Molyneux's Argument for "...Living Our Ethics" ?

[Nitroadict]

Hopefully this isn’t too specific for a topic.

I recently came across one of Molyneux’s article’s:
( http://freedomain.blogspot.com/2008/02/ron-paul-revolution-postmortem.html ), where towards the end, he wrote the following:

The most basic inconsistency in libertarianism is that morality is considered both essential and immaterial. It is essential, because it underpins the entire philosophy – it is immaterial, however, in that libertarians continue to associate with people that they define as evil.

If you define a man as evil, and you continue to associate with him – whether he is your brother, father, friend or whatever – then all your words and speeches and ethical theories amount to less than nothing.

This is why I say that education and political activism will never advance the cause of libertarianism one single inch.

Freedom will advance only when we act with integrity in our personal relationships – when we reject those we define as evil.

As libertarians, we expect people to accept wrenching changes in their lives as a result of our philosophy. We expect public sector employees to switch over to the private sector. We expect drug enforcement agents to lose their entire careers. We expect corporate participants in the military-industrial complex to accept catastrophic downsizing. We expect people trapped in the quicksand of the welfare state to claw their way out. We expect a decommissioned soldier to make the transition to a civilian life, even if he wants to spend the rest of his career in the military. We expect those who exploit the existing system – the financiers, politicians and state-protected unions – to give up their inflated profits.

We expect so much from everyone else – and so little from ourselves.

“You should give up your lucrative and comfortable public sector position,” we say, “though I will not give up spending time with my cousin who supports the war in Iraq.”

“You should give up your war profiteering,” we say to mercantilist corporations, “though I will continue to party with my friends who fully support the state pointing its guns at my head.”

Is it any wonder that the Ron Paul revolution could never have succeeded?

Is it any wonder that for the past few hundred years, libertarianism has made virtually no progress whatsoever?

The answer is very, very simple.

If we want to free the world, we have to stop lecturing others about our ethics, and start living them ourselves.

If you don’t want to do that, that’s fine of course – but if you don’t want to live your ethics, can you do the rest of us a favor please?

Please – just stop talking about “ethics,” and thus discrediting those of us who are actually trying to make a difference."

I recall this stance briefly came up in passing at the forums at some point (I don’t remember which topic), but I thought it was an interesting point concerning a ‘change in tactics’ on Molyneux’s part.

While I do not really agree with the idea of shutting those out who do not support our views (slightly collectivist, I would think), I do think he has a point concerning the arguments libertarians have traditionally taken should change.

Thoughts?

[histhasthai]

I’m not a big fan of Molyneux overall, but he does get a lot of things very, very right. While I disagree with some of his concrete conclusions in this quote regarding the ethical value of certain behaviors, his point about the conflict between demanding change in others while not practicing it one’s self is dead on.

I have taken a different tack in resoving it, in that I don’t demand that anyone change their behavior. I will try to convince them of libertarian beliefs and values, I will try to convince them that libertarian beliefs are a better way to pursue the values they already hold, but it is the height of futiility to try to convince someone to act against their values.

Living my values is certainly the best foundation to try to convince someone from, but it’s never a basis for a tit-for-tat argument: “See how virtuous I am! Why aren’t you as virtuous as me?” That kind of thing is never productive.

And, ulitmately, my pursuit of what I value does not depend on others pursuing the same values. So pursuing my values does not require that I get others to change their behavior. It can be helpful if they do, and it is worth some effort at persuasion, but it is not a requirement. In the end, I can only work to isolate myself from the influence of people detrimental to my values, and to strengthen the influence of those who share them.

Too much of libertarian retail ostracism is, as you say, Nitro, of a collectivist nature. It is aimed at changing the person, and by extension the society as a whole, by creating artificial consequences for their actions rather than at discerning the value of individuals one associates with - the result of which may or may not effect natural consequences on the person in question. It is seeking punishment for violating what is, in effect, libertarian societal norms of behavior, creating a “with us or against us” mentality reminiscent of what was done to Hester Prynne.

