PDA

View Full Version : Deontologlical Libertarianism vs. Consequentialist Libertarianism




nate895
02-28-2009, 08:35 PM
Are you a consequentialist, a deontological libertarian, or both?

Deontological libertarianism is where you believe that no matter what the consequences of a violation of the non-aggression principle is, it is immoral to violate it.

Consequentialist libertarianism is where you believe that the best outcome for society as a whole is if everyone generally follows the non-aggression principle.

Of course, you could always believe both are true.

Kludge
02-28-2009, 08:47 PM
Consequentialist pretending to believe in ethics, if I'm honest.

BuddyRey
02-28-2009, 09:57 PM
In my mind, the only moral absolute is that violence and force is wrong. On everything else, I'm about as pluralistic as they come, but the "Golden Rule" is inviolable.

nate895
02-28-2009, 09:58 PM
In my mind, the only moral absolute is that violence and force is wrong. On everything else, I'm about as pluralistic as they come, but the "Golden Rule" is inviolable.

Hence, you are either deontological or both.

BuddyRey
02-28-2009, 09:59 PM
Hence, you are either deontological or both.

Yep. I voted deontological.

Xenophage
03-01-2009, 03:18 AM
This is a silly question for an Objectivist. I can't say I'm either of the choices you provide, so Both would have to suffice. For me, you cannot separate the morality and practicality of the NAP. Its practical because its moral, and its moral because its practical, and they're both true because of human nature. Were human nature something entirely different, your question would make sense.

I guess, in other words, I am a libertarian because I believe in the NAP as a moral principle, first and foremost, but I do not arrive at morality because it is some fanciful whim or emotional urge. I arrive at moral principles by examining what my values are, and ultimately my values are life and happiness. Ultimately, capitalism is the only political system that is 100% compatible with human life and happiness on an individual scale.

Practicality and morality are never at odds. If you find one to be at odds with the other, then somewhere you have made an error.

qaxn
03-01-2009, 03:25 AM
Its practical because its moral, and its moral because its practical, and they're both true because of human nature.
Are all moral things practical? Are all practical things moral?

Xenophage
03-01-2009, 03:27 AM
Are all moral things practical? Are all practical things moral?

Yes, but only to a rational being.

tremendoustie
03-01-2009, 03:46 AM
Yes, but only to a rational being.

Please don't assume only your position is rational. It would be better to say, "yes, I believe so". Or even, "yes, I believe that is the most rational position".

I would certainly not call all atheists, or utilitarians, irrational, although I do not agree with these ideas. I would have to hear a specific person's arguments in order to determine that they, or their arguments, are irrational. What's more, a person can also be rational and incorrect.

qaxn
03-01-2009, 03:58 AM
Yes, but only to a rational being.
so moral and practical apply to things equally as we have established. now how are you defining practical? most definitions i'm coming up with suggest relating to things that are done or able to be done. which doesn't make a whole lot of sense given that you're identifying yourself as an objectivist who respects that NAP, not a de Sadean libertine.


Please don't assume only your position is rational. It would be better to say, "yes, I believe so". Or even, "yes, I believe that is the most rational position".

I would certainly not call all atheists, or utilitarians, irrational, although I do not agree with these ideas. I would have to hear a specific person's arguments in order to determine that they, or their arguments, are irrational. What's more, a person can also be rational and incorrect.
you're a pretty good person.

idiom
03-01-2009, 05:06 AM
Are all moral things practical? Are all practical things moral?

This is an extreme Kantian position.

The Nap should be applied to governments only, but even then it fails.

There is a whole thread around here about all the holes in it. The Nap is anything if not impractical.

Truth Warrior
03-01-2009, 05:54 AM
I think the NAP is a great idea and a most promising next step on a possible escape route from the BARBARISM that continually threatens the ultimate survival of our species.

Grow up or die? "Do as you please -- but harm no other in their person or property." What's really so tough to "get" about that?


"We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if mankind is to survive." -- Albert Einstein

Xenophage
03-01-2009, 06:07 AM
Please don't assume only your position is rational. It would be better to say, "yes, I believe so". Or even, "yes, I believe that is the most rational position".

