I'm making this thread simply as a matter of curiosity, as I do not consider myself to be a complete libertarian. So I have a question for the libertarians on this site: Is there any place for consequentialist ethical philosophy in libertarianism, or is libertarianism simply deontological in nature?
I dont think even libertarians know what thay are. They want freedom, but argue about how much government (not freedom) is nessesary. They are basically far right statists and some even claim to be socialist and libertarian. Like da fuq? Lol. A minarchist is still a statist drawing an imaginary line somewhere lower on the tyranny pole. Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
He is basically asking for "ends justify the means" (consequentialist) or "means justify the ends" (deontological), do you value the morality of an action (deontological), or does that matter when it comes to an outcome (consequentialist). I think more towards the morality is what matters. Was it moral to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki and kills hundreds of thousands of innocents in order to end WW2, did the ends justify the means. I would say no, I think most "libertarians" would agree, but "libertarian" is a big general word that can mean different things to different people, so its impossible to know for sure. If taxation is theft, but you use that money for lets say, roads and public housing, is that justified? I think most would say no, and it would therefore be deontological. A thief can steal your wallet, but give that money to a local school, is that justified? I think it boils down to, if you are negatively affecting an innocent person or not. Would it be wrong to steal money from a person to give to a school, if that person had already stolen money from that school, and you are basically taking back what was already owned? If you have read Atlas Shrugged, this is basically what Ragnar Danneskjold does. This seems more consequentialist imo. To answer the question, I would think the ideas are primarily deontological, but then again maybe not. Interesting topic though, much better than the usually stuff here.
You're right, I think a lot of libertarians would consider their philosophy to be deontological in nature. Simply the fact that that it is, in many ways, a form of moral absolutism (or, at least, a rejection of reflective equilibrium), helps this view. The non-aggression principle is certainly a deontological one and, I suppose, is derived in some way (if not directly) from Kantian categorical imperative.
For the first half, I agree that a lot of right-wingers seem to be jumping on the libertarian bandwagon, aligning themselves at least somewhat with the movement, while obviously not having a libertarian ideology at all...as for the second half... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism 'Libertarianism' as commonly used, particularly around here, is 'right-libertarianism,' one form. As for me, I am an absolute supporter of extreme individual freedom in terms of 'social issues.' As for economic issues, I honestly don't know what I think anymore, so don't really have a label for myself... as for the topic of OP, I've honestly never heard the word 'deontological' before, but taking the basic definition of 'means justify ends' vs. 'ends justify means,' I would say libertarians in general would be 'deontological.' The whole perspective is that people should just be able to do what they want, and noone should be able to force anyone to do anything. So if it's be forced to do X to help lots of people, or don't be forced to do anything and hopefully things turn out alright for those people, they'll go with option B, because to them being forced to do anything is inherently immoral.
Both play their parts reasoning to different types of people. To me, consequentialist arguments seem to be more compelling, but for some, morality works just fine if they accept the idea of it.
Plenty of room for consequentalist ethical philosophy in libertarianism and I don't think libertarianism is deontological in nature.
Its all about the means. Marvelous creations like the pyramids were created with slave labor. The proceeds from slave labor and theft (taxation) can create truly marvelous creations. However libertarians condemn these means wholeheartedly. We would rather that those slaves that built the pyramids lived a free life. Property rights must be respected despite any costs. Otherwise the ends justify the means and basically anything goes. We respect and protect the individual even though many ideologies such as communism, progressiveism and fascism would sacrifice the rights of the individual for the "greater good." We reject such utilitarian motives. When it comes down to it we are all individuals despite whatever group you identify with and utilitarian ideology would sacrifice any one of us for what they perceive as the good. We are all individually a minority there is only one of each one of us in existence libertarians defend the rights of that individual.
Disclaimer: playing devil's advocate here as I'm not a consequentialist. It could be argued that society would've prospered even more without slave labor that built the pyramids. Now, I think in its most extreme form, consequentalism can be boiled down to "the ends justifies the means", which, I agree, is incredibly dangerous idea; however, I think that there is room for some less extreme forms of consequentialism in libertarianism that don't completely subscribe to that notion, while still being consequentialist. I think David Friedman is a good example of a consequentialist libertarian.
The biggest selling point of Voluntaryism or libertarinism is its commitment to morality. I am aware of libertarians who support the philosophy because of it efficiency. Hell I have met libertarians who have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. I met a man who claimed to be libertarian but supported a universal draft like Israels. Libertarians are not immune from fools who have no moral center or even idea of what they are talking about.
Yes, essentially a monopoly on abuse. We are told the function of government is to represent the will of the people, when in reality the function of government is to fabricate consent of the governed and then redirect the masses according to the agenda of those within government, all at the cost of those being governed. It is this monopoly, and a desperate one at that, which makes society dependent upon government and willing to submit to its authority. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6bbzkbI4Jk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ev1LoTZDBLY
Do you think that consequentialists are less committed to morality? Consequentialism isn't just about efficiency. Many consequentialists value morality just as highly as deontologists... You're aware of them, but have you actually read any consequentialist libertarian works?
When debating others, I often get them to agree that taxes are theft, and then have them debate me about whether that's beneficial or not. I can destroy them from two fronts. Not only are they advocating something that they would consider wrong, but it is also not beneficial. I tend to agree with David Friedman, in that the economic consequentialist arguments hold more ground because morality is difficult to define, and since the consequential arguments are so strong, there is no reason not to use them. Pretty old, but pretty good debate on the subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9YVqZN9LJk
i think the purest of libertarians would agree that morals are subjective and irrelevant to the action. perhaps thats just me though, i consider myself ancap for what its worth.
I dont believe ends justify means ever. Thats part of the point of libertarianism. Statism is government is a nessesary evil to justify the end. We justify government because maybe they can use opression to help people. Libertarianism is the idea that tje end doesnt justify the means and that is why we dont need government Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
Most of the people significantly older than me that I've discussed the nature of taxes with do not believe it is theft. I agree that having both arguments is good. You can basically appeal to their sensibilities and it makes it easier for you to convince them. I don't agree with David Friedman. Morality is not that difficult to define. There's a ton of shitty ethical theories that people believe, but there's also a ton of shitty economics.out there that people believe. I think that your arguments will hold more sway based on the person(s) you're trying to convince.