It may be reasonable to base ethics on science, but I think that leads people to the misconception of the reverse- that you can derive science from ethics. Which is not true.
Going from science-to-ethics-to-law is an extra complication that is unnecessary, and is open to abuse by the religious.
So it is my belief that we should skip ethics, and go straight from scientific reasoning.
"banning" is a misleading term. What has been prevented is the government recognition of gay marriage in California. As the State is an illegitimate institution, state recognition is irrelevant.
It is impossible to escape ethics in society. Both permitting and forbidding gay marriage are ethical positions. Any rule that forbids, allows, mandates or ignores a behavior is based on some ethical principle.
I agree that the state should not intervene in marriage and that some people will always have morals/ethics. My belief is that if we want maximum prosperity in society, societal laws should be discovered similarly to the laws of nature- through science, not ethics.
You are referring to Natural Law theory. Natural Law is what Rothbard's Ethics of Liberty are based on. I guess it would be more proper to say that valid economic theory and valid ethics have a common basis (natural law).
Actually, the whole thing is on a series of youtube videos, or you can read the whole thing online for free at misesdotorg. I was using the word "objective" as an adjective.
I didn't mean to imply that you think ethics should be a basis for economics.
Being amoral, I personally believe ethics shouldn't apply to society law.
I believe that society law should be composed of pragmatic and universal rules alone.
Since different people have different ethics, I think that making ethics a consideration for law is a step into a dangerous direction. (Outlaw drugs, etc.)
Not that I'm arguing. I just think the societies that adopt pragmatism will simply prosper the most.
Recognition of and respect for private property is an ethical principle. Minding one's own business is an ethical principle.
I don't see why you would consider yourself amoral for advocating either. You want freedom for others as well as yourself, which is morally consistent.
I agree that man-made laws are invalid, but natural laws and natural rights do not depend on man-made legislation. No social contract needed. Private property is just a description for something that objectively exists.
Recognition/Respect for priv.prop is enforced by violence (State against the offendor/Owner against the offendor)not ethics,fear of consq. Minding your own business is not ethical if a woman is being raped or a child is drowning so may be amoral depndng on circumstance. Private property is a man-made law so how invalid? Again not sure what a natural law/right is except that the strongest is in charge...Agree no social contract needed...but rule by force
Being a good Samaritan is optional, not required. If you want to take your ridiculous hypothetical to it's ridiculous extreme, what if the drowning baby is the next Hitler? What if the rape you prevented would have resulted in the next Einstein being born? Private property is not man-made law. It is Natural Law. Philosophers from Locke to Rothbard agree on that.
Obviously private property is defended by violence from violent threats. It's a violent world and nothing can change than. We can reduce the violence by adopting the Non-Aggression Principle. Violence only is acceptable in self-defense (which includes property) and only proportional to the threat. You may think this is not a valid position if you do not understand the Rothbardian definition of property. Legit private property has to meet some strict qualifications.
Ethics are morals upheld by society. All laws are based on ethics. I think you mean morals. Which are more personal. And ethics is the basis for economies. As it is ethics that create property and title rights. To reduce conflict. What can and cannot be owned is a matter of ethics of that society. Usually you have rights of exclusivity (ownership) given to scarcity. Water rights, land rights, and all that. Without those rights how can you have an economy. No one would be able to trade without it
You are actually making my point for me, as I was countering the claim that "Building an economic system based on ethics is for fools."
All economic systems are based on somebody's ethics. Now when a group of like-minded people have moral principles in common and they agree to abide by those principles, those principles become ethical principles, even if the greater society doesn't share them.
Yeah, I was replying to spero1. I do agree and was making your point. Although I do disagree that private property is objective. Property only exists if someone wants to hold on to something and is willing to use force if necessary. And then it depends on if the force is strong enough. But I do think that since we all do not know how to behave, that private property is the best system we got. Until a freely associated voluntary moral system we agree on... we need private property.
Property does exist precisely because people do want to hold onto stuff enough to use force to keep it. Sure, their are subject definitions of private property, but the objective definition is the only one that's valid. This is where Rothbard's Ethics of Liberty comes in.
I am sure that we agree, but I do not understand your definitions. Is it "objective theory" or an "objective" theory. 1st meaning a title given to a certain theory, 2nd a description of a theory. Or is it not a theory just an objective fact? I have not read Ethics of Liberty. Perhaps you can paraphrase or make a video.
I don't know of ANY 'Ethical' society.Pragmatic (mainly aproving-defn.) is introducing democracy & inconsistent. Not sure what a 'Universal Rule' is except that the strongest will rule/survive (rule by force/violence which i think is a natural law)Ethics(right conduct) i believe to be universal and SHOULD be the basis for Law (enforced by consequence-read violence)Outlawing 'drugs' is correct to protect children but not to criminalize adults-we need to distinguish.
