However, it is not only in history and in the other sciences that make use of the conceptual tools of historical investigation that we find universally valid statements about human action. Such knowledge also constitutes the foundation of the normative sciences - ethics, the philosophy of law, and systematic jurisprudence. The primary task of political philosophy, the philosophy of law, and political science is the attainment of universally valid knowledge of social phenomena.
it seems there are normative sciences…? later on:
it is not difficult to point out in every conceivable human (that is, conscious)action the fundamental categories of catallactics, namely, value, good,exchange, price, and costs. Not only does the science of ethics show this, but even everyday popular usage gives us ample demonstrations of it…
Again, this is what Mises means when he says “morality”:
Human Action, 27.3:
"There is, however, no such thing as a perennial standard of what is just and what is unjust. Nature is alien to the idea of right and wrong. “Thou shalt not kill” is certainly not part of natural law. The characteristic feature of natural conditions is that one animal is intent upon killing other animals and that many species cannot preserve their own life except by killing others. The notion of right and wrong is a human device, a utilitarian precept designed to make social cooperation under the division of labor possible. All moral rules and human laws are means for the realization of definite ends. There is no method available for the appreciation of their goodness or badness other than to scrutinize their usefulness for the attainment of the ends chosen and aimed at.
From the notion of natural law some people deduce the justice of the institution of private property in the means of production. Other people resort to natural law for the justification of the abolition of private property in the means of production. As the idea of natural law is quite arbitrary, such discussions are not open to settlement."
(The bolded portion is for wilderness.) This position is not what people think of when they think of moralism. So calling Mises a moralist is highly misleading.
Nir,
I know you’re convinced that Mises was a moralist. It’s frustrating that someone so bright as you can so extensively misread someone who wrote so clearly as Mises; but that’s the way it is. I’ve carefully read Human Action 4 or 5 times by now, as well as much of his other writings, and I know from your previous posts that you’ve carefully studied Mises too. We are both reflective, rigorous, and self-critical, and neither of us are dilettantish, doctrinaire ancap apologists. So at some point we’ll just have respectfully regard each other from across the divide, and recognize that we are two thoughtful people who have come to different conclusions from reading the same texts, and that’s the way it’s going to be. I’m more than okay with that, because you’re my favorite debating partner, and I always find discussion with you more stimulating than frustrating. But do you at least agree with me, Rothbard, and just about everybody else that wilderness is incorrect in asserting that Mises was a natural law/natural rights proponent?
ok. Let’s be ontological objective here and know, in other words, intellectually apprehend the words Mises wrote down: science of ethics. In other words, “we find universally valid statements about human action… constitutes the foundation of the normative sciences - ethics, the philosophy of law, and systematic jurisprudence.”
So there is a science called ethics. And a science called philosophy of law, and one called systematic jurisprudence.
actually epistemological problems is a good book because it highlights some confusion about what Mises was denying in those passages he has been quoted denying a science of oughts.
he writes here:
Before the introduction of this pair of concepts, ethics was a doctrine of what ought to be. It sought to establish the goals that man should adopt.
for Mises when he says ‘ought’ he means ‘goals that should be adopted’
In response to this I assert that Utilitarians don’t spend their time arguing about whether its fortunate or unfortunate that good food and friendship are pleasurable and the lack thereof is unpleasurable. neither do they argue whether god desires that all men find pleasure in X , or simply that they should do Y. Rather, they take the goals, ends, values of people that form a society, as facts and they restrict themselves to analysing means, and the consequences of actions. Yet for all that, they still consider themselves to be doing ethics, to be moralising, and to be guided by reason.
I hate this game of words. It is just an exercise of constant equivocations and conflations. It proves nothing besides that you are able to abuse our language.
And that’s why Mises is wrong. Natural law within it’s tradition is a human device. It always has been. I’ve quoted this to you before by authors that are not even Rothbard. If you can’t understand the paradigm of natural law then that is why you will forever completely misconceptualize what natural law of human nature is. It is of human nature. That’s natural law tradition 101. Mises, I’m learning, grew up in a place that was hostile to natural law. The German Third Reich tried to justify their actions via natural rights, but never actually followed the natural rights of the thousand year tradition. I quoted that to you in the other thread. I have no clue why Mises is making this argument when within the tradition of natural law is well accepted that is only of the human intellect. This is why you consistently misrepresent natural law. It is a blind spot in your philosophy. It is why when you and Adam and some others come on here, consistently misrepresent and get a philosophical discourse that finds the need to plug up your misrepresentations. Mises wasn’t perfect. He errored on what natural law is. But it is understandable considering the climate he grew up in.
utilitarian?
Nobody disagrees with this. So, don’t bring it up. It’s bad philosophical posturing.
Again. Mises is wrong. Natural law of human nature, semantically means: intellectual/logical law of human nature. How is logic arbitrary? Actually argue the point or concede.
Mises is quoted as saying there is a science of ethics.
It is frustrating that someone so bright as you can so extensively misread someone who wrote so clearly as Mises.
but that’s the way it is.
