I suppose you didn’t take the time to read any of the other posts I made ahead of this, but I am not particularly surprised. You would rather throw ad hominems around instead.[/quote]
Try again - there are no ad hominems.
M’kay, pumpkin - then show me where I have an “unsound argument”.
Uh no, I never said anything against sacrificing someone against their will. Secondly, the issue - as you framed it - is whether the Constitution (mainly the Establishment Clause) permits the “libertarian” ideal of doing pretty much whatever you want so long as it is prescibed by your religion. Quite clearly, that is not true, as evidenced by the human sacrifice/homicide issue…oh, and the public nudity law which you conveniently ignored.
One last point - get your logical fallacies straight. Nothing I said is a “straw man” - I might be wrong on the merits, but it isn’t a straw man, because I didn’t assign a position to you that you don’t have and then attack the false position. You’re just one of many pretentious dim bulbs that in order to sidestep having to address arguments head on, you simply start belching out every logical fallacy you’ve ever heard of whether they apply or not. Stop it - you look foolish.
No, you can’t because once you condemn someone’s “lifestyle choice” as wrong, you’ve ceased being a libertarian (as you have described it). And you’ve already admitted that you think Freedom is an end. When Freedom is an End, it has to be accompanied by moral relativism - there’s no other way.
Libertarianism is a juvenile ideology that we can “actually discuss” and find problems with in less than five minutes. I’ve discussed it at length - don’t believe me, do a search.
As for your contributions, all you do is repeat - like a programmed robot - banalities about abtsractions about liberty. You haven’t spent any time refuting my statement that libertarianism begets the nanny state - instead, you just blather prefabricated bullet points. Not going to get it done, junior.
This is hilarious, although unintentionally so, I am sure. You haven’t pointed to a single “false assumption” nor have you refuted my “moral relativism is the underpinning of libertarianism because it has to be” position. Feel free at any time. Howevever, I’d ask that you up your game. You see, libertarians like you are a dime a dozen around here - half-educated, defensive, ideologically blinkered…oh, and can’t forget…incredibly sensitive at even the slightest criticism of their precious utopian philosophy. It gets old.
In short, libertarians around here read half the book and then insist they know the whole story. If this is the best you can offer, well, why bother?
to be fair, i don’t think libertarianism necessarily lead to moral relativism.
Libertarians are often pretty absolutists with their shiny abstractions. And they often rely (knowingly or not) on metaphysical concepts to justify their premises.
In fact, they are moral minimalists.
They think the best moral is the broadest one, because this broader spectrum moral would encompass the largest number of possible morals.
which is quite rational, given their strategy of universel conquest.
libertarians combine the worst of moral relativism and the worst of moral absolutism.
like the relativist, they will happily deny the moral nature of many acts, and feel authorized to act immoraly or to promote immorality.
Like the absolutist, they will found legitime to wreck entire countries and cultures if something in the local way of life contradict their minimalist but still very specific “moral”… or if you don’t buy their utopia.
[quote]kamui wrote:
to be fair, i don’t think libertarianism necessarily lead to moral relativism.
Libertarians are often pretty absolutists with their shiny abstractions. And they often rely (knowingly or not) on metaphysical concepts to justify their premises.
In fact, they are moral minimalists.
They think the best moral is the broadest one, because this broader spectrum moral would encompass the largest number of possible morals.
which is quite rational, given their strategy of universel conquest.
[/quote]
Pish posh, this is quite rational given that we have all have to live in a society with lots of people who disagree with us .
Therefore the consensus when and where and why the state could and should use force ought to be as broad as possible.
I suppose you didn’t take the time to read any of the other posts I made ahead of this, but I am not particularly surprised. You would rather throw ad hominems around instead.[/quote]
Try again - there are no ad hominems.
M’kay, pumpkin - then show me where I have an “unsound argument”.
Uh no, I never said anything against sacrificing someone against their will. Secondly, the issue - as you framed it - is whether the Constitution (mainly the Establishment Clause) permits the “libertarian” ideal of doing pretty much whatever you want so long as it is prescibed by your religion. Quite clearly, that is not true, as evidenced by the human sacrifice/homicide issue…oh, and the public nudity law which you conveniently ignored.