I would certainly not call all atheists, or utilitarians, irrational, although I do not agree with these ideas. I would have to hear a specific person's arguments in order to determine that they, or their arguments, are irrational. What's more, a person can also be rational and incorrect.

If I didn't presume that my position was rational, then I would adopt a different position. If I believed that two rational positions could contradict one another, I wouldn't believe in rationality - which, obviously, you don't.

Xenophage
03-01-2009, 06:10 AM
so moral and practical apply to things equally as we have established. now how are you defining practical? most definitions i'm coming up with suggest relating to things that are done or able to be done. which doesn't make a whole lot of sense given that you're identifying yourself as an objectivist who respects that NAP, not a de Sadean libertine.

A proper definition of "practical" is absolutely necessary in this case, you're right. By "practical" I mean: achieving an intended result. This implies a goal, and a goal implies a value. It also implies that the goal is achievable. So, by "practical," I mean achieving a value. I have stated my values.

tremendoustie
03-01-2009, 01:37 PM
If I didn't presume that my position was rational, then I would adopt a different position. If I believed that two rational positions could contradict one another, I wouldn't believe in rationality - which, obviously, you don't.

That's not true, two opposiong positions can certainly both be rational.

Suppose one man has lived his whole life on a boat, in the middle of the ocean, and has never seen dry land. In the absense of other evidence, it would be rational for him to assume that the whole world is covered by oceans.

Suppose another man has lived his whole life in the desert, and has never seen any body of water. In the absense of other evidence, it would be rational for him to assume that the whole world is covered by dry land.

If a person is "irrational", it means they do not determine their positions using rational thought. This is a much stronger statement than to say that a person is incorrect, or even that their reasoning is faulty. It is to say they do not base their ideas on reason at all.

I don't think you're irrational, even though I think you are wrong. Your thought processes seem to me to be quite rational.

torchbearer
03-01-2009, 01:40 PM
In my mind, the only moral absolute is that violence and force is wrong. On everything else, I'm about as pluralistic as they come, but the "Golden Rule" is inviolable.

Force can be applied two ways.
A means of aggression... or offensive.
Or used as protection... or defensive.

You blanket statement says the defending yourself with force is absolutely wrong.

pcosmar
03-01-2009, 01:51 PM
Are all moral things practical? Are all practical things moral?


Yes, but only to a rational being.

But in reality we are dealing with large segments of society and powerful individuals that are neither rational nor moral.


Force can be applied two ways.
A means of aggression... or offensive.
Or used as protection... or defensive.

You blanket statement says the defending yourself with force is absolutely wrong.

This is my perspective, Force or violence have their place but must be kept in check.
As in all things, a balance is necessary.

This thread seem to me to be more argument for arguments sake. :p

Chosen
03-01-2009, 03:46 PM
Xenophage, I hope you realize you arguments are based on subjective interpretations. You sound more like a closet Rothbardian than an objectivist.

Chosen
03-01-2009, 04:05 PM
An excellent description of what Objectivism is and why it isn't Libertarian:
http://www.mondopolitico.com/ideologies/atlantis/whatisobjectivism.htm

BuddyRey
03-01-2009, 05:06 PM
Force can be applied two ways.
A means of aggression... or offensive.
Or used as protection... or defensive.

You blanket statement says the defending yourself with force is absolutely wrong.

Sorry. I thought it was understood that I was speaking only of preemptive force. I'm absolutely not a Pacifist.

heavenlyboy34
03-01-2009, 05:09 PM
Xenophage, I hope you realize you arguments are based on subjective interpretations. You sound more like a closet Rothbardian than an objectivist.

I've been working my hypnotic ways on Xeno to convert him to the Rothbardian side. ;) It may be working! :D

Xenophage
03-01-2009, 05:45 PM
That's not true, two opposiong positions can certainly both be rational.

Suppose one man has lived his whole life on a boat, in the middle of the ocean, and has never seen dry land. In the absense of other evidence, it would be rational for him to assume that the whole world is covered by oceans.

Suppose another man has lived his whole life in the desert, and has never seen any body of water. In the absense of other evidence, it would be rational for him to assume that the whole world is covered by dry land.

