Libertarian morality
A debate I’ve had with some folks before centers on how folks of a libertarian bent lack moral conviction or are too tolerant of evil. Turns out, we’re quite moral and we have science to prove it. More from Ron Bailey. I think that what frustrates the average conservative or liberal about us crazy libertarians is that we have a:
stronger endorsement of individual liberty as their foremost guiding principle and correspondingly weaker endorsement of other moral principles
they conclude:
Libertarians may fear that the moral concerns typically endorsed by liberals or conservatives are claims that can be used to trample upon individual rights—libertarians’ sacred value. Clearly, libertarians are not amoral. Rather, standard morality scales do a poor job of measuring their one central and overriding moral commitment.
And we’re apparently autistic. Or have Asperger’s, which we knew already.
Sure, it’s written in pyschobabble, which we also have no tolerance for, but it’s entertaining.
November 9th, 2010 at 10:44 am
If you can quantify morality in such terms of “science”, then answer the age-old, previously-unanswered question, “How many angels fit on the head of a pin”, and present the “science” of that, sir. Metrics just don’t work the way these folks want them to work. Most of us with a grasp of the Scientific Method can find the holes in this “science”.
Or, you can go and read my critique of this pseudo-science:
http://rivrdog.typepad.com/rivrdog/2010/11/lying-with-statistics.html
November 9th, 2010 at 12:17 pm
Wookie suits are still goofy lookin’. Just sayin’.
November 9th, 2010 at 12:27 pm
Asperger’s? Piffle. If we had Asperger’s we would notice the spelling error and would be unable to respond to any other part of your post until it was fixed. And it would drive us crazy.
Crazy.
Absolutely crazy.
*gack*
November 9th, 2010 at 12:57 pm
If somebody is living by their own morality, then that can hardly be morality at all.
Even libertarians would say that there is some sort of standard, after all, if violating something like individual liberty is wrong, then already the idea of a moral standard has been established.
November 9th, 2010 at 1:24 pm
Let me redeem mysorryself by explaining — briefly — the opposing view point.
I believe that God is the source of morality. I’ve had extensive discussions with Him on this topic, and I am convinced that I’m not going to get Him to change His standards to suit my own preferences. His morality is based on love, and the harder I have tried to justify my natural morality as based on love, the more I am forced to admit that my natural morality is mostly based on self-love.
And that’s no kind of morality at all.
I am a libertarian, and I am opposed to abortion. There is no moral justification for killing the harmless and defenseless. There can be no liberty where innocent life can be taken without recourse. I will not compromise, and I will not be silenced.
I am a libertarian, and I am opposed to gay marriage. There is no moral justification for forcing a church to solemnize that which is forbidden by God. There can be no liberty if I am unable to obey God and preach His Word without fear. I will not compromise, and I will not be silenced.
That’s about it. If your definition of libertarianism cannot tolerate my liberty, then that’s your problem.
Galatians 5:2; here endeth the lesson.
November 9th, 2010 at 1:25 pm
Galatians 5:1 — twer a typo, nothing more.
November 9th, 2010 at 1:55 pm
Just remember Hypnagogue, there is no liberty if your liberty is more important than a homosexual’s liberty, or a non-Christian’s liberty. If you are opposed to abortion than don’t get one. Homosexuals don’t ask that the pope bless their union, only that the state acknowledge their commitment legally.
Morality is a set of rules that a man determines for himself. Whether he defines his own moral code or if he takes up the harness of another’s design, it is still a personal decision.
It’s like honor. I set the standards I expect of myself. When I fail to meet those standards I have dishonored myself. You cannot impugn my honor unless I am beholden to you.
Ethics on the other hand are a societal construct and are rules we agree on together, so that we may live together in something approaching harmony. This is where the left and the right diverge I think.
The right feels that it is ethical that each person should look out for themselves first and the group second.
The left on the other hand thinks it only ethical to think of the group first and by dong so the group will look out for the individual.
The right or wrong of any person’s lifestyle other than your own is of little import. What is important is this:
Can you co-exist with those who do you no harm, ask you to shoulder no burden, and would allow you to do the same?
And will you contest against those who will not leave you be and will do you and yours violence if you refuse to shoulder their estimation of “your share” of the communal burden?
November 9th, 2010 at 2:12 pm
“Asperger’s?” Actually if we had Asperger’s we’d key in on something totally unrelated to the acutal topic like the “How many angels fit on the head of a pin” question and couldn’t rest till it was answered.