You are using the word "ethical" in a different manner than I am. You are saying that no society conforms to YOUR ethics. FWIW, noe conform to mine, either, but that doesn't mean they are not ethical. The relevant question is whether a society conforms to its own ethics and whether or not those ethics are valid.
I think we should leave ethics to the religious and socialist. Building an economic system based on ethics is for fools. We need the NAP and absolute property rights based on pragmatic reasoning.
As theft increases, economic prosperity decreases.
Is not the NAP also an ethical principle? I can think of two works--off the top of my head--that posit just such a proposition: Universally Preferable Behavior (Stefan Molyneux) and The Ethics of Liberty (Murray Rothbard).
The argument from economic pragmatism is certainly valid, but has limited persuasive appeal to the economically illiterate (which includes almost everyone).
I agree that the pragmatic viewpoint is less appealing. Though I think ethics as a basis for economics is completely negligent. Ethics as a basis for economics is what socialists do. We both know that socialist anarchy will inevitably fail.
NAP can be considered ethical, but I simply refer to it as the representation for negative rights. (life, liberty, property)
I didn't and don't say that ethics is a basis for economics. Economics is a science. Austrian economics are valid because of a priori reasoning and real-world evidence. I agree that no ethical basis is needed or appropriate. For starters, it invokes the is/ought problem.
Yet ethics are extremely necessary for ordering a society. "maximizing economic prosperity" is simply not sufficient, especially (as the ignorant fear) if it comes at the expense of other types of prosperity.
It may be reasonable to base ethics on science, but I think that leads people to the misconception of the reverse- that you can derive science from ethics. Which is not true.
Going from science-to-ethics-to-law is an extra complication that is unnecessary, and is open to abuse by the religious.
So it is my belief that we should skip ethics, and go straight from scientific reasoning.
Sepero1 3 years ago
"Ethics are morals upheld by society. All laws are based on ethics."
Exactly. This is the problem. It is because of things like this that stupid shit happens like banning gay marriage and "war on drugs".
Sepero1 3 years ago
"banning" is a misleading term. What has been prevented is the government recognition of gay marriage in California. As the State is an illegitimate institution, state recognition is irrelevant.
It is impossible to escape ethics in society. Both permitting and forbidding gay marriage are ethical positions. Any rule that forbids, allows, mandates or ignores a behavior is based on some ethical principle.
billyjoeallen 3 years ago
I agree that the state should not intervene in marriage and that some people will always have morals/ethics. My belief is that if we want maximum prosperity in society, societal laws should be discovered similarly to the laws of nature- through science, not ethics.
Sepero1 3 years ago
You are referring to Natural Law theory. Natural Law is what Rothbard's Ethics of Liberty are based on. I guess it would be more proper to say that valid economic theory and valid ethics have a common basis (natural law).
billyjoeallen 3 years ago
Actually, the whole thing is on a series of youtube videos, or you can read the whole thing online for free at misesdotorg. I was using the word "objective" as an adjective.
billyjoeallen 3 years ago
I didn't mean to imply that you think ethics should be a basis for economics.
Being amoral, I personally believe ethics shouldn't apply to society law.
I believe that society law should be composed of pragmatic and universal rules alone.
Since different people have different ethics, I think that making ethics a consideration for law is a step into a dangerous direction. (Outlaw drugs, etc.)
Not that I'm arguing. I just think the societies that adopt pragmatism will simply prosper the most.
Sepero1 3 years ago
Recognition of and respect for private property is an ethical principle. Minding one's own business is an ethical principle.
I don't see why you would consider yourself amoral for advocating either. You want freedom for others as well as yourself, which is morally consistent.
I agree that man-made laws are invalid, but natural laws and natural rights do not depend on man-made legislation. No social contract needed. Private property is just a description for something that objectively exists.
billyjoeallen 3 years ago
Recognition/Respect for priv.prop is enforced by violence (State against the offendor/Owner against the offendor)not ethics,fear of consq. Minding your own business is not ethical if a woman is being raped or a child is drowning so may be amoral depndng on circumstance. Private property is a man-made law so how invalid? Again not sure what a natural law/right is except that the strongest is in charge...Agree no social contract needed...but rule by force
HOLLNAIER 3 years ago
Being a good Samaritan is optional, not required. If you want to take your ridiculous hypothetical to it's ridiculous extreme, what if the drowning baby is the next Hitler? What if the rape you prevented would have resulted in the next Einstein being born? Private property is not man-made law. It is Natural Law. Philosophers from Locke to Rothbard agree on that.
billyjoeallen 3 years ago
Ok - I've been tag-teamed by Hitler and Einstein! I give up!
