[net.politics] Relativism and Libertarianism

mck@ratex.UUCP (Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan) (01/19/85)

This is a re-posting; the original vanished mysteriously.

Listen up, vulgar Libertarians:

     Torek is right-on-the-money when it comes to attempts to derive
Libertarianism from ethical Relativism.  If there is no absolute good, if
right and wrong are purely subjective, then the Libertarian non-aggression
principle (which is itself an ethical standard) is BY F***ING DEFINITION a
purely subjective precept.

                                        Even more disgusted,
                                        DKMcK

faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (01/21/85)

> Listen up, vulgar Libertarians:
> 
>      Torek is right-on-the-money when it comes to attempts to derive
> Libertarianism from ethical Relativism.  If there is no absolute good, if
> right and wrong are purely subjective, then the Libertarian non-aggression
> principle (which is itself an ethical standard) is BY F***ING DEFINITION a
> purely subjective precept.

Since trying to logically derive ethics from objective truths has been
proven useless (see Hume), why not approach the problem from the
standpoint of which ethical views are the least "absolute" in nature.
Probably universal toleration and libertarianism are the most
compatible with relativism, so if you really like to be consistent,
then you should be a libertarian. Personally, I don't care if I'm not
absolutely consistent, so if my view of "good" has some assumptions in
it that aren't very relativistic in spirit, that is not a big problem.

	Wayne

mck@ratex.UUCP (Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan) (01/23/85)

>Since trying to logically derive ethics from objective truths has been
>proven useless (see Hume),

Oh no no no, Wayne; neither Hume nor anyone else has proven such attempts
useless.  Hume indicated the magnitude of the problem.

>                           why not approach the problem from the
>standpoint of which ethical views are the least "absolute" in nature.

You can ask 'why not?', and Torek et alii can ask 'why?'; 'why not?' is a
motivator only for those seeking an existential experience.

>Probably universal toleration and libertarianism are the most
>compatible with relativism,

I fail to see how Libertarianism is more compatible with Relativism than
are, say, Individualist Anarchism or Anarcho-Socialism.

>                                  Personally, I don't care if I'm not
>absolutely consistent,

Creeping Nihilism, Wayne, creeping Nihilism.

                                        Back to you,
                                        Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan