Liberterianism makes you stupid

Miscellaneous Newbies
61

That these moral urges are the results of an inherent tendency is what makes them natural in the Aristotelean sense. Therefore, the rights conferred in response to these urges in the minds of the people who feel these urges ar****e natural rights.

It is “binding” to those who heed the natural moral urges. It is not effectively binding to those who do not. When A says B ought not to brutalize C, of course it’s a subjective statement. Morality, like all values, arises subjectively, but can be objectively observed. The statement, “B is evil” of course is not true on a universal materialist level. He is not “evil” to a banana slug or to a lump of coal or to you. Natural rights are indeed subjective; that does not make them unnatural, non-rights, or unreal.

So, if you saw a man brutalizing a young girl in an alley, you would not think that was wrong?

Okay, then, go promote your egoist libertarianism among the Aspberger’s set, and stop claiming that the rest of us are irrational for having natural moral urges.

…among Aspberger’s sufferers. I am completely aware and completely comfortable with my grounding morality in the emotions. David Hume, to my mind, proved that morality can only have its ultimate source in primary passions, and not in reason…

“This is the second part of our argument; and if it can be made evident, we may conclude, that morality is not an object of reason. But can there be any difficulty in proving, that vice and virtue are not matters of fact, whose existence we can infer by reason? Take any action allow’d to be vicious: Wilful murder, for instance. Examine it in all lights, and see if you can find that matter of fact, or real existence, which you call vice. In which-ever way you take it, you find only certain passions, motives, volitions and thoughts. There is no other matter of fact in the case. The vice entirely escapes you, as long as you consider the object. You never can find it, till you turn your reflection into your own breast, and find a sentiment of disapprobation, which arises in you, towards this action. Here is a matter of fact; but `tis the object of feeling, not of reason. It lies in yourself, not in the object. So that when you pronounce any action or character to be vicious, you mean nothing, but that from the constitution of your nature you have a feeling or sentiment of blame from the contemplation of it.”

That morality is grounded in emotion does not make it any less important, real, or natural. That is because we humans have an inborn tendency toward certain common moral urges. So I with my natural moral urges can talk meaningfully to another human who, by virtue of being human (and not having Aspberger’s), has similar urges. That is what people without neurological disorders do when they talk to each other about natural rights.

62
  • “So, if you saw a man brutalizing a young girl in an alley, you would not think that was wrong?”

No, whether I object to it or not would be entirely a matter of personal motivation. I don’t think it’s too implausible, for example, that defending my friends could be an entirely egoistic behaviour. But there is no value in ‘persons in themselves’.

  • “Okay, then, go promote your egoist libertarianism among the Aspberger’s set”

I don’t promote ‘egoist libertarianism’, I accept and choose to argue egoism as a fact and I happen to agree with libertarians on a number of consequentialist points. To point out one example, I do not think that the State is evil, but I do think that no one actually has any reason to ‘obey’ the state.

  • “and stop claiming that the rest of us are irrational for having natural moral urges.”

Having a ‘moral’ sense - a sense that certain things are socially/interpersonally acceptable - is not ‘irrational’. It seems to be a fact of biology. But the sorts of statements these feelings motivate people to make - saying, for example, “You should not do that” are literally false. And you can not find coherent fault with someone for rejecting the values which underly the judgement. Morality literally has no claim on anyone who disagrees with you - and since categorical imperatives are fundamentally impossible, all morality (libertarian or otherwise) at best amounts to fiction or propaganda.

  • “I am completely aware and completely comfortable with my grounding morality in the emotions. David Hume, to my mind, proved that morality can only have its ultimate source in primary passions, and not in reason.”

That’s wonderful for you, but many libertarians think morality is objective, imperative and beyond questions of actual motivation.

The final point I would make, which dovetails with the rest, is that even though moral feelings are real, they are intrinsically personal feelings among specific people. And it is simply not plausible to state that all people having a moral feeling must share the same basic principles or conclusions. Not on sheer logic, and certainly not empirically. Which means that whatever is wrong with communists consequentially, their moral theory is not any more or less ‘true’ than the libertarian one. Nor is it - in fact - any less egoistic. It simply inclines people to feel that it is not egoistic. But all action is, by simple fact of individual existence, egoistic in the broad sense.

63

Somehow you feel the need to keep on babbling your stupid stirnerite propaganda ? Why ?

64

While I may not be sure that Vichy is who she claims to be, she has answered questions put to her without being insulting or evasive. If you have a problem with something she has said, surely you are capable of more than demeaning her replies as babbling, and her ideas as stupid.

Enough with the Ad Homs.

65

I don’t think it’s an ‘ad-hominem’ at all. She’s clearly said that empathy is meaningless to her, but she still keeps on posting messages. Why ? She should be talking to a cat or to a stone.

Ah, you didn’t read her messages. I’m not sure why you’re commenting then.

66

I didn’t ask you what you thought.

Stop being insulting. It’s not a request.

67

Uh Oh. You are being macho ?

68

That such statements are subjective does not make them false: in fact it is not even appropriate to ask whether they are true or false, anymore than asking if, “that puppy is cuter than the other one” is objectively true or false. When most people say, “you should not do that”, they basically mean, “I feel that what you’re doing is wrong,” not “that action is objectively, and somehow cosmically, wrong”. Yes, a good number of libertarians try to make out natural rights to be Kantian categorical imperatives; and I agree with you that they are incorrect in that. But to dismiss all moral judgments as based on Kantian nonsense is ridiculous.

