esk@wucs.UUCP (Walter Wego) (02/11/85)
[Caution: cutting edge sharp. Avoid contact.] From: nrh@inmet.UUCP > As for your [Carnes's] attempt to lure me into a false position by > requiring a "theory of distributive justice": Pfui! The libertarian > philosophy focuses on the preemptive importance of "means" as opposed > to "ends". And that is precisely what's wrong with it. Libertarians want "clean hands": terrible things can happen, but *they* didn't cause it, so it's "not their problem." Kind of like the organization man who doesn't want to make any decisions, for fear of being wrong, though taking such risks would make his company perform better; they never want to risk being at fault, however much good might be achieved. > If I understand you rightly, you're asking for a definition (by a > libertarian) of a just "end" -- some description of how wealth "should" > wind up distributed WITHOUT REGARD TO HOW it is distributed. Sorry, no > can do -- the method used to reach a given distribution determines > whether the distribution is just or not. No, I think Carnes meant WITH REGARD to how it is distributed *BUT ALSO* to how it winds up! To use Dan McKiernan's language, justice is not path-independent -- but it's not result-independent either. > Libertarians point out that MEANS and not ends are what are under the > control of human beings -- thus it is possible to define "good" means > and stick to them, but NOT possible to define good outcomes and > guarantee one reaches them. He wants a GUARANTEE! Sorry, life's not that simple. You can't be assured of good outcomes, but you ought to try. > > I await with great interest a libertarian explanation as to why we > > should accept Nozick's theory of DJ in preference to any alternative > > theory. [CARNES] > ...In a nutshell then: any theory of DJ which focuses on ENDS focuses > on something that human beings cannot control. Human beings must employ > means to achieve ends, and while they may control the means, the ends > are not guaranteed. Bull: we have some control, though it's not *perfect* control -- no guarantees. It's not that easy. > Thus ANY system that leaves aside the morality of the means is > essentially ignoring the fundamental human moral question: "How to act?" And any system that leaves aside the value of the ends is essentially ignoring the fundamental ethical question: "WHY to act?" "Turn up those flames -- I hate cold weather!" Paul V. Torek, ihnp4!wucs!wucec1!pvt1047 Don't hit that 'r' key! Send any mail to this address, not the sender's.