HOLLNAIER 3 years ago
Obviously private property is defended by violence from violent threats. It's a violent world and nothing can change than. We can reduce the violence by adopting the Non-Aggression Principle. Violence only is acceptable in self-defense (which includes property) and only proportional to the threat. You may think this is not a valid position if you do not understand the Rothbardian definition of property. Legit private property has to meet some strict qualifications.
billyjoeallen 3 years ago
I do agree with your position of private property...I've never heard of this Rothbardien fella but will look him up - thanks for the responses!
HOLLNAIER 3 years ago
Ethics are morals upheld by society. All laws are based on ethics. I think you mean morals. Which are more personal. And ethics is the basis for economies. As it is ethics that create property and title rights. To reduce conflict. What can and cannot be owned is a matter of ethics of that society. Usually you have rights of exclusivity (ownership) given to scarcity. Water rights, land rights, and all that. Without those rights how can you have an economy. No one would be able to trade without it
theoriginalanomaly 3 years ago
You are actually making my point for me, as I was countering the claim that "Building an economic system based on ethics is for fools."
All economic systems are based on somebody's ethics. Now when a group of like-minded people have moral principles in common and they agree to abide by those principles, those principles become ethical principles, even if the greater society doesn't share them.
billyjoeallen 3 years ago
Yeah, I was replying to spero1. I do agree and was making your point. Although I do disagree that private property is objective. Property only exists if someone wants to hold on to something and is willing to use force if necessary. And then it depends on if the force is strong enough. But I do think that since we all do not know how to behave, that private property is the best system we got. Until a freely associated voluntary moral system we agree on... we need private property.
theoriginalanomaly 3 years ago
Property does exist precisely because people do want to hold onto stuff enough to use force to keep it. Sure, their are subject definitions of private property, but the objective definition is the only one that's valid. This is where Rothbard's Ethics of Liberty comes in.
billyjoeallen 3 years ago
I am sure that we agree, but I do not understand your definitions. Is it "objective theory" or an "objective" theory. 1st meaning a title given to a certain theory, 2nd a description of a theory. Or is it not a theory just an objective fact? I have not read Ethics of Liberty. Perhaps you can paraphrase or make a video.
theoriginalanomaly 3 years ago
I don't know of ANY 'Ethical' society.Pragmatic (mainly aproving-defn.) is introducing democracy & inconsistent. Not sure what a 'Universal Rule' is except that the strongest will rule/survive (rule by force/violence which i think is a natural law)Ethics(right conduct) i believe to be universal and SHOULD be the basis for Law (enforced by consequence-read violence)Outlawing 'drugs' is correct to protect children but not to criminalize adults-we need to distinguish.
HOLLNAIER 3 years ago
You are using the word "ethical" in a different manner than I am. You are saying that no society conforms to YOUR ethics. FWIW, noe conform to mine, either, but that doesn't mean they are not ethical. The relevant question is whether a society conforms to its own ethics and whether or not those ethics are valid.
billyjoeallen 3 years ago
You are right...I'm struggeling to get away from my Christian/Calvanist upbringing causing a breakdown in logic!
HOLLNAIER 3 years ago
I think we should leave ethics to the religious and socialist. Building an economic system based on ethics is for fools. We need the NAP and absolute property rights based on pragmatic reasoning.
As theft increases, economic prosperity decreases.
less theft = more prosperity
no theft = most prosperity
Good video.
Sepero1 3 years ago
Is not the NAP also an ethical principle? I can think of two works--off the top of my head--that posit just such a proposition: Universally Preferable Behavior (Stefan Molyneux) and The Ethics of Liberty (Murray Rothbard).
The argument from economic pragmatism is certainly valid, but has limited persuasive appeal to the economically illiterate (which includes almost everyone).
billyjoeallen 3 years ago
I agree that the pragmatic viewpoint is less appealing. Though I think ethics as a basis for economics is completely negligent. Ethics as a basis for economics is what socialists do. We both know that socialist anarchy will inevitably fail.
NAP can be considered ethical, but I simply refer to it as the representation for negative rights. (life, liberty, property)
Do not- harm/kill, enslave, or steal.
Sepero1 3 years ago
I didn't and don't say that ethics is a basis for economics. Economics is a science. Austrian economics are valid because of a priori reasoning and real-world evidence. I agree that no ethical basis is needed or appropriate. For starters, it invokes the is/ought problem.
Yet ethics are extremely necessary for ordering a society. "maximizing economic prosperity" is simply not sufficient, especially (as the ignorant fear) if it comes at the expense of other types of prosperity.
billyjoeallen 3 years ago
This is a proven method for economic prosperity without the need for ethical justification.
Putting ethics before pragmatism is a recipe for disaster.
I'm glad we had this exchange. I hadn't previously considered how closely NAP is associated with ethics. I may need to stop using the term. :o)
Sepero1 3 years ago
We don't have to make that choice. Fortunately for us, the most ethically sound position is also the most economically valid one.
billyjoeallen 3 years ago
Theft is theft, violence is violence. What a load of shit!
UcanbeGOD 3 years ago