One last point - get your logical fallacies straight. Nothing I said is a “straw man” - I might be wrong on the merits, but it isn’t a straw man, because I didn’t assign a position to you that you don’t have and then attack the false position. You’re just one of many pretentious dim bulbs that in order to sidestep having to address arguments head on, you simply start belching out every logical fallacy you’ve ever heard of whether they apply or not. Stop it - you look foolish.
No, you can’t because once you condemn someone’s “lifestyle choice” as wrong, you’ve ceased being a libertarian (as you have described it). And you’ve already admitted that you think Freedom is an end. When Freedom is an End, it has to be accompanied by moral relativism - there’s no other way.
Libertarianism is a juvenile ideology that we can “actually discuss” and find problems with in less than five minutes. I’ve discussed it at length - don’t believe me, do a search.
As for your contributions, all you do is repeat - like a programmed robot - banalities about abtsractions about liberty. You haven’t spent any time refuting my statement that libertarianism begets the nanny state - instead, you just blather prefabricated bullet points. Not going to get it done, junior.
This is hilarious, although unintentionally so, I am sure. You haven’t pointed to a single “false assumption” nor have you refuted my “moral relativism is the underpinning of libertarianism because it has to be” position. Feel free at any time. Howevever, I’d ask that you up your game. You see, libertarians like you are a dime a dozen around here - half-educated, defensive, ideologically blinkered…oh, and can’t forget…incredibly sensitive at even the slightest criticism of their precious utopian philosophy. It gets old.
In short, libertarians around here read half the book and then insist they know the whole story. If this is the best you can offer, well, why bother?[/quote]
Name calling, while arguably not an ad hominem, is what I was referring to as it is such a penchant of yours.
The validity of an argument (i.e. the structure of an argument) is a necessary but insufficient condition for the soundness of an argument. Validity in the philosophical sense does not reference the truth value of the premises or conclusion of an argument. But to be sound an argument must be both valid (structurally correct) and also have true premises. You have an incorrect premise (libertarianism necessarily implies moral relativism) and is thus unsound.
You are wrong that libertarianism implies moral relativism point of fact. Libertarians, if anything, are moral absolutists even if they are minimal in their absolute principles. The principle of non-aggression is not in any way shape or form relative. A very quick google search of the term would reveal just how spectacularly wrong you are on this point:
“Moral absolutism is the ethical view that certain actions are absolutely right or wrong, regardless of other contexts such as their consequences or the intentions behind them. Thus stealing, for instance, might be considered to be always immoral, even if done to promote some other good (e.g., stealing food to feed a starving family), and even if it does in the end promote such a good. Moral absolutism stands in contrast to other categories of normative ethical theories such as consequentialism, which holds that the morality (in the wide sense) of an act depends on the consequences or the context of the act.”
Libertarians believe in absolute moral principles such as non-aggression. This does not change. It just so happens they do not have the right to force you to believe what they believe. It does not mean they morally condone the actions of those that disagree with them, quite the contrary or we as a group wouldn’t get so worked up over the trampling of peoples rights. There is absolutely nothing morally relative about this.
Now to be sure, some Libertarians may simply say ‘it is none of my business’ when moral matters come up, but this is not a necessary part of the philosophy. As I explained earlier, you can both actively and openly oppose someones actions while still asserting they have the right to do that without experiencing physical violence as a result. This is all that Libertarians propose. Libertarianism DOES NOT mean you cannot show opprobrium for an act and also ostracize people from society. In fact quite the opposite, this is precisely how Libertarians believe social justice (like correcting racism, sexism, etc.) would work without the government. I have also NEVER stated Libetarianism in such a way that would imply this (yet another false claim).
And that is where the straw man comes in. You are falsely associating Libertarianism with moral relativism and then shooting down the whole philosophy of Libertarianism based on the weaknesses of the moral relativist position. Pretty much a classic straw man. For brevity’s sake here is wikipedias definition of a straw man which is a good one:
"The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:
Person A has position X.
Person B disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y. Thus, Y is a resulting distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:
Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent’s position.
