Is there such a thing as "Objective Morality?"

[WaffleSingSong]

Hi VT.

We all know that humanity is known to have diverse ways of thinking and diverse ways of putting those thoughts into practice. However, despite all that, could there be some sort of universal code that is hidden deep in our brains? Could two people who have completely different views at face value actually have the same intentions in some fashion deep down inside there minds? Would love to hear your opinions about this.

My personal opinion is that there isn't, or at least that code of morality is extremely subtle and instinctive. Why? Well, because people live different kinds of lives, they grow up in completely different environments with different kinds of people. Even if two people believe in the same thing, they still could believe these things for completely different reasons, the levels of passion could still be different and the execution of that view to be put in society could still be different. This is one of the reasons im not religious, or at least a believer of organized Abrahamic religion, as they all call for a "creed" in humanity, or in other words objective morality that is enforced by God. It is also why I am skeptical of Utopian-minded ideologies, as a utopia would require either

A. Everyone believes in at least mostly the exact thing, in the exact same way.

or B, Everyone does believe in different things, but does have one set of rules that glues it all together, and those people are carefully placed in society to fit the views of said person to maximize effectiveness.

All in all, Morality is subjective. The only thing that you could say is truly universal in humanity is logic, and even then, that is still a bit foggy in some cases.

[randomuser123]

I personally don't believe in any form of intrinsic morality in the universe. I don't believe anything is right and anything is wrong - there is just what we, as a society, choose to be acceptable.

For example, the Aztecs and Mayans had a religious tradition of human sacrifice - as far as they were concerned, they were doing the righteous thing, and I do not see how what they did is any more right or wrong than anything defined by any other moral system.

I know someone will bring up the Hitler argument, and ask if I truly don't think what he did was wrong. I don't believe what he did was WRONG, just that it was thoroughly unacceptable by our societal standards. I am sure that if we all agreed with his point of view, that we would be the ones saying that he did rightly and that there was nothing evil about what he did. This is why I see morality as nothing more than a human construct and a point of view.

I think our concept of conscience is simply an evolutionary construct which helps to keep our species alive and functioning well, since we cannot survive as well as a species if we go around eating and murdering each other!

[Karkat]

I believe that we should be held to some 'limits' as both individuals and a society, and that's where morality kicks in- what I don't believe is that one can be completely 'righteous'.

No matter what you do, you are almost definitely doing it as a result of environmental/social/etc harm, or you will be contributing to it.

Especially in first-world countries.

This is why I believe that while eating animals is sad, and vegetarianism and veganism can be good, it shouldn't be a requirement to live without eating meat.

If you can, and you want to, that's great.

Just like driving a greener car, or volunteer work, using green products all the time etc

Some people can do it, some people just aren't capable, or at least it's not very convenient at all.

Which is also why I don't really believe in a concrete sense of morality- like you said, I feel like it's more fluid and changing from person to person.

[amgb]

I believe that morality is definitely subjective, I've always thought of 'right and wrong' as a man made concept. I prefer going by 'good or bad' instead of 'right or wrong'. I reckon there is a universal code Thats embedded in our minds, like how two strangers can be thinking the exact same thing, and be aware that they are thinking the same thing as each other. I think logic works generally the same universally, but sometimes it does get quite foggy, like when one person thinks that plan A is best but another thinks plan A has this flaw and that flaw. There are minor differences in how we all think logically. As for Utopia, I think the only place that Utopia can exist is in our heads, where boundaries become limitless. I don't think our earth can ever achieve a utopian state, the same way that I don't think we can ever physically achieve perfection, which only exists in our minds.

[Miserabilia]

No.
Since humans are the only known thing in the universe to grasp the concept of wrong and right, we are the only ones that can decide which is which.
I can't make a measurement of calculation to determine if something is wrong or right, I can only ask someone's personal view on it, which, by definition means morals are subjective.

[sunnieseason]

I think morality should be objective. I think a moral principle should be something that is universal and can be practiced by all people, in all cases, at all times....something like "don't kill another person." It is completely possible for everyone to not kill another person at all times and all places.

So what if morals were consistent? What if you could make one rule that was universal, objective, and could be practiced by everyone in the world without any contradictions? O.O

I live by a rule I think fits that. "The initiation of force against other people is immoral." Basically its don't hit people and don't take their stuff.

[Kahn]

I think objective morality exists, yet it is nearly impossible to attain, as many of us are afflicted by passions and impulses day in and day out. We can't really help it, either. We're bombarded by all sorts of advertisements, subscribe to all sorts of different forms of media (be it this picturebox or the one you call a television), and we're constantly seeking ways to satisfy our immediate 'need' for instant emotional gratification. We willingly submit ourselves to a very impersonal form of interaction via social media which is, from what I've gathered, a platform individuals use to speak to (not with) their respective audiences rather than other individuals, which seems like an inherent hazard in a one-to-many medium.

tl;dr isn't attainable or realistic in our culture or society

[sunnieseason]

Hubris, I disagree. The principle I put forward is perfectly attainable for everyone. A guy in a coma can live according to the non aggression principle because it doesn't require any action. All it requires is inaction, like doing nothing...don't inflict harm on others. So everyone can do it.

[Kahn]

Hubris, I disagree. The principle I put forward is perfectly attainable for everyone. A guy in a coma can live according to the non aggression principle because it doesn't require any action. All it requires is inaction, like doing nothing...don't inflict harm on others. So everyone can do it.

Were it as easy as you suppose, there'd never be another senseless rape, murder, or war waged again.

Not every individual thinks similarly and not every individual can control their impulses so easily. Some individuals even derive pleasure out of inflicting pain on others. How would you get these people to go along? What about the mentally ill, or the sociopath, who could never understand such a concept?

You propose Utopia. It's not possible.

[sunnieseason]

Were it as easy as you suppose, there'd never be another senseless rape, murder, or war waged again.

Not every individual thinks similarly and not every individual can control their impulses so easily. Some individuals even derive pleasure out of inflicting pain on others. How would you get these people to go along? What about the mentally ill, or the sociopath, who could never understand such a concept?

You propose Utopia. It's not possible.


No, I never said it was utopia!!! If the rule was simply, Don't initiate force against another person, then obviously those who violated that rule should be punished. There are bad people in the world, but that doesn't mean there is no such thing as objective morality. My proposition is objective because it passes the test of the man in the comma, meaning everyone can do it at all times, and it is free of contradiction. It doesn't rely on governments or gods to determine subjective preferences.

[Kahn]

No, I never said it was utopia!!! If the rule was simply, Don't initiate force against another person, then obviously those who violated that rule should be punished. There are bad people in the world, but that doesn't mean there is no such thing as objective morality. My proposition is objective because it passes the test of the man in the comma, meaning everyone can do it at all times, and it is free of contradiction. It doesn't rely on governments or gods to determine subjective preferences.

definition of utopia: noun: Utopia; an imagined place or state of things in which everything is perfect.

Sure sounds like Utopia to me. We need to be aware that your proposition assumes all people are of like-mind, wish for peace and solitude and cooperation, and would never desire to harm another person for personal pleasure or gain (all of which, in reality, are not near accurate).

I wish it were that easy; that we could just say, "don't hurt, don't kill and all will be okay." But it's not. There's an endless amount of different circumstances for the endless amount of interactions we have with each other and sometimes force is justified, especially when it comes in the form of defense of oneself.

EDIT: Universal ≠ Objective

[Vlerchan]

I don't believe an objective set of moral values exist.

It is completely possible for everyone to not kill another person at all times and all places.
Just because something is possible doesn't mean it can be considered objective.

It's also possible for all people to live their lives without having sex. This does not make having sex objectively immoral.

---

Just because something is possible also doesn't mean it's desirables.

The principle I put forward is perfectly attainable for everyone.
To repeat, when you define things in negatives it's entirely possible for anything to be technically attainable to everyone.

This doesn't make it objective, actually universal, or desirable.