If a person is "irrational", it means they do not determine their positions using rational thought. This is a much stronger statement than to say that a person is incorrect, or even that their reasoning is faulty. It is to say they do not base their ideas on reason at all.

I don't think you're irrational, even though I think you are wrong. Your thought processes seem to me to be quite rational.

You're right.

Rational people can disagree. I cede your point. In all honesty, I hesitated when I posted that last night.

However, in this particular case, where we are dealing with morality, one can choose to engage in ethical considerations based on facts which are universally observable, or one can choose their ethical considerations based on emotion, or whim, or what their parents told them. I maintain that if you are going to have a rational morality, it should be logically consistent with reality. My assertion is that if your ethics are rational then they will also be practical. I do believe that objective morality can be known and is possible, and two rational people will arrive at the same moral conclusions.

Its important to define what morality is. My assertion already presumes a particular definition that you might not agree with.

Essentially, morality means: a code of action, pertaining to your values. If you arrive upon your morality through good logic, then it should serve to benefit your values. Hence a good morality is also practical. So, some of the things I value are life, liberty, and happiness. The NAP, as a moral principle, will consistently promote these values.

Xenophage
03-01-2009, 05:54 PM
I've been working my hypnotic ways on Xeno to convert him to the Rothbardian side. ;) It may be working! :D

<3

The fact that I'm arguing with anarcho-capitalists actually makes me very happy, even when you're calling me names like "statist" and I refuse to call you anything but "anarchist".

Xenophage
03-01-2009, 05:56 PM
Xenophage, I hope you realize you arguments are based on subjective interpretations. You sound more like a closet Rothbardian than an objectivist.

Where are my arguments based on subjective interpretations? I may make errors, or weak arguments from time to time, but your insinuation that I don't know my own philosophy is insulting.

heavenlyboy34
03-01-2009, 05:58 PM
<3

The fact that I'm arguing with anarcho-capitalists actually makes me very happy, even when you're calling me names like "statist" and I refuse to call you anything but "anarchist".

Fine with me, as long as you understand and recognize the positive connotations of the word "anarchist". :D:) TTYL-have a nice weekend! ~hug~

idiom
03-01-2009, 06:22 PM
The poll should be:

Is your system of morality Utilitarian or Kantian. or other.

Things would get clearer a lot faster.

BuddyRey
03-01-2009, 08:49 PM
The poll should be:

Is your system of morality Utilitarian or Kantian. or other.

Things would get clearer a lot faster.

Actually, that just confuses me more. I have no idea what the Heck "Kantian" means. :o

Kludge
03-01-2009, 08:54 PM
Actually, that just confuses me more. I have no idea what the Heck "Kantian" means. :o

I've read about the Kantian system of morality before and I still have no idea wtf he was going on about. Some universal morality we don't know what is, but that we should be moral anyway.

Truth Warrior
03-01-2009, 08:56 PM
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/categorical%20imperative (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/categorical%20imperative)

Kludge
03-01-2009, 09:05 PM
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/categorical%20imperative (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/categorical%20imperative)

But then, couldn't you be a Utilitarian and a Kantian?

Truth Warrior
03-01-2009, 09:08 PM
But then, couldn't you be a Utilitarian and a Kantian? The "Golden Rule" and the NAP are much better examples and candidates.<IMHO> ;) Utilitarianism would sacrifice the 50% -1 for the "happiness ( greatest good )" of the 50% + 1. :p

Romantarchist
03-01-2009, 09:22 PM
Deontological FTW! Immanuel Kant is the man. Also, the Consequentialist view seems highly immoral and un-Christian. That is all I will say.

Kludge
03-01-2009, 09:35 PM
Deontological FTW! Immanuel Kant is the man. Also, the Consequentialist view seems highly immoral and un-Christian. That is all I will say.

:) I'm an Immoralist.

Truth Warrior
03-01-2009, 09:38 PM
:) I'm an Immoralist. What happened to your epiphany? :)

Kludge
03-01-2009, 10:01 PM
What happened to your epiphany? :)

Idunno. What did I say? Did it make for interesting conversation?

Truth Warrior
03-01-2009, 10:09 PM
Idunno. What did I say? Did it make for interesting conversation? I don't know. Probably not? :(