Ye Olde Libertarian Pub

[Voluntary Joe]

I saw the fdrliberated site, I think it's good to look at to get both sides of the story about FDR, but as long as you are close with your family and strong in your faith I don't see FDR as a problem. The fdrliberated site brings up some fair points, but it certainly doesn't make Stef wrong.

I think Stef over complicated UPB, if you break it down, there is nothing wrong with it exactly except maybe his theory of opposites. I think Ayn Rand really accomplished what Stef wanted to first.

Ayn Rand didn't take Objectivism far enough imo. I think Objectivism and Voluntaryism are very complimentary if you take them to their logical conclusions.

 

[zoink]

Whenever the FDR cult stuff comes up I always wonder what the actual concern is if it is infact a cult. A cult of deontological libertarian NAP follows isn't really high on my worry list.

 

[MacFall]

The cult aspect comes from Molyneux's attempts to break up families that have parents who aren't atheist anarchist libertarians, and even further, those who disagree with his psychological theories, which apparently constitute the ONLY non-abusive way to raise children. He calls it "deFOOing", where "FOO" means family of origin. FDR folks use the word "family" as a pejorative. And I'm sure you're aware of the way in which he views religion in general.

As I've said before, he doesn't seem to be as bad as he used to, but I've been following FDR for a while, and not always as a critic. I started out as a fan, but the more I learned, the more I started to think that the critics were right. Perhaps things are better there now; I honestly don't know.

 

[Voluntary Joe]

I'm on the boards there, and I listen to the podcasts and watch the videos. I read his books. I'd really love to meet Stef or be able to get to talk to him one one, but I can't in good conscience donate to him though. I could never give money to the spread of atheism.

 

[MacFall]

Man. With Nilloc being 21 and Joe being 20 (and I don't know how old Zoink is), I feel like an old man around here.

 

[Nilloc]

For some reason you saying that makes me think of Kirk in Star Trek II.

This has nothing to do with liberty, but every should watch this video. I've listened to it a number of times today:

Bob Ross Remixed | Happy Little Clouds | PBS Digital Studios - YouTube

 

[zoink]

Man. With Nilloc being 21 and Joe being 20 (and I don't know how old Zoink is), I feel like an old man around here.

You are older than me, but I'm closer to your age then I am Nilloc and Joe's.

 

[Nilloc]

Since we were talking about UPB, how would you guys go about proving the non-aggression principle? Not in the sense of proving that taxation is theft or whatever, but what if someone acknowledges it is theft, but doesn't care. Is religion the only way to establish morality? Can we only prove murder and theft wrong via the Bible?

 

[MacFall]

Like I said before, UPB or any other secular ethics only works if someone is trying to be moral. You can prove to them that in order to be moral they must accept a universal ethic, and the non-aggression principle is a pretty sound universal ethic.

However, without recourse to a deity you really can't say that someone ought to be moral whether they want to or not. So if someone knows that they are not consistently moral but doesn't give a crap, there's really no way to "prove" to them that they should be moral anyway without appealing to their eternal and spiritual well-being. So basically a person who doesn't believe in God and has not chosen to value others really has no reason to be moral, once he's silenced his conscience.

 

[Nilloc]

Like I said before, UPB or any other secular ethics only works if someone is trying to be moral. You can prove to them that in order to be moral they must accept a universal ethic, and the non-aggression principle is a pretty sound universal ethic.

However, without recourse to a deity you really can't say that someone ought to be moral whether they want to or not. So if someone knows that they are not consistently moral but doesn't give a crap, there's really no way to "prove" to them that they should be moral anyway without appealing to their eternal and spiritual well-being. So basically a person who doesn't believe in God and has not chosen to value others really has no reason to be moral, once he's silenced his conscience.

How do you go about proving what is moral (not whether you should be moral) from a secular view?

 

[MacFall]

Well, it starts with definitions. Different people may define morality differently, but only a theory of morality that does not contradict itself can be considered true. To start with, it must be universal. Someone who says "it is moral for me to hit you but not for you to hit me" is misusing the word "moral". It may be expedient, it may be enjoyable, but it is not moral. I would say that most people who believe in morality would understand that a moral principle must be universalizable. From that point it's pretty simple to show how the NAP qualifies as the only universal political ethic (not the only universal ethic, period). Then all you have to do is break through the incredibly thick wall of cognitive dissonance, and you're good to go!

 

[Nilloc]

That's basically what I think. Morality being universal would be one of those uncontroversial axioms mentioned earlier. I've struggled with whether self-defense could be derived from the NAP. Most who hold to the NAP also believe in self-defense, but it usually seems more like an after thought to me. Do you think self-defense is logically justified from only the NAP and the concept of self-ownership? And since you wrote about the Golden Rule recently, do you think that your reading of the Rule would allow for self-defense (only from the Rule, not any of Jesus's other teachings)?

 

[MacFall]

The way I see it is, once force enters the picture then the application of force for the prevention of harm is permissible under the Golden Rule, if reason and persuasion fail to work, or if you don't have the ability to try. Especially when there are third parties at stake, at which time you must choose whose interest to look out for. It would certainly limit force to the minimum necessary to prevent further harm from occurring, though.