ACK! Now I can’t stop thinking about it…
According to Al’s internets, the Plank Length is 1.6 x 10**-35 meters. Assuming all the angels are packed next to each other and are as small as QM allows, each angel would occupy pi*0,64*10**-70 square meters or 2*10**-70 square meters adjusted for the wasted space due to hexagonal closest packing. If the head of any given pin is 1mm in diameter, its area is 8*10**-5 square meters, so the number of angels would be (8*10**-5)/(2*10**-70) which is right at 400,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 angels.
However, from a “many worlds” viewpoint, there’s an infinite complexity of on/off conditions for the angels in any number of alternate realities.
That’s a lot of angels. Am I sure about that? No.
(wanders off muttering to himself about needing to get out of the house more often….)
November 9th, 2010 at 2:42 pm
I’m more concerned about evil.
And, no I cannot resolve anyone’s desire to condone abortion as it is killing the innocent with is by definition evil.
And I am convinced, as well, the aims of those who concile that we should get along to go along are countenancing evil.
YMMV. Spelling sucks, deal with it.
November 9th, 2010 at 3:46 pm
“If you are opposed to murder, then don’t kill anyone.”
Wow.
November 9th, 2010 at 3:55 pm
And if the church is willing? Perhaps they don’t believe it’s “forbidden by God”. Should the government not give that marriage the same recognition it would give a straight marriage performed by the same church? Why not?
Your position on gay marriage would impose your religious viewpoint on others, against their will. It would restrict the religious liberty of those who believe gay marriage is not forbidden.
November 9th, 2010 at 4:12 pm
Paul, here is no evil. There is only good for me and bad for me.
Oh, and the whole abortion/murder thing depends on whether:
a: Life begins in the womb.
b: You are born with original sin.
c: You believe in reincarnation.
Hypnagogue, killing is not murder. Murder is the killing of those who do not deserve death. The decision of who deserves to die is a matter of both moral and ethical debate, but the long and the short of it is, “Is the only way to ensure the safety of me and mine the death of this member of my community?” If the answer is yes then their death is a justifiable killing, and not murder.
November 9th, 2010 at 4:48 pm
Rauðbjorn, to be more specific, murder is the direct killing of an innocent human life.
The life in the womb is just a very early stage of human development. Either it is always a human, or never a human.
A baby a few days before being born is no less human than a baby just born, or a toddler is less human than an adult. Natural law applies to humans, regardless of what they look like or what stage of development they are. And since the life in the women’s womb is : human, innocent, and being targeted directly for death, then abortion does equal murder.
November 9th, 2010 at 6:06 pm
Dan, are you saying then, that the killing of a pickpocket is justifiable? How about a liar or an adulterer? Is it acceptable to kill any non-innocent? Or must we wait until they are adults? I went to school with some fairly nasty buggers, could I have killed them without it having been murder?
Catholics believe in original sin, that we are born guilty and remain so until christened. So then the abortion of catholic babies can hardly be murder then, according to you.
No, what separates killing from murder is need and proximity. Is this a member of my community, and do they pose a clear danger to me and mine?
November 9th, 2010 at 6:27 pm
I think you are talking past each other.
In the law, and in most moral/ethical systems of which I am aware including the non-aggression principle, you can’t justifiably kill someone who isn’t trying to kill you first. Killing is justified only to prevent death or grievious bodily harm of a non-aggressor. The aggressor is the guilty party for that discrete action, not any metaphysical standing with God.
In the case of the life of the mother being at risk from a pregnancy the parallel of that medically necessary abortion to “justifiable homicide” is easy to make.
Less so are pregnancies generated as a result of rape or incest. There the pregnant party is innocent, but so is the product of the crime. Killing it is, in many people’s views, still killing an innocent. The general viewpoint in this country though seems to be that an abortion in such cases may be excusable, if not truly justified. Since homicide should be a state matter, state’s should make their own laws on the subject.
Elective abortions, where there is no crime/force involved and no more than normal -physical- danger to the mother from carrying to term are where the sticking point comes. Many folks view abortion in that instance, in essence as birth control, to be murder as the situation was foreseeable and avoidable and there can be no guilt or irresponsibility devolved onto the product of the act at all. It’s a killing of, in the end, convenience.
November 9th, 2010 at 6:31 pm
As far as gay marriage goes, why on earth should the state be involved in a religious activity at all.
I feel the “libertarian” position should be that we as a nation should stop dancing around the issue due to tradition and utterly separate the “wedding” from the state-certified private contractual arrangement between two competent adults in any combination with defined benefits and responsibilites. Such benefits and responsibilities being between the contractees and not involving the tax money of others.
November 9th, 2010 at 6:40 pm
The “Golden Rule” of Christianity and many other traditions can cause problems for the faithful of libertarian bent.