Quoting an opponent’s words out of context â?? i.e. choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent’s actual intentions (see fallacy of quoting out of context).[2]
Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then refuting that person’s arguments â?? thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.[1]
Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
Oversimplifying an opponent’s argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.
Person B attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious, because attacking a distorted version of a position fails to constitute an attack on the actual position."
Do you see why your premise is false now (Libertarianism =/= moral relativism)? Do you then see why that makes your argument unsound (false premise)? Do you also see why this is a text book straw man (you mis-characterized Libertarianism and then “refuted” the distorted version)?
Also I have in fact addressed your issue of the ‘hand maiden of the nanny state’ in precisely the same way you did: social institutions would pick up the slack and prevent this. You just chose to ignore this by claiming Libertarianism must, by definition, destroy or undermine all social institutions since it is morally relative, which as we have just seen is very, very wrong on a basic philosophical level.
Also the reason most libertarians argue similar points in similar ways is because, as a group, they are more consistent in their principles than others. You can view this as a weakness if you want, but this is what happens when folks consistently stick to their principles.
So to summarize: you used ad hominems (name calling + claiming all libertarians are “naive by extension”) or at the least something close. Libertarians are not moral relativists (in fact they are more appropriately moral absolutists). Libertarians believe in social institutions and would not necessarily cause their destruction. Libertarians sound a lot alike, because they are generally consistent in their application of their principles.
Before I reply to your longer post, I want to make sure I don’t misunderstand your position, so let’s have an answer to this question:
Other than your “non-aggression principle”, do you think that there exists a Morality/Other Morals apart from an individual’s preference?
You see, for it to be a “moral” it must be definitionally right or wrong outside of individual opinion, and even if it conflicts with a individual’s preference.
It doesn’t matter if someone simply castigates someone else for bad behavior - that is the Step Two. Let’s start at Step One.
So, what is your answer? Are there any (other) Morals that exist apart from and outside of the individual?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I don’t understand how people cannot absolutely agree with the idea that one should mind his own business and also not hurt other people.[/quote]
We will just see military-industrial companies assuming the mantle of the State directly, for and by themselves.
[/quote]
Aren’t there a number of books taking on that subject in dystopian fashion? I seem to recall that is a fair theme in science-fiction and future-fiction.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I don’t understand how people cannot absolutely agree with the idea that one should mind his own business and also not hurt other people.[/quote]
Tradition, it is better than stupid ideas.[/quote]
You are right.
After slavery was abolished, heretics were no longer burned at the stakes and the churches influence on society was broken it all went downhill fast.
Before I reply to your longer post, I want to make sure I don’t misunderstand your position, so let’s have an answer to this question:
Other than your “non-aggression principle”, do you think that there exists a Morality/Other Morals apart from an individual’s preference?
You see, for it to be a “moral” it must be definitionally right or wrong outside of individual opinion, and even if it conflicts with a individual’s preference.
It doesn’t matter if someone simply castigates someone else for bad behavior - that is the Step Two. Let’s start at Step One.
So, what is your answer? Are there any (other) Morals that exist apart from and outside of the individual?[/quote]
Technically it wouldn’t matter how many morals are held absolute so long as one is, so even if a libertarian had only one moral (don’t initiate violence i.e. the non-aggression principle) that would be enough to make them a moral absolutist.
I have a number of caveats and reservations to this position, but suffice it to say that I think in this universe and this world I do think there are objective moral truths. Without going down a rabbit hole, I would say the number of morals would depend on how far back you wanted to track their source. The non-aggression principle implies a lot of different moral rules like private property, pacifism, and the like. But I do think that at the very least the non-aggression principle holds true regardless of culture, opinion or preference. So for example, I would say slavery is always wrong no matter the time, place or preference of anyone. Murder is similarly always wrong no matter the time, place or preference.
I am not sure what you mean by ‘outside the individual’, but as a secularist I do not hold that any ‘religious morals’ exist (i.e. only worship one god, tithe, etc.).