[Nitroadict]

@histhasthai

I’m not a big fan of Molyneux overall, but he does get a lot of things very, very right. While I disagree with some of his concrete conclusions in this quote regarding the ethical value of certain behaviors, his point about the conflict between demanding change in others while not practicing it one’s self is dead on.

I have taken a different tack in resoving it, in that I don’t demand that anyone change their behavior. I will try to convince them of libertarian beliefs and values, I will try to convince them that libertarian beliefs are a better way to pursue the values they already hold, but it is the height of futiility to try to convince someone to act against their values.

Living my values is certainly the best foundation to try to convince someone from, but it’s never a basis for a tit-for-tat argument: “See how virtuous I am! Why aren’t you as virtuous as me?” That kind of thing is never productive.

And, ulitmately, my pursuit of what I value does not depend on others pursuing the same values. So pursuing my values does not require that I get others to change their behavior. It can be helpful if they do, and it is worth some effort at persuasion, but it is not a requirement. In the end, I can only work to isolate myself from the influence of people detrimental to my values, and to strengthen the influence of those who share them.

Too much of libertarian retail ostracism is, as you say, Nitro, of a collectivist nature. It is aimed at changing the person, and by extension the society as a whole, by creating artificial consequences for their actions rather than at discerning the value of individuals one associates with - the result of which may or may not effect natural consequences on the person in question. It is seeking punishment for violating what is, in effect, libertarian societal norms of behavior, creating a “with us or against us” mentality reminiscent of what was done to Hester Prynne.

Which leads me to wonder: to what extent should I practice my libertarian oriented ethics?

I suppose to the best of my current ability, since we are all living under the monopoly of the state, which effectively is attached to quite a bit of what one does in everyday life, lest steps are taken to completely avoid it & a drastic change.

That would sound reasonable to use to explain though, as it would imply that the main point is to try & fight, rather than preach others on ethics without seemingly doing any action.

This is partially why I think not voting would be a step in the right direction for me, if not for the sake of my conscience; it would even better if I could de-register myself (changing to unaffiliated would be a slight consolation, however).

[histhasthai]

@Nitroadict

to what extent should I practice my libertarian oriented ethics?

I think it’s the wrong question. Whenever I come up against a question that seems to pose an irreconcilable conflict, I step back and start again from the premise that I’ve sliced the problem the wrong way - that I am accepting a false dichotomy somewere. A better question might be: how would my libertarian ethics have to be different in order for me to live by them fully, right now?

I come at this from an objectivst background, which takes a strong position that morals and ethics are about living life, not serving some higher ideal. If morals conflict with the world as it is - if they provide no guidance for the actual reality in front of you, they are wrong, or at least insufficient.

There will always be evil in the world, and any livable ethics has to address how to deal with that. It makes no difference whether the evil is incidental or dominant. If ethics requires only a specific state of the world in order to be valid, then it’s not universally valid.

And it’s not about compromising principles. I do believe that non-agression is a universal principle, even to the extent that it is valid for each and every moral agent anywhere in the universe, no matter how alien they might be in other ways. It’s about applying binary black and white principles to a non binary world that is nothing but shades of gray. That will always take active cognition, deliberation, and decisive action in the face of incomplete information. A valid ethics has to deal with how to do that, too.

So I do live my ethics, fully, to the best of my ability to know what actions those ethics require. But my ethics does not say “never pay taxes”, it says “pay taxes if you must while under duress, but never volunteer to do so, never voluntarily pay more than you absolutely must to relieve the duress, and never, ever, accept the premise that those taxes are being rightfully taken.”

