I think we’re still talking in vagaries, here. “Egalitarianism” and “equity” are two ideals which are themselves simplified maps (kind of like “morals”) of two possible ways of achieving optimal outcomes—where by “optimal” I mean “harm-minimizing”.
The only thing we should be arguing about is the exact algorithm by which individual levels of harm are summed to produce a single number—e.g. which is worse: taking $10 from someone who earns $10k/year or $1 each from 1000 millionaires? If society can easily afford to properly care for every single person while still allowing a great deal of economic diversity above the poverty line (i.e. we can still have people who are ridiculously rich), what possible justification is there for not doing so?
You appear to be taking a utilitarian view of ethics for granted. I’m not a utilitarian so it makes more sense to me to reverse your question and ask what possible justification is there for taking $1 or $10 from anyone without their consent. Terminal values and ethical foundations do not appear to be universal even among humans.
First: would you agree that the benefits we receive from society obligate us to return something to society or else to refrain from receiving those benefits? Or not?
Second, I wasn’t arguing that either action would be right, but asking which would be worse, if you had to choose between actions which would result in one of those two outcomes?
First: would you agree that the benefits we receive from society obligate us to return something to society or else to refrain from receiving those benefits? Or not?
I get the impression that our conceptions of ethics and morality differ significantly enough that we probably wouldn’t even agree on a valid interpretation of this question. It doesn’t really make sense to me to talk of obligations to society. I may have obligations to individuals (or particular groups of individuals) as a result of explicit or implicit contracts I’ve entered into with them but I don’t believe I am morally obligated to reciprocate ‘benefits’ conferred on me through an arrangement that I have not consented to.
Second, I wasn’t arguing that either action would be right, but asking which would be worse, if you had to choose between actions which would result in one of those two outcomes?
Again, I think the gulf between our ethical foundations prevents a simple answer to this question that would be informative. I’m basically a classical liberal / libertarian. If you understand the ethical framework that implies then you should be able to see why this question doesn’t make much sense to me.
No, I’m in favour of attempts to bridge the gulf and the fact that you are posting here is a promising sign that it might be possible. I’m reluctant to engage further based on what I’ve seen of your writing on your site so far however—time is a limited resource and I fear that the value I would gain from engaging with you is not worth the time investment. Your comments in this thread have not exhibited the level of partisan blindness I’ve been worried by on your site however so there may be hope.
Also: I think what you’re misunderstanding about the POV on the site is that I am prepared to rationally defend everything I have said there, and I am prepared to retract or alter it if I cannot do so. (Note that there are a few articles posted by others, and I don’t necessarily agree with what they have said—but if I have not responded, it means I also don’t disagree strongly enough to bother. Maybe you do, and maybe I will too once the flaws are pointed out.)
If someone loans you a car, and it runs out of gas, do you (a) only put in enough gas to get you where you need to go (including returning it to the owner), or do you (b) fill the tank up?
I would argue that it is foolish to do (a), because if you become known as someone who pulls crap like that, people aren’t likely to loan you their cars in the future.
Libertarianism seems to be arguing, however, that (a) is the correct and proper action.
Next question:
Let’s say there’s some kind of widespread natural disaster where you live. Maybe outside help is coming but it will be a couple of weeks before it arrives in force. A group forms to work out what resources are available and who needs them. Let’s say you know all the people in that group, and have no reason to be suspicious of their motives. They decide that you have some supplies that are more urgently needed by others—people you don’t specifically know—and ask you to donate those supplies, even knowing that you may or may not ever be compensated for them given the extent of the disaster.
Would you say you have any… [let’s not say “obligation” or “compulsion”...] …rephrase: Would you feel like a jerk if you didn’t comply, or do you think it would be perfectly ok?
Libertarianism seems to be arguing, however, that (a) is the correct and proper action.
You don’t seem like someone well-acquainted with the relevant literature. If a policy seems obviously correct, and doesn’t involve coercing someone else into doing things against their will, then Libertarianism (at least, read as roughly equivalent to Lockean classical liberalism) won’t tell you not to do it.
A lot of libertarians are very enthusiastic about charity and philanthropy; they are less enthusiastic about being forced into it at gunpoint.
Is there any point to having this conversation here?
Libertarianism seems to be arguing, however, that (a) is the correct and proper action.
No, it really doesn’t. “Naively optimised self interest” suggests (a) and libertarianism is almost irrelevent to the question. Maybe if the question was “should people be coerced into b independently of any contract (formal or implicit) with the owner?”
If you think libertarianism argues that a) is the correct and proper action then you don’t understand libertarianism. I’m not even sure how you’d arrive at the idea that it does. I’m guessing that you are trying to make some kind of analogy between libertarian attitudes to government and libertarian attitudes to individual interactions but that you are assuming ideas about government that libertarians do not share.
As for the natural disaster scenario, the basis of libertarian ethics is that people should not be compelled to do anything by force. Voluntary charity is perfectly compatible with libertarianism and indeed libertarians often believe that voluntary charity is a much more satisfactory solution to most of the social problems that governments currently take it upon themselves to address.
