Well, Rollins may say that natural rights are categorical nonsense. Too bad he's wrong.
That's certainly what your position is, but the entirety of the essay was devoted to showing that no one has demonstrated that 'natural rights' actually exist or make any sense. State-granted rights are facts, IE they are things that are enforced. Existing rights are also real in the situation of a libertarian society which would have private-property institutions. But the reality of these rights is the fact of their enforcement, but no argument has been (or, I contend, could be) advanced which demonstrates either the existence or necessity of a moral basis for 'rights'.
Juan:You mean, there is a moral basis for aggression ? You are saying that the 'right' and 'moral' thing to do is to attack people ? Rob, kill, etc ?
I will quote Rollins, because what you are saying is a very common mistake moralists make about these views:
So what about Cooney's claim that those who reject the idea of natural rights must concludethat the Nazi regime "had a perfect justification for recalling the rights, including the right to life" ofsix million Jews? Well, I find it interesting that moralists like Cooney seem incapable of looking atthings from the amoral point of view. They almost invariably present amoralism in "moral" terms.But it is only the moralists who think in "moral" terms, who think that actions are (or are not)"perfectly justified." As I've already said, if one sees through the myth of morality, one realizesthat there is no "moral justification" for anything anyone does. So the rejection of the idea ofnatural rights does not entail the conclusion that the were "perfectly justified" in killing sixmillion Jews. Rather, the rejection of the idea of natural rights entails the conclusion that the were neither "justified" nor "unjustified" in killing six million Jews.
I will quote Rollins, because what you are saying is a very common mistake moralists make about these views
"I find it interesting that moralists like Cooney seem incapable of looking at things from the amoral point of view. "
Rather, the rejection of the idea of natural rights entails the conclusion that they were neither "justified" nor "unjustified" in killing six million Jews.
I attempted to answer you, but apparent it was too indirect. In answer to your question "You mean, there is a moral basis for aggression ? You are saying that the 'right' and 'moral' thing to do is to attack people ? Rob, kill, etc ?" I reply that no, there is no 'right' or 'wrong' action at all in the moral sense. Aggression is not just, nor is it unjust, it is a fact, like weather, a relationship which exists between people.
I attempted to answer you, but apparent it was too indirect.
Okay, I get it now =] So, again, according to amoralists there's no right or wrong. Well, great. Now, why are you discussing this ? Why does Rollins bother to prove that morals don't exist ? What's the point ?
Because I want to. No one ever said values didn't exist. Just that values are held, and in some sense created by, the individual. Do you want to deal with reality? Reason is the only way you're going to do it. Do you find it interesting to understand all sorts of complicated philosophical points? I do. And that's the only reason I need. And you know what? That's the only reason that anybody's ever gonna have.
And it doesn't bother me one bit.
Roderick Long replies to some of Rollins's criticisms in The Nature of Law, Part IV. Stirnerite libertarians have always been interesting to me, though. How does one support the abolition of the state without an ethical basis for it? Is it mere utility? (note: I'm not trying be inflammatory or trollish; I am honestly curious)
Agora! Anarchy! Action!
Most of Long's arguments can be retorted to in that he is explaining that morality is supposed to be guidance and not protection. That is, however, understood. The point is that there can be no imperatives outside of your own preferences and judgement, thus there can be no 'guidance' except from what an individual does desire and how he might achieve it.
Later he says this:
More importantly, though, the question is why we should accept Rollins' claim that nothing is right or wrong and nothing is entitled to reverence.
First of all, I disagree. I postulate that the Moralist is in the position of the theist. What most people think or believe is irrelevant, the fact is the claim to a positive universal norm is not and could not ever be 'experienced' by anyone since no one has a 'universal' value sense, only their own. And a point of fact against 'morality' is that value exists only as specific values held by specific individuals who are in specific situations with limited resources and knowledge. A value can not be 'universal', though it may be omnipresent, because only individuals ever experience it. There is no 'outisde' perspective. I am not here doubting that reality is objective, I am saying that values can not even be imagined as being 'outside' of a specific viewpoint of someone. It has no cognitive content.
I think of little as moral 'reasoning' as I do of religious 'reasoning'. I consider it literally impossible nonsense with no implication in reality except as a factual influence of beliefs on people. The only reason libertarian 'ethics' are so interesting to me is because it is the source of the most consistent non-violent dispute resolution methods (arbitration). Libertarianism is, I think, the best theory of legality ever developed.