A guy in a coma can live according to the non aggression principle because it doesn't require any action.
He can also live in accordance with the 10 commandments.

---

It's also notable that under the NAP it would be entirely moral for those paying for the electricity maintaining the life-support coma-guy is on to turn of this electricity and kill coma-guy.

Three cheers for Freedom, I guess.

There are bad people in the world, but that doesn't mean there is no such thing as objective morality.
If someone has a reason to commit an 'immoral' action - like those committing 'immoral' actions do - then it seems quite justified to conclude that these moral values are not universal values - or exist objectively.

It doesn't rely on governments or gods to determine subjective preferences.
In liberal democracy's governments rely on individuals to define the moral values they enforce.

In an-cap 'societies' private defence firms rely on individuals to define moral values they enforce.

It does not seem very different to me.

[sunnieseason]

Ok, Vlerchan you threw a lot of stuff at me so I'll try and go point by point. The point of something being objective is that it's factually based and not something that is a preference, and not something that is completely arbitrary.

The NAP is based on self ownership. Each person owns his/her body therefore every person owns the actions, words, and thoughts of his/her own body. That being the case then the NAP is just a rule of non-contradiction. If you own your body and I own mine, then we should agree to not interfere with each other.

If morality is defined as a set of rules which are logically consistent, free of contradictions, and apply to everyone at all times, then what is the problem? In an ancap society the rules would be simple. They would have to be simple because people would be voluntarily paying for law courts and dispute resolution.

Morality no matter how you define it, is just a concept. There is nothing stoping people from doing bad things...just because something is illegal doesn't stop people at all. The only thing we can do is work to better understand morality and human behavior and structure our society in a way that keeps bad people from getting control of all the powrr.

Hubris, calling something "utopian" is not an argument. Point out something wrong with what I said, don't just name call.

[Kahn]

Hubris, calling something "utopian" is not an argument. Point out something wrong with what I said, don't just name call.


wat.

I wasn't using "utopian" in a deregotary sense, and I have no earthly idea how one could be offended by that term. The definition of utopian: modeled on or aiming for a state in which everything is perfect; idealistic. That's what your principle is, your golden rule; a perfect society in which rule of reason and peace would prevail, and that "nobody would initiate force against another person" because it's just wrong. In order for that to work, every possible human condition would have to be perfect- utopian. It's just not possible under any realistic circumstance, which is disappointing but true nonetheless.

Please actually read my previous post instead of being condescending. You failed to attempt to refute any of my points, you just claimed I was guilty of attacking your character when that's not the case at all.

We need to be aware that your proposition assumes all people are of like-mind, wish for peace and solitude and cooperation, and would never desire to harm another person for personal pleasure or gain (all of which, in reality, are not near accurate). I wish it were that easy; that we could just say, "don't hurt, don't kill and all will be okay." But it's not. There's an endless amount of different circumstances for the endless amount of interactions we have with each other and sometimes force is justified, especially when it comes in the form of defense of oneself. EDIT: Universal ≠ Objective

[sunnieseason]

Hubris, my position does not assume that all people are like minded. I've already said that there will be people who will still kill and rape and do bad things. What I am proposing is that the rules be simple and universal.

I'm not sure why you think that is magical thinking. If anything, the laws today are magical thinking. There are so many rules out there that not one single person could know all of them. There are like thousands of books, millions of pages of laws, most of which are written in such a confusing manner. To tell someone to follow the law now in our current world is magical thinking.

What is wrong with a rule like the NAP? Imagine if the cops spent all their time preventing real crimes like robbery, rape, murder, assault, instead of writing tickets for not stopping at a sop sign, or for smoking weed.

[Vlerchan]

Ok, Vlerchan you threw a lot of stuff at me so I'll try and go point by point.
I'd recommend dealing with my posts as I deal with yours if you're being overwhelmed by the information.

I would also prefer that because it also makes it easier on me to notice if you're conceding points.

The point of something being objective is that it's factually based and not something that is a preference, and not something that is completely arbitrary.
I define "objective" as existing outside the human mind.

This is because facts as human being perceive them are socially constructed and thus inherently influenced by our bias' (etc.).

Regardless there's no "facts" to determine moral values from. So even by your own standing definition moral values can't be objective. Unless you're omnisentient and just not telling me or something. I guess that is a possibility.

The NAP is based on self ownership. Each person owns his/her body therefore every person owns the actions, words, and thoughts of his/her own body.
I understand what the NAP entails. I think its premise is flawed.

People don't have an inherent right to self ownership. All individual rights are determined by the collective.

It also presumes free will. Otherwise there's no basis for responsibility and thus ownership over our actions (etc.) to exist. I don't believe free will exists because there's literally zero empirical evidence supporting its existence.

---

I also disagree with the NAP on the basis that it presumes that the moral value of an action is found in the action itself. I believe the moral value of an action is found in its consequences.

As such I'm at loath to subscribe to your an-cap slave-morality.

If morality is defined as a set of rules which are logically consistent, free of contradictions, and apply to everyone at all times, then what is the problem?
It's still not objective.

Morality no matter how you define it, is just a concept.
re: It's not objective.

There is nothing stoping people from doing bad things...just because something is illegal doesn't stop people at all.
You missed my point.

If people are committing 'immoral acts' then it must infer that there's a reasonable basis for this if we presume that human beings act rationally as in-line with their subjective preferences - as I do. If there can be a reasoned basis to not comply with moral values that means that these moral values are not objective.

The only thing we can do is work to better understand morality and human behavior and structure our society in a way that keeps bad people from getting control of all the powrr.
What you're proposing (an-cap society) doesn't make it impossible for bad people to get power.

Though that's irrelevant so I'll leave it there. I'm also ignoring the irrelevant and (IMO) misguided critique of the modern legal system.

[sunnieseason]

I define "objective" as existing outside the human mind.

This is because facts as human being perceive them are socially constructed and thus inherently influenced by our bias' (etc.).

Regardless there's no "facts" to determine moral values from. So even by your own standing definition moral values can't be objective. Unless you're omnisentient and just not telling me or something. I guess that is a possibility.

FYI, I'm a goddess, lol. Not trying to be a bitch or anything but you have to admit that this is a pretty good discussion for a 13yo.

I think we have differing definitions of objective. I define objective as a information which is rationally derived and free of contradiction. It's different from truth in that it deals with concepts and not always things which are tangible and concrete. Your definition of objective is more like "truth."

This is why I think we are disagreeing here. I'm not saying that morality is truth, what I'm saying is that it is a guideline which should be arrived at by applying an objective framework.

Does that make sense?


I understand what the NAP entails. I think its premise is flawed.

People don't have an inherent right to self ownership. All individual rights are determined by the collective.

What about the premise is flawed? Are you not in control of your own body? Are you typing these responses or is the collective doing it? In order to tell me that self ownership doesn't exist you are using self ownership. You are formulating responses in your mind, then you are typing them out and hitting post. The collective isn't doing that for you...by the way, what is the collective?


I also disagree with the NAP on the basis that it presumes that the moral value of an action is found in the action itself. I believe the moral value of an action is found in its consequences.

I think you're misunderstanding the non-aggression principle. The NAP states that initiating force against other people is immoral. Therefore it is understood that not initiating force is moral. That means that no action is required at all for a person to be moral.

What do you mean about the consequences of an action? Can you give me an example of what action you think has a moral consequence?


As such I'm at loath to subscribe to your an-cap slave-morality.

Not an argument.


If people are committing 'immoral acts' then it must infer that there's a reasonable basis for this if we presume that human beings act rationally as in-line with their subjective preferences - as I do. If there can be a reasoned basis to not comply with moral values that means that these moral values are not objective.

Morality isn't some kind of magic force that stops bad people. I never said it was. You're setting up a false argument....I believe that's called a straw man.


What you're proposing (an-cap society) doesn't make it impossible for bad people to get power.