Well, argue with Mises cause he called for the protection of life, liberty, health, and property. Stop arguing that point with me. Argue against Mises.
I think you miss the whole point by diverting this thread into an argument about natural law. It’s what life, liberty, health, and property are. They are natural rights of the natural law tradition. And Mises called for them to be protected. Mises called Liberalism a science. He said that the most advanced science can benefit ethics and called ethics a science.
I have understood that in this thread Wilderness has done what I have been doing, which is to show that Mises was a utilitarian in ethical philosophy ( a la Hazlitt). I certainly do agree with you, and Rothbard both, that Mises was opposed to timeless, changeless natural law, abstracted away from society and utility. but I wonder as perhaps Wilderness might wonder, whether there is a partial strawman of natural law in Mises rejection. I also understand that Wilderness has a project to show that natural law can be reconciled(may not be the right word) with utilitarian ethics, but I think that discussion is too big for this thread and would overwhelm it.
As for your direct comment here to Wilderness about the text you bolded, you seem to have conflated the '‘natural law morality’ that Mises attacked, with ‘morality’ as it is commonly understood. I think this is wrong, and therefore that paragraph does not illustrate what you think it does, that to call Mises a ‘moralist’ is misleading. Certainly he thought that economics could be done wertfrei… and that it would be ‘poor’ economics to do it otherwise, but that does not entail that Mises was not a utilitarian ethicist
Thank you for understanding the spirit of this thread. And I add that others as well, have been able to read Mises words too.
And yes, I think perhaps Mises did partially strawman natural law. He was obviously inconsistent and contradicted himself. He opposed it, but then went on to semantically define it in ways that only Hobbes and Spinoza had done. And those two are obviously not natural theorists. Natural law has always meant for thousands of years that which is “reasoned” (that’s the short definition). I also understand why, I believe, Mises defined it this way as the Third Reich in Germany had been using it in the way Hobbes did as well. Hobbes’ definition didn’t stop with Hobbes.
Exactly. That’s why in my OP I point out that there are some that visit this forum and take the concept of ‘wertfrei’ beyond it’s logical boundaries. Mises was a liberal. He wrote a whole book on the moral justification that all of mankind ought to act intelligently when concluding in matters of the science of ethics. The book and other books that you nir quoted point out that Mises knew politics and accepted the fact that ethics is a science. Mises also wrote extensively to make a moral argument to justify liberalism and the need to protect life, liberty, health, and property.
And this is what Mises meant by ethical/moral sciences: Geisteswissenschaft, which is NOT a distinct ought-laden science separate from werfreit praxeology and economics. Praxeology and economics themselves are PART of the “moral sciences” in the sense that its subject, human action " is a manifestation of the mind." Mises uses “moral science” to distinguish from “material science”, not from “werfreit science”.
Human Action: “The popular saying according to which economics deals with the material conditions of human life is entirely mistaken. Human action is a manifestation of the mind. In this sense praxeology can be called a moral science (Geisteswissenschaft).”
Geisteswissenschaft is a German translation of J.S. Mill’s use of the term “moral science”, which was coined by David Hume himself, which in and of itself is highly telling as to its scope of inquiry.
Translation difficulties certainly are a barrier to understanding a writer in his own terms. From now on I will be on my guard when i read the phrase ‘moral sciences’ because Mises may be reffering to something more nebulous akin to ‘the humanities’ ‘social science’ ‘non-material science’ etc.
Does this directly touch on the quote from epistimological problems where the translation word we are given as ethics, and that is a normative science?
similarly does Geisteswissenschaft show up in the original text of Liberalism in the ‘private property and ethics’ chapter quoted?
yes. This isn’t an argument against anything that I’ve stated in this thread.
Mises looked for proof of the moral justification and said to protect life, liberty, health, and property. Only an individual intellectually apprehends ethical-laws and they are from nature because humans are a part of nature. When I reflect upon my nature, in other words, when I define who I am as a human I find an axiom called human action. It is irrefutable. This is reality. Humans don’t live outside of reality. Individual’s intellectually comprehend what is reality. What is of life on this earth, in other words, what is of nature. Nature both of what defines human and what defines other than human. That’s the beginning of science to define what is reality, ie. human and other than human. Humans are not some separate entity outside of nature that’s philosophically absurd. The only way to know what is scientifically, is, to intellectually realize that which is, ethically or economically, etc… So say something that I disagree with.
Unless you mean that “all is in the mind” and there is no exterior reality. Then I whole-heartedly disagree.
xyz, I’m glad you’re in agreement with me on this question, and I would greatly enjoy reading your considered thoughts on the matter. But I will enforce the forum rules, regardless. Since his return, wilderness has stopped questioning the sanity of others, and for that, I thank him; it’s time for you to do the same.
I’m not sure how you can come to the conclusion Mises was a moralist. His theories are “value-free” in that area, and praxeology doesn’t deal with what’s right or wrong in the moral sense.
the problem seems to be that Mises was also a Liberal, and writes about ‘proving moral justification’ and how is immoral to go to war, and moral to tend to welfare of society; and calls for the protection of life, liberty, health, and private property.