive states of being. Why would he do such a thing if he was such a utilitarian? Seems rather odd to say ‘I’m a utilitarian…but I see the value of property, prosperity, and life’ especially when the basis of utilitarianism is whatever maximizes the social welfare of the greatest amount of people. Certainly we could have a Benthamite panopticon situation in which %10-25 of the populace is imprisoned and forced to do hard labor for the sake of %90-75 of the populace. What objection could a utilitarian have towards such an institution that is not somehow implying a basis for natural rights? I think it safe to say that Mises would not support such an institution, but why wouldn’t he?
Well obviously Mises wasn’t a nihilist but like I told Anguse, he assumed ethical statements about the world so I think he tried to walk a tight line between his version of utilitarianism and something along the lines of Rothbardian ethics.
He held those institutions, private property, tolerance, liberty, etc, as being beneficial to human welfare and social utility, not because they were just. The exact opposite of natural rights.
Please read my add on about Bentham. Also natural rights does not mean that one disregards the consequences of such institutions. They are held in regard, maybe not to the point where they are the sole deciding factor, but certainly don’t go unconsidered.
Uh Oh. The tough student of amoralism is threatening me. Amoralist people means people who don’t believe that ‘objective’ morality is a valid concept. That includes you and Mises. And of course, ‘subjective’ morality is nonsense.
whatever you say master.
Well a ‘radical subjectivist’ (like you or Mises) can’t talk about ‘human welfare’, I hope you are clever enough to see that.
As to ‘social utility’ that’s a completely meaningless concept.
So…Mises and utilitarianism - utter fail.
Too right; it simply isn’t true that there seems to be an awful lot of subjective views on what real objective morality is*. It’s also a good thing we can just type these kinds of sentences without actual arguments, & still be taken seriously as intelligent beings.
*Note: An observation & counter to Juan’s assumption, not an endorsement, in case anyone got excited about having an instant internet retort.
Can you also talk about relationships & the poor quality of airline foods? I think you missed that in your last post.
I take it you are being oh so sarcastic ?
You also subscribe to amoralist nonsense and believe that I’m supposed to write a treatise to refute your ‘opinions’ eh ? You’ll have to wait a bit more…
Also, I could say…“It’s a good thing that people can be amoralists and ‘libertarians’ and still be taken seriously and considered intelligent.” Though I personally don’t take amoralists seriously…
And that’s more sarcasm suggesting that my posts contained irrelevant elements ? You know, for some reason I felt reluctant to say that “you don’t get it” but the sad fact is that you don’t get it.
Ah, so it’s just your own ad hoc definition not an insult.
Excellent company.
If you need any help comprehending it, I would be happy to enlighten you.
Juan, here is to hoping that one day you get it. Everything you deserve. [:D]
Cliff Notes:
If I disagree with your view(s), I obviously must be for whatever side or view that you oppose. I can’t decide whether the undercurrent of collectivist paranoia in your posts is hilarious, tragic, or creepy.
Please, continue calling me an amoralist because I’ve repeatedly shown a resistance against censorship of discussion amid members on the forum that you do not personally approve of, because their views are different form yours.
Are you seeing the contradiction, or do you want to keep throwing darts at a brick wall?
No, but you could stop playing the pseudo-troll on an internet forum long enough to have intelligent discourse and/or enough honesty to consider that you yourself could be wrong, in addition to others.
As for a treatise; why the wait?
All one would need to do is compile a script of some sort to gather all of your posts on this forum into a single thread, and thus, The Book of Juan is born.
A lolcat of Machavelli on the cover would give the potential reader a strong indication of it’s potential intellectual content, methinks.