Though that's irrelevant so I'll leave it there. I'm also ignoring the irrelevant and (IMO) misguided critique of the modern legal system.

I'm curious, in your mind, How would bad people get armies, navies, WMD's, central banks to print money out of thin air, populations to tax money from, and propaganda machines in an ANCAP society?

"Irrelevant" and "Misguided" are not magic words that instantly refute arguments.

[Vlerchan]

FYI, I'm a goddess, lol. Not trying to be a bitch or anything but you have to admit that this is a pretty good discussion for a 13yo.
If you're 13 then I agree you're doing pretty fantastic.

I think we have differing definitions of objective.
I agree.

I think mine is more right. When people discuss whether morals are objective it's a discission of whether actions are always moral or immoral. It's possible to derive a whole host of values with logic. This discussion is concerned with whether one of these derivations are true.

I'm not saying that morality is truth, what I'm saying is that it is a guideline which should be arrived at by applying an objective framework.
I agree with this.

I think it belongs in another thread though.

Are you not in control of your own body?
I can't sell an organ in Ireland. I'm thus not in control of my body.

Woman can't have abortions in Ireland. They are thus not in control of their bodies.

I also don't believe control exists because I don't believe in free will.

Regardless control doesn't infer ownership - worker's regularly control machinery that these workers don't own or don't then assume ownership of.

Are you typing these responses or is the collective doing it? In order to tell me that self ownership doesn't exist you are using self ownership. You are formulating responses in your mind, then you are typing them out and hitting post. The collective isn't doing that for you...
All irrelevant to the idea of rights.

by the way, what is the collective?
I define it as the desires of the ruling class, whoever that be. At its broadest it can be defines as "all individuals".

The individual is subservient to the collective because the collective holds authorative force. That means the collective are in a position to define what can and can't be done - it then creates laws or social codes to enforce its whims.

The NAP states that initiating force against other people is immoral. Therefore it is understood that not initiating force is moral. That means that no action is required at all for a person to be moral.
What a weird way to interpret the NAP. Regardless the point I made still stands:

If you're ascribing characteristics to a an aspect of human behaviour then it becomes an action.

---

Standing still and doing nothing whilst being capable of aiding a child being torn apart by ravenous dogs is moral under this conception of the NAP.

Do you agree this is moral?

What do you mean about the consequences of an action? Can you give me an example of what action you think has a moral consequence?
I like using this one with an-caps:

In economics - and affirmed through investigation - something called "law of diminishing marginal utility" exists. That means as an individual continues consumption a point will eventually be reached where the utils (satisfaction) gained from the consumption of something will begin to diminish. This applies to income. This is called the diminishing marginal utility of wealth.

It can from that be reasoned that each extra dollar gained by a poor person will be worth more than that of a rich person. If such is the case, ceteris paribus, redistributing that extra dollar from a rich person to a poor person consequences the greatest outcome: it maximises global utility. In this case I thus consider it more moral to tax (initiate violence against) the rich person and donate the proceeds to the poor person.

Not an argument.
Not supposed to be an argument.

Please read in context.

Morality isn't some kind of magic force that stops bad people. I never said it was. You're setting up a false argument....I believe that's called a straw man.
I never said it was.

You're misunderstanding. This is almost certainly because you're defining objective wrong.

I'm curious, in your mind, How would bad people get armies, navies, WMD's, central banks to print money out of thin air, populations to tax money from, and propaganda machines in an ANCAP society?
Through engaging with the markets set up to provide these things.

Feel free to set up another thread discussing this. I don't want to derail this one.

---

Also Lol at "central banks". No an-cap is complete without an irrational fear of inflation.

Please note though that the US FED is a private entity.

"Irrelevant" and "Misguided" are not magic words that instantly refute arguments.
It's irrelevant because it has nothing to do with the thread topic. PM the OP if you want.

Feel free to create a thread and I'll explain how it's misguided. I stopped there because I didn't want to be further irrelevant.

[sunnieseason]

I'm not sure there is a reason to continue this. We're not on the same page with definitions, and since you don't believe in free will then you won't change your mind.