I would also throw this out there too, in addition to not thinking minarchism or anarchism would be a utopia I also do not think we could change our rules overnight and have it work properly either. Undoubtedly it will take time to acclimate to the increased freedoms (and dangers) liberalization would bring. You can’t make a serious drunk quit cold turkey or they will die and I think that analogy holds for human society. I do think that eventually mankind could quite easily come to get along without the state, even if we couldn’t do it right this very second. It is the ultimate governmental step so to speak. Not to be too much of a positivist here, but I think the increasing liberalization of the world would bear this teleological approach out. It may not be a straight line, but the general trend over history has been for more and more personal freedom and rights independent of the state.
Technically it wouldn’t matter how many morals are held absolute so long as one is, so even if a libertarian had only one moral (don’t initiate violence i.e. the non-aggression principle) that would be enough to make them a moral absolutist. [/quote]
That wasn’t the question, was it?
Well, let’s clear some things up and make sure we have an understanding. First, under your own paradigm, morals aren’t dependent on “how far back you wanted to track their source.” They either exist, or they don’t. Either you can justify them as universal moral truths, or you can’t. So that statement is without value.
Second, you say slavery violates the non-aggression principle, but you never say whether slavery-as-indentured servitude falls into this category. What if slavery is the penalty for non-payment of a contractual debt? Moral? Or immoral?
In any event, let’s clarify your point - the only real moral you think exists is the non-aggression principle and the conduct this principle captures in subsets, i.e., murder is immoral, but because it violates the non-aggression principle.
So, you mentioned murder and slavery (by extension, immoral because they violate the non-aggression principle) - any other conduct you’d consider immoral?
If I have a two year old child, do I have a moral obligation to take care of it? To make sure it gets fed and is protected? The non-aggression principle isn’t invoked here - so, is there a moral duty independent of my personal preference to take care of this child?
By “outside the individual” I mean that it exists independent of an individual’s preference. Morals - by definition - are not mere preferences. If they were merely preferences, we can’t call them morals. To call something a “moral” means to say that certain conduct is right or wrong independent of what an individual may have a preference for.
And don’t get caught up in how morality might or might not be enforced - that’s Step Two. Let’s stay on Step One - does a morality outside the individual?
And, as an admitted “secularist”, you’ve given away the game - you have no basis to claim universality of any moral truth. But I’ll leave that for now.
This is irrelevant to my question, but maybe more importantly, it’s false.
Heck, private property violates non-aggression. Don’t get me wrong, it’s the best we can do on our limited little rock here. However, I don’t pretend that a piece of earth comes into existence, assigned to every new human life born into the world. At some point, someone or some persons claims(ed) matter he didn’t create, and slapped an imaginary line around. Exclusive ownership over nature’s bounties, trespassers will be shot (or bonked on the head with a club, whatever). This concept of private property isn’t really like looking back at an infinite history of men creating the earth, air, and water. And then, selling it on the market. Or, simply sitting on it. Someone said, “I’m using this and you’re not, don’t test me.”
Technically it wouldn’t matter how many morals are held absolute so long as one is, so even if a libertarian had only one moral (don’t initiate violence i.e. the non-aggression principle) that would be enough to make them a moral absolutist. [/quote]
That wasn’t the question, was it?
Well, let’s clear some things up and make sure we have an understanding. First, under your own paradigm, morals aren’t dependent on “how far back you wanted to track their source.” They either exist, or they don’t. Either you can justify them as universal moral truths, or you can’t. So that statement is without value.
Second, you say slavery violates the non-aggression principle, but you never say whether slavery-as-indentured servitude falls into this category. What if slavery is the penalty for non-payment of a contractual debt? Moral? Or immoral?
In any event, let’s clarify your point - the only real moral you think exists is the non-aggression principle and the conduct this principle captures in subsets, i.e., murder is immoral, but because it violates the non-aggression principle.
So, you mentioned murder and slavery (by extension, immoral because they violate the non-aggression principle) - any other conduct you’d consider immoral?
If I have a two year old child, do I have a moral obligation to take care of it? To make sure it gets fed and is protected? The non-aggression principle isn’t invoked here - so, is there a moral duty independent of my personal preference to take care of this child?
By “outside the individual” I mean that it exists independent of an individual’s preference. Morals - by definition - are not mere preferences. If they were merely preferences, we can’t call them morals. To call something a “moral” means to say that certain conduct is right or wrong independent of what an individual may have a preference for.
