Why was Murray Rothbard strongly opposed to utilitarianism? Do you know of an article in which he discusses this? My guess is that he thought it got in the way of a proper application of the self-ownership and non-aggression principles.
i searched this site for Rothbard utilitarianism justice. and the 3rd link down gave http://mises.org/story/2647
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Individualist: Why was Murray Rothbard strongly opposed to utilitarianism? Do you know of an article in which he discusses this? My guess is that he thought it got in the way of a proper application of the self-ownership and non-aggression principles.
See The Ethics of Liberty, towards the back of the book (p. 206 in my copy), section C. Ludwig von Mises and "Value-Free" Laissez Faire."
"It would be preposterous to assert apodictically that science will never succeed in developing a praxeological aprioristic doctrine of political organization..." (Mises, UF, p.98)
Rothbard liked to bring up a specific example as to why he didn't like utilitarianism.
Suppose there is a violent aversion towards redheads in a society. They are a small percentage of the population and the rest of the population is disgusted to the point of violence against them. Now according to a utiltiarian, it would be just for society to suddenly start killing off these redheads because the basic premise of utilitarianism is the maximization of society's social pleasure.
'It is difficult to imagine any normal person wishing to meet Marx for a third time.' - Alexander Gray, The Socialist Tradition
nirgrahamUK: i searched this site for Rothbard utilitarianism justice. and the 3rd link down gave http://mises.org/story/2647
Thanks for the link, by the way.
Laughing Man: Rothbard liked to bring up a specific example as to why he didn't like utilitarianism. Suppose there is a violent aversion towards redheads in a society. They are a small percentage of the population and the rest of the population is disgusted to the point of violence against them. Now according to a utiltiarian, it would be just for society to suddenly start killing off these redheads because the basic premise of utilitarianism is the maximization of society's social pleasure.
That example is short-sighted. If they murder all of the red-heads, "society's social pleasure" may be maximized shorttermly. However, longtermly, that act would remove a large amount of people from the division of labor and therefore decrease longterm standard of living.
I. Ryan: Laughing Man: Rothbard liked to bring up a specific example as to why he didn't like utilitarianism. Suppose there is a violent aversion towards redheads in a society. They are a small percentage of the population and the rest of the population is disgusted to the point of violence against them. Now according to a utiltiarian, it would be just for society to suddenly start killing off these redheads because the basic premise of utilitarianism is the maximization of society's social pleasure. That example is short-sighted. If they murder all of the red-heads, "society's social pleasure" may be maximized shorttermly. However, longtermly, that act would remove a large amount of people from the division of labor and therefore decrease longterm standard of living.
Rothbard was opposed to utilitarianism because he was a philosophically opposed to it. He came to the conclusion of anarcho-capitalism from a natural rights perspective. That is not to say natural rights is the only avenue with which to come to this conclusion, as there are examples of utilitarian anarcho-capitalists, such as David Friedman. Utilitarianism can be used to justify aggression against the innocent, but that's not to say they are necessarily right within their own framework. As I'm assuming you've picked up some economics/history on here, you probably know how utilitarians in economics tend to miss what is unseen in their consequences.
Utilitarian arguments, if properly applied, can lead to similar conclusions as natural law ones. The problem is that most academics take a very narrow view of social costs and benefits. They totally ignore "government failure" and focus only on alleged "market failure", for instance.
Ron Paul on Natural Rights (Mises and Austrian Economics: A Personal View by Ron Paul)
When one argues for the free market on utilitarian grounds, one starts with particular actions by the individual. In starting with a natural rights argument the “a priori” becomes “the gift of life and liberty” as natural or God-given.
I've read Ron Paul's book on Mises (that chapter at least). I don't remember that he ever wrote on why we have natural rights. One must start out using utilitarianism to get to natural rights. Murray Rothbard uses utilitarianism to prove the principle of self-ownership.
Individualist:One must start out using utilitarianism to get to natural rights. Murray Rothbard uses utilitarianism to prove the principle of self-ownership.
Ah...what?
Remember redheads are a small percentage of the population, so even if all of them were killed off, a relatively large amount of people would not be removed from the division of labor. Also, you are assuming that the aversion "society" has for redheads does not make them unemployable in the first place.
Laughing Man: Individualist:One must start out using utilitarianism to get to natural rights. Murray Rothbard uses utilitarianism to prove the principle of self-ownership. Ah...what?
Individualist:Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears Rothbard uses the concept of "the greatest good for the greatest number", i.e., the good of society, to prove the natural right to self-ownership.
Nope. Rothbard believes that the right to self-ownership is axiomatic.
Okay. I'd really like to link to an article in which he says this.
Individualist: Okay. I'd really like to link to an article in which he says this.
Rothbard in For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto: The most viable method of elaborating the natural-rights statement of the libertarian position is to divide it into parts, and to begin with the basic axiom of the "right to self-ownership." The right to self-ownership asserts the absolute right of each man, by virtue of his (or her) being a human being, to "own" his or her own body; that is, to control that body free of coercive interference. Since each individual must think, learn, value, and choose his or her ends and means in order to survive and flourish, the right to self-ownership gives man the right to perform [p. 29] these vital activities without being hampered and restricted by coercive molestation.
The most viable method of elaborating the natural-rights statement of the libertarian position is to divide it into parts, and to begin with the basic axiom of the "right to self-ownership." The right to self-ownership asserts the absolute right of each man, by virtue of his (or her) being a human being, to "own" his or her own body; that is, to control that body free of coercive interference. Since each individual must think, learn, value, and choose his or her ends and means in order to survive and flourish, the right to self-ownership gives man the right to perform [p. 29] these vital activities without being hampered and restricted by coercive molestation.
Ron Paul:Every argument I have ever heard on the House floor is presented as utilitarian and—for the pressure groups represented— the proposals certainly are “utilitarian.” These arguments are never based on the moral principles of people’s natural right to run their own lives. Santa Claus wins the “utilitarian” argument until it’s too late to do anything about it.
For Statists, yes, looking only at consequences invites injustices.
Think outside the monopoly paradigm. Net-based microsecession | Why anarchy hasn't worked
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap