Explorations in teleocentric forms of ethics

re: Explorations in teleocentric forms of ethics

wilderness — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 22:32:59 GMT

i figured it out. imperatives are "oughts" and are practical. yet theoretical knowledge informs practical reason, thus, oughts can be informed by facts. so i guess the question proposed, in this article and other circles undoubtedly, is this "ought" of self-ownership informed by a fact of theoretical reasoning in which epistemology would answer yes or no. Epistemology is informed by metaphysics, but it seems there is this "being" called self-ownership, yet, is it true or not. This is what epistemology can bring to light and inform ethics with the fact of self-ownership instead of only a possibility of self-ownership.

i think i'm geting it. Kant's "Intro. to Logic" helped out.

re: Explorations in teleocentric forms of ethics

wilderness — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 22:38:50 GMT

Instead of saying categorical imperatives "automatize", but instead replace that word with "will" as in the person rationally wills it universal, though, it may not be per se universal. Maybe that would make more sense?

re: Explorations in teleocentric forms of ethics

wilderness — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 14:47:32 GMT

I don't know if you hold this view still or not, but since I've been trying to self-educate reading Aristotle's books and picking up what I can as I go, I'm wondering.

So you don't think self-ownership is assertoric (simply is in a reasonable way), but it is something of an "ought" that begs the question? Thus are you saying categorical imperatives automatize and are not chosen by reason?

My questions could be so off the mark it's not even funny, but in my asking, it's not completely to get your perspective without my own pondering - I am trying to sort through this. It's more that I find you to be an authority in the terminology so it helps me understand these concepts by the way you may use them in your response, if that makes sense. hope so.

re: Explorations in teleocentric forms of ethics

Jon Irenicus — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 11:11:08 GMT

It's metaethics, so the long-windedness is unfortunately difficult to avoid. R&DU's two books are relatively to the point though, as is Veatch's.

The biggest problem for self-ownership is that it is of the form of a categorical imperative, and that it makes use of universalizability (see Hoppe's defence of it for instance.) Universalizability cannot suffice on its own to get the result we want it to have.

re: Explorations in teleocentric forms of ethics

Stephen — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 01:51:33 GMT

I don't see how this "[mode of analysis] has a better justification than the so-called axiom of self-ownership." I'm not disagreeing. It just isn't apparent to me.

I've mostly read Hoppe and Rothbard, but I've become a little more interested in the neo-Aristotilean approach as a result of it repeatedly coming up on the mises.org forum. I read Rasmussen's "A Groundwork for Rights: Man's Natural End". I've started reading Plauch's "Chapter 2: Eudaimonia, Virtue, and the Right to Liberty". Unfortunately though, I find these kinds of works tedious and long-winded, unlike the succinct and pithy style of Rothbard and Hoppe. Are there any neo-Aristotilean works that are straight to the point, so to speak?

And how is this approach superior to the traditional self-ownership axiom?

re: Explorations in teleocentric forms of ethics

Jon Irenicus — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 15:04:48 GMT

Henry Veatch's Aristotle: A contemporary appreciation and Rational Man, as well as Rand's Virtue of Selfishness. They're oriented mainly towards non-philosophers. A primer in metaethics might be needed to understand R&DU's works or Veatch's discussion of more advanced topics.

re: Explorations in teleocentric forms of ethics

liberty student — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 14:52:30 GMT

What is preferred basic material?

re: Explorations in teleocentric forms of ethics

Jon Irenicus — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 01:30:19 GMT

It's well worth reading, even if it is advanced, difficult material.

re: Explorations in teleocentric forms of ethics

wombatron — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 23:54:44 GMT

I still haven't read any book-length material by Rasmussen and Den Uyl, but their essays and the references I've seen in Geoffery's dissertation chapters leave me very intrigued, especially their use of Ayn Rand's thought.