Thank you, Sage. I’ve read most of that article before, but as it says, “A full-scale defense of Natural Law theory, however, is a task beyond the scope of this article.” Rothbard says something similar in TeoL, as does Hoppe. I am wondering where the full defense or proof is. As far as Long - who seems to me the most sophisticated defender of this type of theory - his approach seems to hinge on the concept of constitutive means, which is critically examined in this thread.
My position, as a position, is merely: If objective morality or objective ethics is a meaningful and valid concept, there should be a clear definition of it somewhere, followed by a clear proof. So far I have found all such arguments either incoherent, logically flawed, or too vague to debate. Since I merely await a clear definition and valid proof, there are no articles I can reference for that awaiting. However, I can point to specific articles and some threads where, in response to attempted proofs of natural law or other objective ethical theories, I have given concrete refutations stating my position viz a viz those theories.
For example, I posted critiques of Rothbard’s self-ownership (continues below), Hoppe’s argumentation ethics, and Rasmussen and Den Uyl’s groundwork for natural rights. Also, I found Patrick O’Neil article Ayn Rand and the Is-Ought Problem quite relevant to the overall discussion.
As I await such a proof, I grow doubtful one exists, and I suggest that there is no need for a proof to back concepts that are already persuasive on their own, and that to attempt to prove the unprovable is unlikely to be healthy for the cause of libertarianism in general. I there is an need for an alternative, Mises’s praxeological approach seems promising.
Right, this is saying “Given that your goal is Y, you ought to do X.” Like, “If you want to go to the supermarket, you ought to turn left at that gas station over there.”
If this is what is meant by “objective ethics,” then I am in agreement with it. It’s just something akin to Mises’s utilitarianism or consequentialism. But I think (hoping to be wrong) that most advocates of objective ethics mean something a little different from this.