Well, Rollins may say that natural rights are categorical nonsense. Too bad he’s wrong. If we are going to talk about rights at all, then, as you say, “state-granted rights are inconsistent and nonsensical”. Rollins should have seen that…
Well, Rollins may say that natural rights are categorical nonsense. Too bad he’s wrong.
That’s certainly what your position is, but the entirety of the essay was devoted to showing that no one has demonstrated that ‘natural rights’ actually exist or make any sense. State-granted rights are facts, IE they are things that are enforced. Existing rights are also real in the situation of a libertarian society which would have private-property institutions. But the reality of these rights is the fact of their enforcement, but no argument has been (or, I contend, could be) advanced which demonstrates either the existence or necessity of a moral basis for ‘rights’.
You mean, there is a moral basis for aggression ? You are saying that the ‘right’ and ‘moral’ thing to do is to attack people ? Rob, kill, etc ?
I will quote Rollins, because what you are saying is a very common mistake moralists make about these views:
So what about Cooney’s claim that those who reject the idea of natural rights must conclude
that the Nazi regime “had a perfect justification for recalling the rights, including the right to life” of
six million Jews? Well, I find it interesting that moralists like Cooney seem incapable of looking at
things from the amoral point of view. They almost invariably present amoralism in “moral” terms.
But it is only the moralists who think in “moral” terms, who think that actions are (or are not)
“perfectly justified.” As I’ve already said, if one sees through the myth of morality, one realizes
that there is no “moral justification” for anything anyone does. So the rejection of the idea of
natural rights does not entail the conclusion that the Nazis were “perfectly justified” in killing six
million Jews. Rather, the rejection of the idea of natural rights entails the conclusion that the
Nazis were neither “justified” nor “unjustified” in killing six million Jews.
I’m not sure I said something. I simply asked a question which I’m not sure if you answered. I’d say you didn’t.
Well, if one is a moralist one looks at things from the moral point of view. That shouldn’t be surprising, no ?
The rejection of morality means that there’s no good nor evil. Fine. So what ?
I attempted to answer you, but apparent it was too indirect. In answer to your question “You mean, there is a moral basis for aggression ? You are saying that the ‘right’ and ‘moral’ thing to do is to attack people ? Rob, kill, etc ?” I reply that no, there is no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ action at all in the moral sense. Aggression is not just, nor is it unjust, it is a fact, like weather, a relationship which exists between people.
Okay, I get it now =] So, again, according to amoralists there’s no right or wrong. Well, great. Now, why are you discussing this ? Why does Rollins bother to prove that morals don’t exist ? What’s the point ?
Natural rights are a myth - which means that people who believe in natural rights believe in fairy tales. Well, so what ? Why should it matter to anyone ? I believe in something which doesn’t exist, so technically I’m wrong. So what ? Truth doesn’t matter - so why bother ?
Okay, I get it now =] So, again, according to amoralists there’s no right or wrong. Well, great. Now, why are you discussing this ? Why does Rollins bother to prove that morals don’t exist ? What’s the point ?
Because I want to. No one ever said values didn’t exist. Just that values are held, and in some sense created by, the individual. Do you want to deal with reality? Reason is the only way you’re going to do it. Do you find it interesting to understand all sorts of complicated philosophical points? I do. And that’s the only reason I need. And you know what? That’s the only reason that anybody’s ever gonna have.
And it doesn’t bother me one bit.
Roderick Long replies to some of Rollins’s criticisms in The Nature of Law, Part IV. Stirnerite libertarians have always been interesting to me, though. How does one support the abolition of the state without an ethical basis for it? Is it mere utility? (note: I’m not trying be inflammatory or trollish; I am honestly curious)
Most of Long’s arguments can be retorted to in that he is explaining that morality is supposed to be guidance and not protection. That is, however, understood. The point is that there can be no imperatives outside of your own preferences and judgement, thus there can be no ‘guidance’ except from what an individual does desire and how he might achieve it.
Later he says this:
More importantly, though, the question is why we should accept Rollins’ claim that nothing is right or wrong and nothing is entitled to reverence.
First of all, I disagree. I postulate that the Moralist is in the position of the theist. What most people think or believe is irrelevant, the fact is the claim to a positive universal norm is not and could not ever be ‘experienced’ by anyone since no one has a ‘universal’ value sense, only their own. And a point of fact against ‘morality’ is that value exists only as specific values held by specific individuals who are in specific situations with limited resources and knowledge. A value can not be ‘universal’, though it may be omnipresent, because only individuals ever experience it. There is no ‘outisde’ perspective. I am not here doubting that reality is objective, I am saying that values can not even be imagined as being ‘outside’ of a specific viewpoint of someone. It has no cognitive content.