My ethics don’t require me to change the world, to make it a better moral environment. They say to judge the world and all its components as they are against moral principles in order to identify what parts are beneficial to me, and which are detrimental to me, and then to work at acquiring the resources needed to act on that judgement. That means protecting myself from the harmful parts, and taking advantage of the beneficial parts. But that doesn’t happen overnight, it’s a series of values that have to be acheived, have to be produced or traded for, accumulated over time, preserved, grown, all the things a person does to husband their resources over a lifetime.

So I pay taxes until I don’t have to anymore. And that day will come not when I change the world, but when I change myself, when I acquire the resources to say “never again”, and make it stick.

[Brainpolice]

It seems to me that the libertarian must walk a sort of tightrope between living their principles and surviving and/or adequately functioning in current society. In some ways the way that society currently exists prevents us from living our principles because we are literally coerced not to. So to an extent we have no choice in the matter: taxes are imposed onto us, we have little choice but to use certain public services like the roads, and so on. It would be absurd to say one is “immoral” for paying their taxes. On the other hand, there are ample oppurtunities, especially through civil disobedience, to try our best to live our principles anyways. So the libertarian should try their best to maximize the direct action that would make them effectively ungovernable.

[Nitroadict]

@histhasthai

@Nitroadict

to what extent should I practice my libertarian oriented ethics?

I think it’s the wrong question. Whenever I come up against a question that seems to pose an irreconcilable conflict, I step back and start again from the premise that I’ve sliced the problem the wrong way - that I am accepting a false dichotomy somewere. A better question might be: how would my libertarian ethics have to be different in order for me to live by them fully, right now?

I come at this from an objectivst background, which takes a strong position that morals and ethics are about living life, not serving some higher ideal. If morals conflict with the world as it is - if they provide no guidance for the actual reality in front of you, they are wrong, or at least insufficient.

There will always be evil in the world, and any livable ethics has to address how to deal with that. It makes no difference whether the evil is incidental or dominant. If ethics requires only a specific state of the world in order to be valid, then it’s not universally valid.

And it’s not about compromising principles. I do believe that non-agression is a universal principle, even to the extent that it is valid for each and every moral agent anywhere in the universe, no matter how alien they might be in other ways. It’s about applying binary black and white principles to a non binary world that is nothing but shades of gray. That will always take active cognition, deliberation, and decisive action in the face of incomplete information. A valid ethics has to deal with how to do that, too.

So I do live my ethics, fully, to the best of my ability to know what actions those ethics require. But my ethics does not say “never pay taxes”, it says “pay taxes if you must while under duress, but never volunteer to do so, never voluntarily pay more than you absolutely must to relieve the duress, and never, ever, accept the premise that those taxes are being rightfully taken.”

My ethics don’t require me to change the world, to make it a better moral environment. They say to judge the world and all its components as they are against moral principles in order to identify what parts are beneficial to me, and which are detrimental to me, and then to work at acquiring the resources needed to act on that judgement. That means protecting myself from the harmful parts, and taking advantage of the beneficial parts. But that doesn’t happen overnight, it’s a series of values that have to be acheived, have to be produced or traded for, accumulated over time, preserved, grown, all the things a person does to husband their resources over a lifetime.

So I pay taxes until I don’t have to anymore. And that day will come not when I change the world, but when I change myself, when I acquire the resources to say “never again”, and make it stick.

@Brainpolice

It seems to me that the libertarian must walk a sort of tightrope between living their principles and surviving and/or adequately functioning in current society. In some ways the way that society currently exists prevents us from living our principles because we are literally coerced not to. So to an extent we have no choice in the matter: taxes are imposed onto us, we have little choice but to use certain public services like the roads, and so on. It would be absurd to say one is “immoral” for paying their taxes. On the other hand, there are ample oppurtunities, especially through civil disobedience, to try our best to live our principles anyways. So the libertarian should try their best to maximize the direct action that would make them effectively ungovernable.

The question of ethics is what has been kept from resuming activity in society, at the moment, as in the past year or so, I’ve gone through a radical change via increased self-directed education & furthering the pursuit of “knowing thyself”; obviously, I would’ve have been less able so under state education.

