And I would disagree with natural rights theory. Fair enough.
To those individuals who are not admitted rights
.
Sheep
.
Not all humans are either, lol. I think the ability to suffer is more important than intelligence when defining the rights of an individual
.
I agree. That’s why I find libertarianism a promising ideology.
Absolutely correct, but that does not mean we’re not free to define rights in any way we want. You can define a right to freedom, but if somebody enslaves you, you can’t fulfill that right.
Utilitarians generally speaking are attached to something other than happiness, such as “happiness of the greatest number” or some such nonsense, which is all the worse off because utility is agent-relative, ordinal and not comparable between individuals except in the most speculative sense possible, and moreover its own principle is as in much need of proof as that of any other moral system. You could say you’re a eudaemonist, but that does not necessarily mean you’re a utilitarian unless you accept the system’s additional commitments.
side note: And I thought you didn’t understand flourishing[;)]
It means that morals are relative. Disagreements on moral issues cannot be compared to disagreemments on scieitific issues, because science operates with quantifiable objects that provide absolute answers.
I don’t see why. Are you saying that the very existence of crime means that morals (and crime) are relative ?
So ?
Empirical and quantifiable science relies on more fundamental philosophical insights which are not quantifiable.
Well, we oppose anyone preventing anyone else from pursuing their own peaceful happiness. So rights withholding is something libertarians are very much against.
Fair enough. But generally, humans are capable of rational analysis. Animals are not.
It’s only valuable if you value peace.
Utilitarianism is in need of proof, but I start by observing that all beings seem to prefer happiness to suffering. I cannot prove this, but it’s the only rationale.
I think slavery is wrong, not because it prevents the freedom of a rational being, but because it causes suffering. Therefore I also think harming animals is wrong.
Never show all your cards.
I’m saying that what is considered immoral varies from person to person, from time to time, and from culture to culture.
Therefore moral truths don’t exist. Morals are constructs of our brains.
Like “we have to trust our senses”?
Then you might as well say you’re a eudaemonist (or better yet, hedonist - in the philosophical sense) and avoid attaching yourself to all the extra baggage utilitarianism carries with it.
But that is not true.
Really, the fact that some people are slave drivers doesn’t mean that slavery is justified. Rather, slave drivers use violence because slavery is not justified. If slave drivers could justify slavery and ‘convince’ their slaves that they are to work ‘for free’ then it wouldn’t be slavery, but some sort of voluntary (if absurd) arrangement.
Maybe mathematical truths don’t exist either ? They are constructs of our brains…
Right.
As long as they’re reserved rational beings
Depends what you mean by rational analysis. I’d say this dog is rational http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FgONyS_qvI&feature=related
Anyway, I don’t agree that rights should protect rationality. I think they should protect interests. And animals definitely do have interests.
You’re right, there are different types of utilitarianism.
It’s justified by the slave drivers! Not necessarily the slaves.
No, they use violence because the slaves oppose their will.
Like today’s debt-based monetary system?
Maybe the whole universe is just an illusion. That is a possibility. I don’t see that as an argument in favor of accepting moral realism.
He’s saying you either strip mathematical truths of any veridical status because they’re mental constructs or stop applying a double standard to moral truths. The notion that the universe is an illusion - besides being little more than fanciful conjecture - is irrelevant. Really. Irrelevant.
You mean justified for them, because I’ve yet to see a justification of slavery that can stand up to any rational examination.
I can see that the earth isn’t flat. So can every seeing person. I cannot see that slavery is wrong.
As a moral relativist, I’ve yet to see a rational justification of libertarian rights. Even if I like those rights. Maybe I’m just not intelligent enough, but I’m not gonna accept anything based on authority .
Btw, I’d be very grateful if somebody would debunk this epilogue: Rogue economics - #6 by alimentarius
It is irrelevant whether you’ve “seen” a justification or not for them, because at the moment its slavery that is lacking one…