|08-18-2010, 06:01 PM||#1 (permalink)|
Join Date: Nov 2006
Anyone familiar with Stefan Molyneux from freedomain radio? He's an atheist anarchist with his own carefully worked out theory of virtue based on UPB (universally preferred behavior). He's got about 1600 published podcasts that explore the subject in great depth that I'm just starting to dive into. I heard about him from listening to the Free Talk Live podcasts, which is a libertarian news podcast.
I thought some people on these boards might be interested in this material for it's intellectual approach to the subjects of ethics and politics. Anyone familiar/interested in this work take a minute to post here and let me know where you heard about it and what you think of it!
|08-19-2010, 11:21 PM||#4 (permalink)|
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Berlin, Germany
While I'm no hard utilitarian I don't think that arguments such as "taking stuff away from people is bad" can stand on their own.
As far as I'm concerned results matter. Truth matters.
When you actually believe that certain things are immoral and therefore it can't be true for people to behave as they actually behave.
As one case, in controlled tests people didn't get used to the handout of free bed nets. They didn't purchase less bed nets than people who had to pay for their bed nets.
The philosophy that build on such a definition of virtue has real problems when it gets confronted with ugly reality where different solutions are effective for different problems.
It makes searching for the true answer immoral. The quest for the solution that's most effective in an utilitarian sense becomes a sin.
When he speaks of utilitarianism he makes a strange comment about socialists being utilitarians. It's not only poisoning the well but also wrong.
As far as I know socialist thought is based on the moral arguments of Karl Marx's that are build on a different foundation. It's a complex argument about Truth and History that isn't utilitarian.
It's deeply ironic that he starts by poisoning with the claim that other aren't educated in philosophy.
Then he switches the argument by saying: "Because you don't know what's the greatest good, you can't say that one should try to maximize the greatest good".
I think that arguments is flawed. Just because I can't measure something perfectly doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
I also don't even believe that giving people more choices is always better for them.
Simplicity vs. Choice - Joel on Software is a good example of a talk that argues against that claim. It has the advantage that it a lot more reality focused than abstract philosophy.
|08-25-2010, 09:53 PM||#5 (permalink)|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Tbh. its a perveted world view that people have to be controlled, maintained or managed. Between the lines you are saying that some are perfect and thus must rule the others. That some by definition are better human beings and must rule the lesser ones for their own best sake. It is such a daft theory, with no intellectual basis.
And i stumbled upon FDR/Stefan on youtube. Very good stuff. Very hardcore. Just the way i like it. No fussing about. Its direct, clear, and precise not hard to understand and make sense of. Its lovely. A beacon of light and truth in this very dark world. Hi stef
Last edited by Double; 08-25-2010 at 09:56 PM.
All times are GMT. The time now is 01:53 AM.