Deontologlical Libertarianism vs. Consequentialist Libertarianism

[heavenlyboy34]

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!

 

[Xenophage]

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]

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

<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]

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]

<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". TTYL-have a nice weekend! ~hug~

 

[idiom]

The poll should be:

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

Things would get clearer a lot faster.

 

[BuddyRey]

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]

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]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/categorical%20imperative

 

[Kludge]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/categorical%20imperative

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

 

[Truth Warrior]

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.

 

[Romantarchist]

Deontological FTW! Immanuel Kant is the man. Also, the Consequentialist view seems highly immoral and un-Christian. That is all I will say.

 

[Kludge]

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]

I'm an Immoralist.

What happened to your epiphany?

 

[Kludge]

What happened to your epiphany?

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

 

[Truth Warrior]

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

I don't know. Probably not?