I think we’re still talking in vagaries, here. “Egalitarianism” and “equity” are two ideals which are themselves simplified maps (kind of like “morals”) of two possible ways of achieving optimal outcomes—where by “optimal” I mean “harm-minimizing”.
The only thing we should be arguing about is the exact algorithm by which individual levels of harm are summed to produce a single number—e.g. which is worse: taking $10 from someone who earns $10k/year or $1 each from 1000 millionaires? If society can easily afford to properly care for every single person while still allowing a great deal of economic diversity above the poverty line (i.e. we can still have people who are ridiculously rich), what possible justification is there for not doing so?
You appear to be taking a utilitarian view of ethics for granted. I’m not a utilitarian so it makes more sense to me to reverse your question and ask what possible justification is there for taking $1 or $10 from anyone without their consent. Terminal values and ethical foundations do not appear to be universal even among humans.
Bypassing the question of terminal values, it would still be very useful to have a good argument map of factual issues which are hotly disputed.
Sure, that’s a good question to be asking.
First: would you agree that the benefits we receive from society obligate us to return something to society or else to refrain from receiving those benefits? Or not?
Second, I wasn’t arguing that either action would be right, but asking which would be worse, if you had to choose between actions which would result in one of those two outcomes?
I get the impression that our conceptions of ethics and morality differ significantly enough that we probably wouldn’t even agree on a valid interpretation of this question. It doesn’t really make sense to me to talk of obligations to society. I may have obligations to individuals (or particular groups of individuals) as a result of explicit or implicit contracts I’ve entered into with them but I don’t believe I am morally obligated to reciprocate ‘benefits’ conferred on me through an arrangement that I have not consented to.
Again, I think the gulf between our ethical foundations prevents a simple answer to this question that would be informative. I’m basically a classical liberal / libertarian. If you understand the ethical framework that implies then you should be able to see why this question doesn’t make much sense to me.
Are you saying we should stop trying to bridge that gulf, or should I try to explain myself a different way?
No, I’m in favour of attempts to bridge the gulf and the fact that you are posting here is a promising sign that it might be possible. I’m reluctant to engage further based on what I’ve seen of your writing on your site so far however—time is a limited resource and I fear that the value I would gain from engaging with you is not worth the time investment. Your comments in this thread have not exhibited the level of partisan blindness I’ve been worried by on your site however so there may be hope.
Also: I think what you’re misunderstanding about the POV on the site is that I am prepared to rationally defend everything I have said there, and I am prepared to retract or alter it if I cannot do so. (Note that there are a few articles posted by others, and I don’t necessarily agree with what they have said—but if I have not responded, it means I also don’t disagree strongly enough to bother. Maybe you do, and maybe I will too once the flaws are pointed out.)
Okay, then, let me try again.
If someone loans you a car, and it runs out of gas, do you (a) only put in enough gas to get you where you need to go (including returning it to the owner), or do you (b) fill the tank up?
I would argue that it is foolish to do (a), because if you become known as someone who pulls crap like that, people aren’t likely to loan you their cars in the future.
Libertarianism seems to be arguing, however, that (a) is the correct and proper action.
Next question:
Let’s say there’s some kind of widespread natural disaster where you live. Maybe outside help is coming but it will be a couple of weeks before it arrives in force. A group forms to work out what resources are available and who needs them. Let’s say you know all the people in that group, and have no reason to be suspicious of their motives. They decide that you have some supplies that are more urgently needed by others—people you don’t specifically know—and ask you to donate those supplies, even knowing that you may or may not ever be compensated for them given the extent of the disaster.
Would you say you have any… [let’s not say “obligation” or “compulsion”...] …rephrase: Would you feel like a jerk if you didn’t comply, or do you think it would be perfectly ok?
You don’t seem like someone well-acquainted with the relevant literature. If a policy seems obviously correct, and doesn’t involve coercing someone else into doing things against their will, then Libertarianism (at least, read as roughly equivalent to Lockean classical liberalism) won’t tell you not to do it.
A lot of libertarians are very enthusiastic about charity and philanthropy; they are less enthusiastic about being forced into it at gunpoint.
Is there any point to having this conversation here?
No, it really doesn’t. “Naively optimised self interest” suggests (a) and libertarianism is almost irrelevent to the question. Maybe if the question was “should people be coerced into b independently of any contract (formal or implicit) with the owner?”
If you think libertarianism argues that a) is the correct and proper action then you don’t understand libertarianism. I’m not even sure how you’d arrive at the idea that it does. I’m guessing that you are trying to make some kind of analogy between libertarian attitudes to government and libertarian attitudes to individual interactions but that you are assuming ideas about government that libertarians do not share.
As for the natural disaster scenario, the basis of libertarian ethics is that people should not be compelled to do anything by force. Voluntary charity is perfectly compatible with libertarianism and indeed libertarians often believe that voluntary charity is a much more satisfactory solution to most of the social problems that governments currently take it upon themselves to address.
I think woozle believes that libertarians are parody versions of objectivists.
I thought objectivists were a parody version of libertarians.