It sounds like there’s some equivocation creeping in there too. If Mises is going to define happiness as “whatever people aim at”, he shouldn’t rely on the connotations of happiness; his argument shouldn’t change if the word is replaced with “gensym01“. Similarly for “self interest” and “gensym02”.
The intrinsic vagueness and difficulty in defining human action is a serious problem. This is why the Austrians focus on apparent and factual practicality. If there’s action there’s always reaction and these are, both, measurable elements. Pondering on dubious incentives is the slippery slope towards relativism.
It sounds like there’s some equivocation creeping in there too. If Mises is going to define happiness as “whatever people aim at”, he shouldn’t rely on the connotations of happiness; his argument shouldn’t change if the word is replaced with “gensym01“. Similarly for “self interest” and “gensym02”.
The intrinsic vagueness and difficulty in defining human action is a serious problem. This is why the Austrians focus on apparent and factual practicality. If there’s action there’s always reaction and these are, both, measurable elements. Pondering on dubious incentives is the slippery slope towards relativism.