 

[zoink]

How do you go about proving what is moral (not whether you should be moral) from a secular view?

Personally I'm not sure you can prove what is moral. Based on subjective criteria I think one can demonstrate a "superior" moral system but when dealing with a moral nihilist I don't think there's much one can do. For this reason, if I am going to get into a moral discussion with someone, I inquire if my interlocutor is a moral nihilist.

If they are I don't really have much to say. It's kind of like how Molyneux walks a way from the discussion if someone responds to the "against me argument" by saying they would be willing to initiate force against him. A moral nihilist and myself are so different a discussion on morality just isn't going to be productive. Luckily it's seems that the vast majority of people, including atheists, are not moral nihilists.

Back to the subjective criteria, I thing the NAP is the superior moral framework. I think it has the best combination of objectivity, consistency, predictability (that ability to derive a moral response to a novel situation), and universality of any morality or ethic.

One of the major criticism of UPB that I have seen is that Molyneux does not prove why morality must be universal. For me universality is an important criteria; as I think it is for the majority of people. UPB seems to do a good job of setting up a framework for judging weather or not a morality is universally preferred. However, it is still more of an "ought" statement, when what I think you are looking for is more of an "is" statement.

I have heard that Hoppe's argumentative ethics may have overcome the is-ought problem. Since I have found that their are so few moral nihilists out there - coupled with my pervasive lack of motivation - I have not spent enough time looking into Hoppe's work. Hopefully I will remedy this soon as I am making rather slow progress through The Economics and Ethics of Private Property: Studies in Political Economy and Philosophy. I know Rothbard was a huge fan of argumentative ethics.

Maybe take a quick gander over this post discussing Hoppean ethics: "Hoppe’s Argumentation Ethics: A User Friendly, Neighborly Introduction"

 

[PROPAIN]

Like I said before, UPB or any other secular ethics only works if someone is trying to be moral. You can prove to them that in order to be moral they must accept a universal ethic, and the non-aggression principle is a pretty sound universal ethic.

However, without recourse to a deity you really can't say that someone ought to be moral whether they want to or not. So if someone knows that they are not consistently moral but doesn't give a crap, there's really no way to "prove" to them that they should be moral anyway without appealing to their eternal and spiritual well-being. So basically a person who doesn't believe in God and has not chosen to value others really has no reason to be moral, once he's silenced his conscience.

I would say that there is a way to appeal to someone to be moral without relying on eternal and spiritual well-being. In Hazlitt's view (as expressed in The Foundations of Morality) is that there is no conflict between long-run self-interest and morality. That is, wealth creation is greater when there is greater social cooperation through the division of labor. There is less production when people gain property through illegitimate means than by trade. Therefore, one can appeal to another's own self-interest to convince them to be moral (insofar as property rights are concerned, at least).

 

[zoink]

You have a six year old account and have made seven posts... I'm impressed.

 

[MacFall]

I would say that there is a way to appeal to someone to be moral without relying on eternal and spiritual well-being. In Hazlitt's view (as expressed in The Foundations of Morality) is that there is no conflict between long-run self-interest and morality. That is, wealth creation is greater when there is greater social cooperation through the division of labor. There is less production when people gain property through illegitimate means than by trade. Therefore, one can appeal to another's own self-interest to convince them to be moral (insofar as property rights are concerned, at least).

That's only if they have the same interests that you do. Not everyone cares about long-term material well-being. Some people just want to hurt people and break stuff, and damn the consequences to everyone including themselves. And that's not limited to just psychotics, either. Look at political ideologies such as the neocons'. You can convince them that protectionism is harmful and invading other countries will wreck the economy AND make us less secure, and they will still promote both of those things because they value the idea of "national greatness" more than actual prosperity and security.

It's not that they do not see a harmony between morality and economic prosperity. It's that they just don't care. So how do you tell someone that they should replace their own values system with yours, since they clearly do not share your values? Unless you can say something along the lines of "no matter what you think, it's in your best interest to do x, y, and z because well the Creator of everything, including you, says so", isn't moralizing sort of pretentious?

 

[Voluntary Joe]

The non-aggression principle is valid because people don't want to have aggression against them. Every sane person has a negative reaction to aggression against them. A negative reaction is indicative to the fact the they believe it is wrong. If they believe aggression is wrong it would be very wrong to commit aggression against someone else. The contradiction between an action and a reaction to someone else doing the same action against you is wrong simply because it is a contradiction, and since every sane person reacts negatively to aggression against themselves aggression against others is always wrong thus validating the non-aggression principle.

 

[MacFall]

Sure, it's valid. In order for someone to be morally right, they should follow it. But that doesn't address the issue of people who flatly don't care about being morally right, of which there are many - not a small margin of pathological cases, but large numbers of people who consider morality to be a fiction. Perhaps a useful fiction, but a fiction nonetheless. I could introduce you to a couple dozen on this board alone, including one "Christian".

 

[Voluntary Joe]

With regard to why someone would want to be moral. People who don't have positive values and no desire for virtue won't want to follow the NAP. Sure many people won't care about morality and ethics and virtue. That is why we need justice (not a state) but a Voluntaryist society would have agencies like this Law without Government: Conflict Resolution in a Free Society - YouTube