It is a positive rule, saying -act- as you wish others to act towards you. It establishes an implicit quid pro quo of aid.
The problem is that our society rests on negative rights, not positive. A better fit is Kant’s inversion of the GR: do -not- do to others what you would -not- have them do to you. It premises us first not interfering with others for any reason, positive or negative, at all. There’s no implicit obligation to act.
Ironically(?) the best aphorism for our deist-founded nation, as far as public responsibility goes, would probably be Crowley’s: “An ye harm none, do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.”
The law thus existing solely to resolve conflicts, not mandate positive behaviors of anyone.
Private morality could handle what each person thought was their obligation to their fellow man in a non-aggressive (even for “good”) way.
November 9th, 2010 at 6:45 pm
Rauðbjorn, murder is the moral act, killing is the physical act. You admit yourself that there is a difference. But what you fail to understand is that murder is never morally justifiable. I assume, also, that you would admit that murder is a concern solely of people (and not animals or plants)
The other stuff you are going on about concerns crime and punishment, not murder in of itself.
I am not interested in a theological debate about a religion I am not a member of, but essentially original sin is the one all people have, whereas guilt generally is one that can be ‘attained’ by free will.
November 9th, 2010 at 7:57 pm
Dan, it is true that murder and killing are two different things, but both are moral acts. And like all moral acts the morality is in the eye of the beholder. What is moral for me may not be moral to you.
You specified innocent human life. I submit to you that according to one of the prevailing moral codes of the entire planet, we are born without innocence. Not saying I (or you) believe it, just saying that it’s there.
Crime and punishment are ethical concerns, not moral ones. I asked if what you were saying was that it was justifiable to kill someone who was not innocent of anything. What you did was dodge the question.
So I put it to you again, in plain and simple terms. If murder is the killing of innocent humans, then is it moral to kill someone who is guilty of anything?
Dodging the question will result in me calling you a Troll and laughing at you.
November 9th, 2010 at 9:06 pm
Rauðbjorn, killing is not a moral act. It is the physical act. Killing is the ending of a life. Things like self-defense, accidental, and murder are the moral part. If killing is not the physical act, tell me what the proper term is then?
You are absolutely wrong about the ‘prevailing moral codes of the entire planet.’ There is only one standard of right or wrong, and if not, then moral relativism occurs where everybody is right and everybody else is wrong. Plus, the planet can have no morality because…
Ethics (or morality, same thing) ONLY applies to rational beings, and on this planet, the only rational beings are ‘people.’ Animals are not rational, and neither are plants or planets, because they lack free will. Animals act according to their nature and only deviate when an outside force (like circus people) make animals act differently. And even then, an animal can only act as far as its own natural abilities will allow. Animals cannot relate ideas or concepts, for example.
Read what I said again about murder, “murder is the DIRECT killing of an innocent human life.” A killing cannot be a murder if it lacks the qualifiers 1) The victim was a human 2) The human life was taken 3) The killing was direct 4) The human was innocent. Can you infer from there, or should I create a proverbial mallet of obviousness to bash you over the head? Or at least if you are trying one ups-manship, for God’s sake, quote me correctly.
But for your amusement, in plain and simple terms: Depends on the situation.
November 9th, 2010 at 9:52 pm
Ending a life is ending a life Dan. It is an important thing to recognize. But the killing of an animal is not the same as the killing of a person. That too is also different from murder. Troll.
According to Wikipedia, as of 2007 the catholic church claimed 1.147 billion followers. I figure that for a spot in the top five moral codes world wide. Your attempt to derail my argument by equating my turn of phrase with the claim that the planet is sentient is noted. Troll.
Ethics and morals are not the same thing. Morals are the rules you use to determine if your actions are good or bad, right or wrong. Ethics are the rules society agrees on to keep us from killing each other over our morals (or lack thereof). Yes both morals and ethics only apply to sentient beings. Troll.
First you make an absolutest statement and then you reverse yourself by claiming it depends. By the gods and all the valkyr you are an artless and pitiful troll, and I will have no more to do with you. Good day, sir!
November 9th, 2010 at 10:11 pm
Rauðbjorn, try reading what I wrote. No where was I equating killing animals with murder. I explicitly explained to you what murder is, you are just not bright enough to comprehend it, apparently.
I would clean your clock out again, but clearly you are too much of an idiot to enlighten further. I mean, come one, Catholicism is a RELIGION, not a MORAL CODE!!! How much of an idiot are you, anyway? But I wish you said that earlier, I would not have wasted my time.
Nobody is impressed with your lack of understanding, take it somewhere else please.
November 10th, 2010 at 1:28 pm
Magus, that’s “Planck” length. I speak as an Aspie pedant.