Deontologlical Libertarianism vs. Consequentialist Libertarianism

[nate895]

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]

Consequentialist pretending to believe in ethics, if I'm honest.

 

[BuddyRey]

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]

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]

Hence, you are either deontological or both.

Yep. I voted deontological.

 

[Xenophage]

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]

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]

Are all moral things practical? Are all practical things moral?

Yes, but only to a rational being.

 

[tremendoustie]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Chosen]

Xenophage, I hope you realize you arguments are based on subjective interpretations. You sound more like a closet Rothbardian than an objectivist.

 

[Chosen]

An excellent description of what Objectivism is and why it isn't Libertarian:
http://www.mondopolitico.com/ideologies/atlantis/whatisobjectivism.htm

 

[BuddyRey]

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.