wombatron, what’s your take on the OP?
I think the portrayal of the facts is correct, but I disagree with your evaluation of them. Saying that you value A over B is indeed the same thing as saying that you value A as a means to your well-being (or flourishing), but I don’t think that it is trivial. Long would argue (and I would agree) that action demonstrates the actor has an ultimate end.
Is there a need for 10+ threads on the same bloody topic? Please keep this to as few topics as possible, it is getting tedious.
Well essentially yes. Flourishing could be applied to any manner. You could have your eudiamonia as being a billionaire while I could have my eudiamonia as being as intellectual as Rothbard. The objectivity of eudiamoina comes from the premise that we all have an ultimate end in life.
The maximization of social preference.
Well I rechecked the definition of redundant to ensure that I am intrepretating you correctly, it left me wondering what you meant by it.
I work the night shift Lilburne and I always respond to points brought to my attention. Nor did I give this topic one star.
Honestly, that is just petty. I am here for a great deal of time but I don’t live here. I have my ultimate ends to pursue.
If anyone is interested in learning more about the topic before further discussion then I present Dr. Long’s lecture on the topic at hand. Very informative.
“The Praxeological Case for Ultimate Ends”
If the tautology is non-trivial, what non-trivial conclusions are derived from it?
Jon,
What topic do you mean? Criticisms of various ethical theories?
I explained why I post focused questions and propositions in responding to Juan elsewhere (please note that the barbed comments below were directed at Juan, and are in no way directed at you)…
Is that the only possible ultimate end? If not, what is another?
What is it about the definition that you think is inapplicable?
My apologies. That was uncharitable of me.
Fine, it’s just that I see a large number of topics devoted to the issue going on concurrently and wonder if they’re not just different avenues for expressing the same arguments. If they’re not just carry on.
Thank you Jon,
I’ll try to keep any overlap of arguments to a minimum.
Biology is another end aside from social preference, methinks.
Despite the social preferences of an individual, their biology may dictate and/or motivate them to certain behavior they would otherwise feel obligated to avoid (such as having children at a young age, etc.).
This doesn’t make every young person incapable of escaping biological urges to reproduce, but it yields an influence.
Would the maximization of social preference be favorable at the expense of other’s social preferences and/or at the expense of the physical universe (or i suppose, reality) ?
This is partially why the concept of eudaimonia, to me, seems to fairly vague & susceptible to manipulation.
For instance, many who support the state view that the state maximizes their social preference of a comfortable & familiar living, which many equate to “freedom”, which is another concept that is manipulated politically.
I mean, of course you could just argue “well, just appeal to them that the state doesn’t maximize their social preference or happiness or whatever” (I assume this is the case with libertarians supporting eudaimonia & using it in their arguments and what not), but then you’re just right back where you started in trying to changes someone’s mind with a different argument.
That is a broad end in which subjective desires could fit under.
Redundant is characterized as being excessive, which lead me to wonder if you are just vexed by how many people are talking about it? Or what?
Yes, it is a hugely broad end. Are there any possible others? I ask, because if not, that contradicts what you said earlier about the ultimate end depending on the individual.
I don’t mean “redundant” as in people are repetitively talking about it in different situations: that would be a misuse of the word. I mean that Long’s position is basically saying, “Man values what he values”, which, by its redundancy, provides no insight and, moreover, no new information at all. What meaningful conclusions regarding morality could one possibly derive from such a unedifying tautology?
It is broad because subjective desires are supposed to be applicable to it.
It is not merely that man values what he values, but in a way why they value what they value and what they hope to achieve in a manner of speaking.
I hope you don’t mind that I ask for the third time, are there any possible others? If so, what is one possible example?
Okay, what does Long’s “third aim” position say about “why they value what they value, etc…”?
I would ask what more there is other then the maximization of social preference, perhaps you have something in mind?
You asserted that every individual has an overall ultimate end. I asked you what this overall ultimate end was. You said…
So I asked you, since it depends on the individual, what is an individual overall ultimate end one can have? You answered…
And now you seem to be characterizing that as a universal overall ultimate end, which therefore does NOT depend on the individual, contradicting your earlier “it depends on the individual” answer.
So which is it? Does it depend on the individual or not?
Laughing Man, If you understand Long’s position well enough to be ardently promoting it, you should be able to provide a rough, distilled answer to such a basic question yourself.
It seems in every other thread, you, or wombatron, or anarchist cain, or some other person (or account) is pointing new members to Long’s articles and lectures; it’s very cadre-like. I’m concerned that young, impressionable libertarians are getting caught up with Long’s eloquence, erudition, and “progressive” sympathies, but too few are taking a hard look at the real-world truth-value, logical soundness, and meaningfulness of his eudaimonist doctrines.