Almost everybody feels that murder, rape, plunder, and enslavement are wrong: that much is empirically clear. And each one of those mental concepts entails a sense of property rights. Those who participate in or support murder, rape, plunder, and enslavement either are abnormal or bury those feelings for the sake of their own aggrandizement. Communists fit the latter category.

69
  • That such statements are subjective does not make them false

Indeed, it is literally true, for example, that “Chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla,” insofar as we remember this is ‘true of my preferences’. But it is important to realise that all values actually exist on in specific individuals - so to say, “That goes against my sense of morals,” might be coherent but to conclude, “Therefor you should not have done that” is not. You can not tell a person what they should or should not have done except as a hypothetical imperative. And this is the sense that I used the distinction of the ‘categorical’ imperative - not in a strictly Kantian manner, but in the sense of, “you should/should not have acted as you did”, since the person was obviously in a literal sense acting on their actual values - in the only manner really available to them, in fact.

  • Almost everybody feels that murder, rape, plunder, and enslavement are wrong: that much is empirically clear. And each one of those mental concepts entails a sense of property rights.

Most humans have some sense that certain activites are outside the bounds of acceptability, or at least reprobate. They also have a sense that people should respect certain spheres of autonomy, entailing of course control over physical resources. But it is simply false to say they believe this absolutely - they don’t - or to say they are inconsistent for failing to do so. Values entailing some sense of liberty, property, equality, fairness are basically normal among human beings, but their proportions and entailments vary greatly. And you can not rationally call this ‘wrong’ - a freakish idolatry of property or equality is not implied by having an intrinsic sense that these values are valuable.

70

People who say “you should not have acted as you did” don’t generally mean that the action was inconsistent with the actor’s own values. They mean that the action was inconsistent with their own (that is, the speaker’s) values.

They vary greatly precisely because they, again, are quieted by many for the sake of aggrandizement.

Yes, I can, because “wrong” is subjective. I am sincerely and spontaneously outraged when I think about seizures of property. Therefore, I say that it is wrong. A communist may say the same about me holding private property. But I strongly suspect he would be posturing when doing so. Revulsion toward plunder is natural and near-universal. Revulsion toward private property is neither, and is generally only to be found among the theory class who would personally benefit from their theories taking hold.

71

Humans are not really moral agents. Rather they are chemical machines which avoid certain pre-programmed emotions…

Proof ?

What is kantian nonsense ?

Also, notice that almost everybody feels that murder in the name of ‘your country’ is thoroughly legitimate…so maybe it is ?

72

Don’t humans renounce this action during some late point in life, usually? I’m translating “murder” as in an assasin of the state.

73

Isn’t the very definition of words such as murder, rape, theft, etc wrong to at least the victim? Or am I missing your entire point?

74

I was referring to what Vichy might think of as Kantian nonsense. I actually have deep respect for Kant as a thinker. However, I do think he erred when he tried to establish morality as based on reason alone with his notion of the categorical imperative. I also believe that Rothbard (although he is my favorite human who ever lived) was incorrect in similarly basing property rights on reason alone. Like I said before, I believe Hume was right when he said that the ultimate spring of morality is the passions. I discuss Rothbard’s critique of Hume’s position here.

Like I said, humans shove aside their moral code when in situations of extremity (“lifeboat situations”): this is not proof that the moral code does not exist, only that people will act immorally (commit “necessary evils”) in conditions of extremity.

And almost everybody feels killing innocents in war is a necessary evil. This is one of the innumerable examples of the state having convinced most of humanity (through public school and mainstream media indoctrination) that society is in a perpetual “lifeboat situation” in which a great many “necessary evils” must be committed by the state, else the “lifeboat” of society will keel over and everybody will drown. Again, this is a lie. More consistent adherence to morality would emerge should this lie be exposed.

75

I know we had this debate before, but I feel compelled to rake it up one more time:

Humans are life forms made up of particles. Some of these particles constitute admirable structures which are capable of things we call “reasoning” or “morality”. Still, the human body is bound by its biological origin; in all likelihood, there was no magic touch that enabled us to step out of line. In that sense, humans are indeed masterpieces of chemistry.

Sarcastically denying it won’t make it wrong.

Vichy,

I was very pleased with your eloquent defense of moral nihilism. Have you ever looked into emergence? If yes, what do you think of it? And what’s your take on free markets? I haven’t been able to make that out as of yet.

76

I am increasingly getting the feeling that someone is a crank according to whether they agree with your own prejudices or not, i.e. the typical way this label is used, e.g. Mark Blaug dismissing Mises as a “crank” because of his methodological inclinations. I think I am just going to go directly to the thinkers you rely on, if I want their arguments, because this is becoming dull. Yes, “real” thinkers like Friedman.

Then from Sphairon…

And? Is this meant to be surprising/illuminating/interesting, as opposed to trivial and trite?

77

Pure Poetry![:)]

Excellent… very well written. Much of what you stated in this thread of the same, simply beautiful![:)]

78

Well, it has quite a number of interesting implications if you ask me. Lack of “free will” would be among them; it also confirms what Vichy said about Asperger’s patients being unable to feel empathy and thus, having a necessarily different approach towards morality than non-Aspergers.

And I know, this has all been said before and it’s not really shocking. But there seems to be this nagging rejection of the purely chemical/biological/physical nature of man that incentivizes me to repeat the state of affairs every now and then.

79

If you want an exposition of a type of free will from a thoroughgoing naturalist, look up Daniel Dennett’s On Giving Libertarians what they say they want. Then again I am not the kind of person who is inclined to eliminate something because modern science is alleged to have a difficulty explaining it.

80

How does being the latter preclude being the former?