[Vlerchan]

I'm certain I'm using the correct definition of objective given the context. The OP writes: "[h]owever, despite all that, could there be some sort of universal code that is hidden deep in our brains?" which is a clear reference to the idea of moral absolutism (http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_moral_absolutism.html). Saying this, I was still engaging with the points that were built on a different idea of objective considered to be correct by you, so it's still salvageable in that regard.

But sure, you can choose to do whatever. I'm sure you'll say something else I disagree with soon enough and I can jump back into the thread.

[Kahn]

Hubris, my position does not assume that all people are like minded. I've already said that there will be people who will still kill and rape and do bad things. What I am proposing is that the rules be simple and universal.

I'm not sure why you think that is magical thinking. If anything, the laws today are magical thinking. There are so many rules out there that not one single person could know all of them. There are like thousands of books, millions of pages of laws, most of which are written in such a confusing manner. To tell someone to follow the law now in our current world is magical thinking.

What is wrong with a rule like the NAP? Imagine if the cops spent all their time preventing real crimes like robbery, rape, murder, assault, instead of writing tickets for not stopping at a sop sign, or for smoking weed.

simplicity + universal rule ≠ objectivity

Everything you're saying is coming from a subjective standpoint, what you believe to be the right course of action. It is magical thinking because if it were that easy such a system would've been instituted millenia ago.

What exactly would your perfect system of rules, and punishments for said rules, entail? You say it'll work but the only principle you've put forth is "nobody harm or use force against another person." What about the individual who uses deadly force when defending his or her family? Or, how would you rule in the case of this 12 year old boy (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwYVJ4W7DPo) who was shot by a police officer, because he was wielding a pellet gun, which the officer considered a threat? What about all the messy details?

[CharlieHorse]

Consider a population of 20 people. That's all there is left on the world.

If they all believe hitting children is wrong, then there's no contesting morality, but it's still not universal. A future person might think it's ok to hit kids as a punishment. Also the universe is HUGE. And morality isn't really a thing outside of society.

[Vlerchan]

You say it'll work but the only principle you've put forth is "nobody harm or use force against another person."
She later corrects herself and just refers to the initiation of force as wrong.

That answers a few questions.

Or, how would you rule in the case of this 12 year old boy who was shot by a police officer, because he was wielding a pellet gun, which the officer considered a threat?
The NAP just offers a framework of which to operate in. In makes no denial that instances like this wouldn't exist:

Courts would exist to deal with issues like this. Lawyers would exist too. In-effect I'd imagine that what would occur legal-wise over in Galt's Gulch would be similar to what happens in common law jurisdictions nowadays except with unbinding precedent cross-firms (similar to how foreign judgements act as obiter dictum - persuasive authority - in homegrown cases). It would probably get incredibly complicated as time past - I agree - which is why I laughed at sunnieseason's claim that the current system - which she seemed to wrongly imaged as running on some pure civil law system or something - as too complicated.

If the courts decided that the killing had been on unlawful (as in-line with the NAP) what happens next depends on the community in which the ruling takes place. I know an-cap's proponents like Murry Rothbard took an eye-for-an-eye approach so it might be judged 'just' that a lynch-mob snatch up the guilty and put him up against a wall - if the next-of-kin so wants: there'd be much greater emphasis on their wishes in such a case: perhaps him legs will suffice? In other communities where capital and corporal punishment are frowned upon perhaps the guilty might be forced to pay back the price of the life - through indentured servitude or something if he doesn't have the cash on-hand: in such communities I would imagine we'd quickly see lots of firms willing to purchase the guilty for service at a set price; relieving the next-of-kin of having to detain, feed, etc. him.

I agree it's fucked up. That's probably what makes anarchist jurisprudence so interesting.

