Number of posts: 1202
Location: Boston, MA
Registration date: 2008-04-02
|Subject: Re: is, ought & libertarianism Fri Jun 20, 2008 2:11 am|| |
|it's induction and not deduction that depends on facts, right?|
Yes, that's right.
|Subject: Re: is, ought & libertarianism Fri Jul 25, 2008 7:54 pm|| |
|I think Hume did say that one cannot derive 'ought' from 'is', and by 'derive' he meant 'logically conclude'.|
This is not strictly true, there is one 'is' which necessarily implies an ought; desire/motivation/valuation. If one desires something one ought to pursue it because that's precisely what it means to possess motivation, to have a disposition towards imposing a state of affairs.
A major argument that I utilize when dealing with many moral arguments is that value precisely is and can only be imagined as tied to an existential perspective, a specific and cosmically unique perspective. To say that something is 'valuable' without reference to its value to me (or, at least, some specific person or persons) as the 'proofs' of good attempt is to misuse the concept of value. Divorced from some specific person which it implies, 'value' is a meaningless pseudo-idea little better than 'god'.
The same is true of imperative, the statement that I 'ought' to do something without reference to actual means and ends which I possess. There is no sensical meaning to 'imperative' except as imperative to a person because of the fact of his existential relationship with values and desires. Categorical imperatives are categorical nonsense.
Libertarianism is not 'moral' because nothing is moral, but it is about the only consistent and objective theory of arbitration I have ever heard of. The notion that moralists think we all need to believe in the goodness in order to adopt these standards is ridiculous, because for one people typically do abide by these norms and have no coherent framework or justification for their beliefs about how people 'should' act in society. An obvious reason would be that people are interested in prosperity and safety, and aren't all crazy murderers. If you eleminate the 'crazy murderers' you will find that human beings have a very rational reason to behave in a non-violent manner and support reason as a standard of assessing truth.
No matter how much people are propagandized against, they are never going to just abandon civil society and stop repairing their vehicles in accordance with the laws of logic. Human beings are fundamentally incapable of really even believing most of this nonsense, which is why it's so hard to argue with them about it because they have a story and a feeling.