And don’t get caught up in how morality might or might not be enforced - that’s Step Two. Let’s stay on Step One - does a morality outside the individual?
And, as an admitted “secularist”, you’ve given away the game - you have no basis to claim universality of any moral truth. But I’ll leave that for now.
This is irrelevant to my question, but maybe more importantly, it’s false. [/quote]
The last bit of my statement was simply to clear up a misunderstanding most folks seem to make when discussing libertarianism- namely that we all think everything would be fine if we woke up tomorrow with no government whatsoever. It was not in relation to your question, but more for the general discussion here as people keep chirping up about how we are all utopians and believe everything would be instantly better without government.
To the first question, since we are discussing moral relativism stating that you only need one absolute moral tenet to be an absolutist and not a relativist is relevant, but as I stated previously yes I believe there are moral principles outside of preference, culture or time.
If you want to digress from the main point that libertarianism does not imply moral relativism, and thus your argument (a straw man at that) was wrong, that is fine but let’s start a new thread on the subject as it will get very lengthy here with these side shows. But to answer one of your questions briefly, it would depend on the contract that indentured servant signed. If he is simply agreeing to work for someone in their home for X amount of time for Y good, but his personal body is still protected from violence this would be acceptable. This is much like any business contract at that point. But if what you mean is he could sign his life into the hands of another such that that person is now can beat, rape or murder them then no I would say that contract is null from the start.
To your point about ‘outside of the individual’ meaning morality existing outside of preference,then yes, yet again, I agree. I have said this many, many times now in plain english in multiple posts, but hopefully it will sink in this time- I BELIEVE MORALS EXIST OUTSIDE OF PREFERENCE AND LIBERTARIANISM ALLOWS THIS.
If you are asking me to quickly jot down every single moral I think might be an absolute one, then I am going to disappoint you, because honestly this is something I am not fully settled on myself nor do I have the hubris to admit I have everyone figured out. I do believe the principle of non-aggression is absolute with all of its subsets, but it would take longer than this post to hash it all out. Happy to see your list though to help get me jump started. Luckily an exhaustive list isn’t in anyway necessary for our discussion on Libertarianism and moral relativism.
This is a whole other can of worms, but talk about a tired argument (I know you are very concerned about people using tired arguments “from the playbook”). Secularists can’t have a universal code without religion? This could pretty easily be done with something like the categorical imperative- no God required. You can claim logical interpretations would mean this is all willy nilly (i.e. not universal), but honestly, with all of the sects within every major religion this cannot be a fair criticism.
And finally, as mentioned above the final statement was simply to elucidate general points many bashing libertarians often misconstrue while you formulated a response. But let me ask you this, if my observation on the general trend is wrong then you are claiming that we are somehow less free (or at best EQUALLY free) from our governments than we were during times of absolute monarchs, slavery, serfs, apartheid, witch hunts, lack of female equality, Jim Crow laws, et al? Are you genuinely going to make that claim? I concede there are ebbs and flows (as I already stated) but do you seriously mean to take the position that as a general rule people around the world are less free (or equally free) than they were in past centuries? It sort of sounds like you read half a book and then didn’t finish it.
Just accept it, you constructed a very poor, fallacious argument to discredit a philosophy you don’t understand (but still hate) and are now trying to distract from that point once it became blatantly obvious it was a crap argument. What is it you like to say so much? “Stop it your embarrassing yourself?”
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Heck, private property violates non-aggression. Don’t get me wrong, it’s the best we can do on our limited little rock here. However, I don’t pretend that a piece of earth comes into existence, assigned to every new human life born into the world. At some point, someone or some persons claims(ed) matter he didn’t create, and slapped an imaginary line around. Exclusive ownership over nature’s bounties, trespassers will be shot (or bonked on the head with a club, whatever). This concept of private property isn’t really like looking back at an infinite history of men creating the earth, air, and water. And then, selling it on the market. Or, simply sitting on it. Someone said, “I’m using this and you’re not, don’t test me.”[/quote]
So you not only want a system that works but the immaculate conception of such a system.
Yeah well, then you will indeed have to go to religion.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Heck, private property violates non-aggression. Don’t get me wrong, it’s the best we can do on our limited little rock here. However, I don’t pretend that a piece of earth comes into existence, assigned to every new human life born into the world. At some point, someone or some persons claims(ed) matter he didn’t create, and slapped an imaginary line around. Exclusive ownership over nature’s bounties, trespassers will be shot (or bonked on the head with a club, whatever). This concept of private property isn’t really like looking back at an infinite history of men creating the earth, air, and water. And then, selling it on the market. Or, simply sitting on it. Someone said, “I’m using this and you’re not, don’t test me.”[/quote]
So you not only want a system that works but the immaculate conception of such a system.
Yeah well, then you will indeed have to go to religion.
To the first question, since we are discussing moral relativism stating that you only need one absolute moral tenet to be an absolutist and not a relativist is relevant, but as I stated previously yes I believe there are moral principles outside of preference, culture or time. [/quote]
Well, no - such sophistry doesn’t advance the ball at all - after all even the Rule of Moral Relativism contradicts itself because it itself is a rule stating a truth, but that’s an aside.
My origional point was that:
Certain morals exist whose health are crucial to our society
Libertarians, being moral relativists, see these “morals” as not morals at all, and treat them as “take them or leave them” - which is relativism in fact
Bad things happen when we don’t consider these “morals” morals any more.
Now, I followed up with you to see what morals you think actually exist. We’ve established that you think the “non-aggression principle” exists. So what else?
Libertarianism does imply moral relativism (for additional reasons that I will get to, namely the fact that as secularist, you have no claim that morals exist transcendent of a given preference). But to the specific question - why can’t a free person enter into a contract that signs their life into the hands of another person such that the other person can do all of the awful things you mentioned? He was free to do so - what makes that contract “null”?
You keep repeating a red herring - it doesn’t matter what libertarianism “allows” - it only matters, in the first instance, what morals exist and which don’t. We’re working hard on that, despite your efforts to avoid the question.
Well, glad to see you dial down the hubris after all the gum-flapping about how libertarianism has it all figured out and is the only “consistent” philosophy, etc.
We can start slow. How about the question you avoided? Does a parent have a moral duty to take care of a child? Yes or no?
Correct - secularists cannot have a universal code, period. Set aside religion, which doesn’t order morality in a universal way, secularists don’t have a basis for anything universal - they merely have preferences that they would like to see adopted universally, but they can source no authority that supports an idea that an independent morality that transcends individual preference exists.
Nope, but nice try. The history of Man suggests not a trajectory towards freedom, but rather cycles where civilizations progress and then decline. And Humans have shown a penchant for embrcaing dreadful ideologies that hamper our progress and civilization, including a worship of the state (see Nazi Germany, Communist Russia) and abstract liberty (see French Revolution).
These are the convulsions of ideology - and are stark contrasts to this foolish notion of The March of Freedom Through History. If we aren’t careful to preserve our gains while rejecting these jaunts into re-designing idiocy (“if only we reorganize our entire society on the basis of Reason!”), we cause one of those declines.
We’ve made tremendous gains. This is the point I have making all along. I have no interest in undermining those gains by indulging in frivolous ideologies - like libertarianism.
No, I understand libertarianism just fine, and you aren’t off the hook yet. Despite your best efforts to talk around the issue, I want to cut right to the heart of it - what morals exist (outside of the “non-aggression principle”)?
Can’t wait for your answer.
Oh, and for bonus points - are public nudit laws unconstitutional if they interfere with a person’s religious tenet of nakedness?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Heck, private property violates non-aggression. Don’t get me wrong, it’s the best we can do on our limited little rock here. However, I don’t pretend that a piece of earth comes into existence, assigned to every new human life born into the world. [/quote]
If a piece of land is previously unowned then how can there be aggression used to homestead it?
Homesteading is nonviolent. Exchanging homesteaded property is non violent.
it’s extremely easy for an anti-agression ideology to become extremely violent. Just say the ennemy ‘did it first’ and lets pretend you’re only using violence against the violence of the State.
History has shown that even an anti-statist ideology can build very big states, given the chance. Just pretend it is the “last State”, the “State that will someday abolish the State”.
Libertarianism, like all ideologies that want to rebuild humanity based on “pure principles” and a mythical “human nature”, IS potentially dangerous.