The Libertarian Running Track

[I_Ryan]

@DD5

Well first of all, the purely subjective approach to morality appears to be more and more irreconcilable with the many scientific advances over the past 5 decades in the study of human nature; behavioral genetics, cognitive science, neuroscience, evolutionary psychology, etc… (see for example just this recent http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/magazine/09babies-t.html)

Not really. Sure, it is “objective” that most people have moral sentiments and that they are similar between different people. But that is not at all what I am talking about. See this post. What I am talking about here is what I called the “moral thoughts” in that post. It is pretty obvious that most people feel similar feelings about similar interactions; so it is not exactly a “scientific advance” to recognize that. But, again, either way, that is not what I am talking about and it is not what other people are talking about when they argue about whether morality is subjective or objective.

@DD5

So pure subjectivists that do not try to incorporate any objective basis at all may explain why they are so obsessed with “running tracks”

I don’t know what your point is there.

@DD5

Second, a purely utilitarian point of view seems also to be irreconcilable with the “running track”.

Which is an advantage. Why would I want to be on a “running track”?

@DD5

As I said before. If your argument can be simulated by a machine, then there is probably something wrong with it.

Uh, it is not my argument.

@DD5

I said before that by judging the consequences of both systems, one can get off the “running track” in favor of private property, for which you replied that the consequences are irelevant since they are subjective and you literally agreed that the issue can be settled only by some divine purpose declared by some god.

When did I say any of that? By the way, you didn’t answer my questions in this post at all.