I don’t see anything here that would indicate there is “nonsense” here, other than Len’s proclamations from high.
-Jon
“I don’t get how the fact that people carrying on living proves that life is good?”
I’ve yet to read the ethics of liberty, as I am a lazy Austrian. however, I don’t think Rothbard is saying that life is objectively good…but that every individual who is alive thinks it is subjectively good. if they did not think being alive was good…they would’ve offed themselves.
“One can live and argue that life is “bad,” but subjectively value convincing other people of the “badness” of life, higher in priorities than ending one’s own life.”
yes…and you’d probably be lying…
it’s like me smoking a cigarette and telling you how much I hate smoking. actions speak louder than words and all that jazz.
As I said in another thread, life is subjectively good for the ones living especially because they fear death itself or its uncertainty.
To state an example, consider why humans do not value plant life (except for ecological implication). This is because humans could never see plants being afraid of death and because they could never imagine being a hurt plant. Go up the evolution scale and see that they value animal life in varying degrees. And finally go to humans themselves and see that they specifically agree not to kill each other, so the agressor would never, even hypothetically, find himself in the position of the victim.
In connection with Rothbard’s cited notion of life, you can’t really consider plants alive in the same sense you do for humans.
We all came from somewhere. Welcome aboard!
It has nothing to do with objectivity. Rothbard is arguing that individuals demonstrate their subjective value of life by pursuing those things which sustain it.
Preferences are revealed through action. Anyone who claims to not value life, but still acts to preserve their life, is contradicting themselves.
Anyone who truly does not value life is dead, or soon to be dead. So have no place in this debate.
I think the term is “performative contradiction” or something like that.
Yes, that’s the term. It means that one cannot dispute it without eliminating their ability to communicate the argument against it, which shows the truth of it. In essence, your attempt to negate it actually affirms it.
While I think that there is indeed a performative contradiction problem, the performative contradiction argument is incomplete. It does not establish a should, only an is. Something more than merely pointing out performative contradiction is necessary to prove why one should respect individual rights. Because all the performative contradiction problem can do is establish an ontological point, such as the fact that you have control over your own body and the fact that you use argumentation. However, it’s a big leap to go from establishing that you engage in argumentation and establishing why you shouldn’t steal my car. I’ve yet to see an argument using argumentation ethics to establish such a connection.
What about Universally Preferable Behavior?