I think of little as moral ‘reasoning’ as I do of religious ‘reasoning’. I consider it literally impossible nonsense with no implication in reality except as a factual influence of beliefs on people. The only reason libertarian ‘ethics’ are so interesting to me is because it is the source of the most consistent non-violent dispute resolution methods (arbitration). Libertarianism is, I think, the best theory of legality ever developed.
I support the abolition of the State because it’s obnoxious and it’s a stupid idea that people parrot all the time. It’s damn annoying. Debate helps me to refine my own understanding, but I don’t do it to convince anyone. That’s just a side effect. I am fairly certain that the libertarian insurrection won’t be coming any time soon, and I won’t have much of an influence either way, so I’m certainly not a libertarian ‘activist’ or anything. I just find it really interesting. Analytic reasoning is what my genes are good for, it would seem.
Rollins? Give me a break! Roderick refuted him a long time ago.
I don’t agree about the theism. The objection that no one has a ‘universal’ value sense is a chimera. As is the idea that values can be imagined ‘outside’ of a specific viewpoint of someone. These are essentially straw man arguments. Irrelevant with regard to Aristotelians since we hold nothing resembling either view.
That’s nice. But I don’t see any arguments here. Just assertions of your beliefs.
That’s not much of a leg to stand on. The strongest objection one can make is that it is annoying, obnoxious and stupid? Stupid…how so? In terms of economic efficiency?
You’ve wasted enough of mine after all.
Hmm, how does that work? Does this also disprove economic conceptions of rationality? Actually, logic is my strong suit. Unlike you, I’ve done philosophy, so I’m not apt to make moronic mistakes like you’ve made thus far, e.g. conflating rational potentiality with deterministic fatalism, to always be rational. The theory would only be disproved if one said it is always possible. Where did I say this?
Because it’d require more effort than I am willing to expend on you, and because it is not even pertinent to this topic. In future, when you’re going to attack an idea, make sure you comprehend it.
R J Moore, whereby did you come across this absolute truth that there is no morality? Sounds like “theism” to me…
-Jon
I myself used to be a sort of “post-objectivist, ‘rights are natural and must not be violated!’, ‘you are objectively evil’” kind of guy.
Then I realised what utter useless nonsense it really is. Without reading any Stirner, Nietzsche, or something like that (which I still haven’t).
Not only has noone actually proven the existence of these natural/objective/whatever rights, but even if someone were to do just that, I fail to see the point in them. I don’t understand what I would get out of knowing what is and what isn’t objectively good and evil…
I think the whole argument from morals is one of the things holding the libertarian movement back. I don’t think it’s anything but choir-preaching.
Well that’s nice. I’m sure the statists would love to know we have no real problem with their rule over us, other than it hurts our feelings. BTW, when you say no one has proved it, does this mean you’ve read and fully understood most NR ethicists, or any ethicist for that matter? Or are you akin to many people who read some philosophy, don’t go into much depth in it, get disillusioned with it, and then proclaim from high that it’s all nonsense?
-Jon
I don’t understand how ethics and morals can be anything other than subjective but i’d be more than willing to read arguments to the contrary if you wouldn’t mind pointing me in the right direction. Books/Articles would be most appreciated. Thanks!
The ones Wombatron quoted will suffice for the time being. Transcendental arguments also try work around the so-called subjective element.
-Jon
Whoops, i missed those links. Thanks for pointing them out, i’ll give them a read.
I sure do have problems with their rule over me. I think they’re fucking pricks, and if it weren’t for the police actually having some decent investigators I’d gladly defend myself using a lot of violence. I think people supporting oppressing states, which do nothing but hurt the poor and productive and feed the rich and parasitical, are a bunch of stupid idiots who I’d rather not have in my life at all.
However, that does not mean I have to call on some “god” or “universal morality” in order to justify my position. I don’t need to justify anything. Every action is emotion and feelings. People who act certain ways do so because of their emotions, regardless of whether I say they’re “objectively wrong” or not. So why not take a look at their actions, have them see what their actions are actually doing, and then take it from there?
Sure, if you want to, you can point out contradictions in people’s thinking. The lack of logic and all that. But I fail to see the point in calling someone “objectively wrong”, especially if it isn’t even properly proven. I think it will change absolutely nothing - the people who “fall for it” will already have the spirit of freedom in them (hence my thinking it’s preaching to the choir).
I’ve read a bunch of theories from all over the place (and even took some to heart), but after closer examination I found everything to be packed with nothing but arbitrariness.
And like I said, even if there was some brilliant lad who proved the law of gravity; if I didn’t have to abide by it and could hover anyway, what good would it do me?
It just renders one toothless against a State, or its minions, because conversely, they do not have to justify their actions either. What more could they want? I think this is skirting the issues. Nazi genocide is no less nor more justifiable than aiding the poor, one says? But why? Do these actions not differ qualitatively? Why can one not use reason to judge varying ends and qualities of action? Sure, one can violate it, just as one can ignore economics. So what?
-Jon