[Collegiate]

I think morality must be objective for it to be of any use at all. If morality is not objective, then it would be unable to set universal guidelines for everyone to follow. Morality would be akin to one's favorite ice-cream flavor. I might say that chocolate is the best ice-cream flavor. Someone else could say to me, "no way, vanilla is totally the best flavor" and neither of us would be wrong. One's preference of ice-cream flavor is entirely subjective. Morality cannot be subjective because if it were, then everyone would just do whatever they wanted and it would provide no relevant guidance for everyone.

[sunnieseason]

I think morality must be objective for it to be of any use at all. If morality is not objective, then it would be unable to set universal guidelines for everyone to follow. Morality would be akin to one's favorite ice-cream flavor. I might say that chocolate is the best ice-cream flavor. Someone else could say to me, "no way, vanilla is totally the best flavor" and neither of us would be wrong. One's preference of ice-cream flavor is entirely subjective. Morality cannot be subjective because if it were, then everyone would just do whatever they wanted and it would provide no relevant guidance for everyone.

Exactly! What's the point of making guidelines of human behavior if they are based on subjective ideas? Morality must be objective if it is to be any different from preference.

I agree it's fucked up. That's probably what makes anarchist jurisprudence so interesting.

There has to be a better way to make rules than the American legal system. I'm not sure how much you guys know about it, but there are more laws than any one person could ever know in a lifetime.

Most of these laws are completely subjective, and are usually written to give some politically connected person special privilege while punishing his enemies.

P.S.
I just started reading Rothbard's "For a New Liberty" :lol:

Double Post Merged. Please use the edit/multi-quote functions. -HN

[Vlerchan]

I'm not sure how much you guys know about it, but there are more laws than any one person could ever know in a lifetime.
I don't see this as inherently problematic.

Most of these laws are completely subjective, and are usually written to give some politically connected person special privilege while punishing his enemies.
This is a problem that has to do with the Legislature, that which drafts the law.

The Judiciary exists to interpret and uphold the law.

I just started reading Rothbard's "For a New Liberty"
Rothbard is real interesting and writes some real compelling philosophical arguments.

Just don't take anything he writes about economics seriously. Like, at all.

---

Disclaimer: I do law in college.

[sunnieseason]

Just don't take anything he writes about economics seriously. Like, at all.

---

Disclaimer: I do law in college.

I guess this explains why you love law. So what's wrong with Rothbard's economic ideas?

P.S.

You can't say "they are foolish, short sighted, naive, silly, pedestrian, simple minded, or something like that" Those are not arguments.

[Vlerchan]

I guess this explains why you love law.
I hate law. I'm dropping it at the earliest opportunity to focus on the economics aspect of my degree.

You can't say "they are foolish, short sighted, naive, silly, pedestrian, simple minded, or something like that" Those are not arguments.
I meant it as a passing comment. I didn't want to derail the thread. But Ok.

Macro

His views hold no reference to empiricism and positivism - but rather utilises praxeology, 'word-play'. This results in most accepted macro-economics being invalidated. Because if something can't be reduced to the individual (micro) level then it can't be determined to exist at the macro level.He believes that if something is good for the individual/single-firm (micro) then it must be good for the entire economy (macro), which is patently absurd (see: Paradox of Thrift)Austrian Business Cycle Theory is invalidated empirically, probably because it rests on this weird assumption that entrepreneurs act irrationally, and Austrian views towards monetary policy in general seem like they started at "Demonise the government" and worked backwards.

Micro

He rejects utility-functions based on misunderstanding them as cardinal as opposed to ordinal. This made his micro-analysis incredibly limited. You'll (hilariously) see in his writings though concessions to stuff that his own preferred means of analysis (praxeology) couldn't rationalise, because even he had to come around to the strong arguments in their favour.His approach to welfare economics results in: nothing. In combination argument taken to their logical conclusion results in agnosticism of whether an interactions are positive or negative.Rejects continuity. That's to say, rejects the use of algebra and calculus, because their use relies on the assumption of continuity.

---

Please note I'm just referring to the commonly accepted stuff. There's more niche arguments that can be offered.

[sunnieseason]

Ok Vlerchan. I don't know enough about those things to comment on them. I'll have to finish reading the book.