I support the abolition of the State because it's obnoxious and it's a stupid idea that people parrot all the time. It's damn annoying. Debate helps me to refine my own understanding, but I don't do it to convince anyone. That's just a side effect. I am fairly certain that the libertarian insurrection won't be coming any time soon, and I won't have much of an influence either way, so I'm certainly not a libertarian 'activist' or anything. I just find it really interesting. Analytic reasoning is what my genes are good for, it would seem.
R.J. Moore II:In response to many of the above authors I would cite the little known but very insightful Myth of Natural Rights by LA Rollins. I had to manually type this up using Wordpad, so it's missing footnotes. Some of the text is too blocky, but it should be readable.
Rollins? Give me a break! Roderick refuted him a long time ago.
Yours in liberty,Geoffrey Allan PlaucheDoctoral CandidatePolitical ScienceLouisiana State University
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"(Who watches the watchmen?)-Juvenal, Satires VI.347
R.J. Moore II:The point is that there can be no imperatives outside of your own preferences and judgement, thus there can be no 'guidance' except from what an individual does desire and how he might achieve it. [...] First of all, I disagree. I postulate that the Moralist is in the position of the theist. What most people think or believe is irrelevant, the fact is the claim to a positive universal norm is not and could not ever be 'experienced' by anyone since no one has a 'universal' value sense, only their own. And a point of fact against 'morality' is that value exists only as specific values held by specific individuals who are in specific situations with limited resources and knowledge. A value can not be 'universal', though it may be omnipresent, because only individuals ever experience it. There is no 'outisde' perspective. I am not here doubting that reality is objective, I am saying that values can not even be imagined as being 'outside' of a specific viewpoint of someone. It has no cognitive content.
I don't agree about the theism. The objection that no one has a 'universal' value sense is a chimera. As is the idea that values can be imagined 'outside' of a specific viewpoint of someone. These are essentially straw man arguments. Irrelevant with regard to Aristotelians since we hold nothing resembling either view.
R.J. Moore II:I think of little as moral 'reasoning' as I do of religious 'reasoning'. I consider it literally impossible nonsense with no implication in reality except as a factual influence of beliefs on people. The only reason libertarian 'ethics' are so interesting to me is because it is the source of the most consistent non-violent dispute resolution methods (arbitration). Libertarianism is, I think, the best theory of legality ever developed.
That's nice. But I don't see any arguments here. Just assertions of your beliefs.
R.J. Moore II:I support the abolition of the State because it's obnoxious and it's a stupid idea that people parrot all the time. It's damn annoying.
That's not much of a leg to stand on. The strongest objection one can make is that it is annoying, obnoxious and stupid? Stupid...how so? In terms of economic efficiency?
Right. Why should you stick to a consistent use of definitions ? It's much better to use words loosely and be able to spout any kind of nonsense. Well, have fun, I'm not wasting any more time.
You've wasted enough of mine after all.
And in 'some' cases it is true, which means your 'theory' has been disproved. Too bad logic is not your strong suit.
Hmm, how does that work? Does this also disprove economic conceptions of rationality? Actually, logic is my strong suit. Unlike you, I've done philosophy, so I'm not apt to make moronic mistakes like you've made thus far, e.g. conflating rational potentiality with deterministic fatalism, to always be rational. The theory would only be disproved if one said it is always possible. Where did I say this?
This is the third time or so that you fail to answer why people should follow your arbitrary idea of virtue. You indeed stick stubbornly to...evasion.
Because it'd require more effort than I am willing to expend on you, and because it is not even pertinent to this topic. In future, when you're going to attack an idea, make sure you comprehend it.
R J Moore, whereby did you come across this absolute truth that there is no morality? Sounds like "theism" to me...
-Jon
I cannot be caged. I cannot be controlled. Understand this as you die, ever pathetic, ever fools.
Irenicus' Diaries.
I myself used to be a sort of "post-objectivist, 'rights are natural and must not be violated!', 'you are objectively evil'" kind of guy. Then I realised what utter useless nonsense it really is. Without reading any Stirner, Nietzsche, or something like that (which I still haven't).
Not only has noone actually proven the existence of these natural/objective/whatever rights, but even if someone were to do just that, I fail to see the point in them. I don't understand what I would get out of knowing what is and what isn't objectively good and evil...
I think the whole argument from morals is one of the things holding the libertarian movement back. I don't think it's anything but choir-preaching.