Partially I think what had prevented me from arriving at seeing the “tightrope of principles & functioning in society” was my own impatience, and think that seeing that will allow me to move on & be able to explore the means that histhasthai mentioned as “working towards acquiring the resources needed to act on that judgment”.

Although, I can’t shake the slight feeling that the “tightrope” between living our principles & functioning in society is a bit utilitarian.

[Brainpolice]

Although, I can’t shake the slight feeling that the “tightrope” between living our principles & functioning in society is a bit utilitarian.

Think of it this way: the things that you must do in currently existing society that violate your principles are coerced in some way. So it’s not really utilitarian when what you’re really doing is reacting to duress with a passive asquiescance. The burden of proof is on the coercer, not their victims. You’re not “unethical” for paying your taxes or following prohibition laws for voluntary activities that you want to engage in. However, I’d view you as virtuous if you had the courage to abstain from it.

[histhasthai]

@Nitroadict

I can’t shake the slight feeling that the “tightrope” between living our principles & functioning in society is a bit utilitarian.

That’s an understandable criticism, but it’s not utilitarian - in part because utilitarian vs idealistic is another bad dochotomy that slices the problem the wrong way.

Here’s how I look at it, we use logic and observations of the world to figure out a set of principles. Some very small set of those principles, such as non-aggression, are valid in all contexts that pertain to rational agents. Others apply to narrower contexts. They are all absolute within their context. But we can’t reduce those contexts to finer and finer granularity indefinitely - at some point we’re down to a level of detail at which we are dealing with contexts we’ve never seen before. Such as: “it’s pouring down rain and you’re running to catch a bus with your arms full of groceries that you can barely hold on to, and you’re rushing to make a business meeting that will make or break the future of your business. Do you stop to help a little old lady across the street?”

That’s the kind of detail you can never establish principles for. Principles are for contexts that subsume everything you have and are likely ever to experience. What you do is apply the concrete facts of the bus and the rain and the little old lady to the priniciples you have esablished, and see which actions those principles demand, or at least don’t conflict. But you simply can’t have a principle that tells you exactly whether or not to help the old lady.

So it’s not a tightrope, not a conflict between principles and the real world. It’s a matter of finding absolute principles - and, most importantly, knowing the contexts in which they apply - and testing real world actions against them. If priniciples cannot guide real world actions, or if there is a real world context in which they come into conflict whith each other, that means that at least one of those absolute principles is wrong.

For instance, a common libertarian principle is that paying taxes is always wrong, and you should never do it. Another principle, to me at least, is that principles never require dying. Those two obviously conflict, especially when combined with other libertarian principles such as that you should always defend yourself against aggression.

My resolution of that is to abandon the former principle and say that the real principle is I should always defend my life in its entirety against aggression. That means not simply defending my right not to pay taxes now, but also defending my 80-year old self of the future against being dead, in jail, or still paying taxes. It means defending all that is possible to defend now, not worrying about what is not possible to change, and build my life around increasing the scope of what is possible.

It means there are tradeoffs. Everything in life is a tradeoff. If you take a vacation to Paris, it means you’re not vacationing in Tahiti. Principles are absolute, but they provide guidance in how to evaluate those tradeoffs, not black-box formulae to deterministically decide each and every action. It’s neither utilitarian nor idealistic, it’s orthogonal to that dichotomy. (My pet phrase is looking at problems like this “sideways” from the way they are usually approached.)

Nitro, you mention impatience, and that is indeed a major issue - has been for me at least. But I always try to remember that this is about my whole life, not just today and tomorrow. There’s no utopia, and a “free” society will still have problems to solve. The lack of freedom is one that needs solving now, but solving it won’t mean we can just sit back and watch the sunset. Life is about producing value for yourself, and, until you stop trying to do that, that always implies solving problems. Freedom is not, as many libertarians seem to believe, the end of problems, it is a circumstance that allows us greater and more effective means to solve even more important problems.

Sorry if this seems like a repeat of what I wrote before. I think it’s really important, and has opened up a whole world of possibilities and optimism for me, and I’m trying to find a way to communicate what is, at it’s core, an epiphany that everyone really has to reach on their own. Jeez, now I sound like a bible-thumper trying to spread the “good news”…

[Nitroadict]

@histhasthai

@Nitroadict

I can’t shake the slight feeling that the “tightrope” between living our principles & functioning in society is a bit utilitarian.

That’s an understandable criticism, but it’s not utilitarian - in part because utilitarian vs idealistic is another bad dochotomy that slices the problem the wrong way.

Here’s how I look at it, we use logic and observations of the world to figure out a set of principles. Some very small set of those principles, such as non-aggression, are valid in all contexts that pertain to rational agents. Others apply to narrower contexts. They are all absolute within their context. But we can’t reduce those contexts to finer and finer granularity indefinitely - at some point we’re down to a level of detail at which we are dealing with contexts we’ve never seen before. Such as: “it’s pouring down rain and you’re running to catch a bus with your arms full of groceries that you can barely hold on to, and you’re rushing to make a business meeting that will make or break the future of your business. Do you stop to help a little old lady across the street?”

That’s the kind of detail you can never establish principles for. Principles are for contexts that subsume everything you have and are likely ever to experience. What you do is apply the concrete facts of the bus and the rain and the little old lady to the priniciples you have esablished, and see which actions those principles demand, or at least don’t conflict. But you simply can’t have a principle that tells you exactly whether or not to help the old lady.

So it’s not a tightrope, not a conflict between principles and the real world. It’s a matter of finding absolute principles - and, most importantly, knowing the contexts in which they apply - and testing real world actions against them. If priniciples cannot guide real world actions, or if there is a real world context in which they come into conflict whith each other, that means that at least one of those absolute principles is wrong.

For instance, a common libertarian principle is that paying taxes is always wrong, and you should never do it. Another principle, to me at least, is that principles never require dying. Those two obviously conflict, especially when combined with other libertarian principles such as that you should always defend yourself against aggression.

My resolution of that is to abandon the former principle and say that the real principle is I should always defend my life in its entirety against aggression. That means not simply defending my right not to pay taxes now, but also defending my 80-year old self of the future against being dead, in jail, or still paying taxes. It means defending all that is possible to defend now, not worrying about what is not possible to change, and build my life around increasing the scope of what is possible.

It means there are tradeoffs. Everything in life is a tradeoff. If you take a vacation to Paris, it means you’re not vacationing in Tahiti. Principles are absolute, but they provide guidance in how to evaluate those tradeoffs, not black-box formulae to deterministically decide each and every action. It’s neither utilitarian nor idealistic, it’s orthogonal to that dichotomy. (My pet phrase is looking at problems like this “sideways” from the way they are usually approached.)

Nitro, you mention impatience, and that is indeed a major issue - has been for me at least. But I always try to remember that this is about my whole life, not just today and tomorrow. There’s no utopia, and a “free” society will still have problems to solve. The lack of freedom is one that needs solving now, but solving it won’t mean we can just sit back and watch the sunset. Life is about producing value for yourself, and, until you stop trying to do that, that always implies solving problems. Freedom is not, as many libertarians seem to believe, the end of problems, it is a circumstance that allows us greater and more effective means to solve even more important problems.

Sorry if this seems like a repeat of what I wrote before. I think it’s really important, and has opened up a whole world of possibilities and optimism for me, and I’m trying to find a way to communicate what is, at it’s core, an epiphany that everyone really has to reach on their own. Jeez, now I sound like a bible-thumper trying to spread the “good news”…

Actually, I thought this post elaborated what you previously said. On the whole, I found it very enlightening, and something to definitley think about, specifically the part concerning defending one’s left against agression (in this case, state oppression).