Classical Theism, Philosophy, and Religion Forum

You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?

Chit-Chat » Should we update to new forum software? » 1/04/2019 6:00 pm

John West wrote:

I realize that a lot of people are coming from pop apologetics where the aim is often to “win” debates by swaying hearts (and, ultimately, votes).

That seems like a voluntarist effort rather than an intellectualist effort, doesn't it? After all, why bother to strive toward the truth if the only thing that matters is what your heart says is right? Winning hearts and votes seems like a voluntarist tactic. An intellectualist would do as you are doing, which is to succor others toward finding the truth.

Practical Philosophy » I hate libertarianism » 1/03/2019 9:22 pm

UGADawg wrote:

What are three major points where classical liberals & libertarians disagree with objectivists?

Your question is not well-formulated, as you're confusing a position in political philosophy with a position in ethics (presumably, assuming you're not talking about Rand's metaphysics etc).

But many libertarians are highly critical of objectivism, e.g. see the libertarian philosopher Michael Humer's criticisms here.

I'm confused. Which is the political philosophy? Which is the position in ethics? If you could please clarify for me, I would greatly appreciate that!

Practical Philosophy » I hate libertarianism » 1/02/2019 2:11 am

Jeremy Taylor wrote:

Due,I am not a libertarian or classical liberal, but the OP really needs to go into more detail, as well as apply the principle of charity. The kind of classical liberal the OP is describing sees individual autonomy as paramount. They elevate something like Mill's Harm Principle - that the state and anyone else has no business interfering in a citizen's life unless that citizen is directly harming others through force or fraud - into a basic principle of morality and politics. You need to address this moral philosophy.

The problem is that "elevating Mill's Harm Principle into a basic principle of morality and politics" = "elevating Mill's Harm Principle to the exclusion of any other principle for morality and politics" = "ignoring all externalities."

Let's suppose that Companies A, B, C, ..., X, Y, Z are trading with Country Δ causing the rust belt of Country Σ to devolve into ghettos, meth labs, and unemployment. This causes the people of sigma to react.

Citizens of Σ: Your free trade is causing our youth to die of meth explosions and heroin overdose! You have broken Mill's Harm Principle and are harming us by your free trade!

Companies A-Z: Huh? No we haven't. We didn't put a gun against Country Δ's, and Country Δ didn't put a gun against our heads. So no transgression of Mill's Harm Principle occurred.

Citizens of Σ: But if you didn't engage in that free trade we would have prospered and thrived! Therefore your free trade caused (by counterfactual definiteness) our youth and livelihood to be destroyed!

Companies A-Z: So what? Counterfactuals are external to our business transactions, so they don't count as transgressions against Mill's Harm Principle.

Citizens of Σ: But that's not fair! The externalities caused by your free trade do harm us!

Companies A-Z: The only way to eliminate these externalities is if Country Σ puts a gun against our head preventing us from trading. That would be restrict

Theoretical Philosophy » How do you feel about WLC Kalam Argument? » 12/30/2018 5:58 pm

There's nothing wrong with hanging in the balance of scientific discovery. Christianity hangs in the balance of historical discovery: excavating Jesus's bones means we'd better become either Jewish or Buddhist.

Chit-Chat » Quotes to live by » 12/30/2018 6:08 am

"When people talk about traveling to the past, they worry about radically changing the present by doing something small, but barely anyone in the present really thinks that they can radically change the future by doing something small." ~ Anonymous

Religion » Efficacy of prayer » 12/29/2018 12:25 pm

@FZM the former is testing God but the latter isn't. The latter is observation.

Religion » Efficacy of prayer » 12/28/2018 5:07 pm

* If everyone on planet Earth all asked God to stop a quarter from falling, it seems absurd to believe that he would answer that prayer just because so many people asked. In fact, no religious person I know would believe that God would answer that prayer.

* Medical trials show that intercessory prayer is no better than placebo.

In light of these evidences, is it intellectually honest to believe that prayer has a chance of being answered?

Theoretical Philosophy » Intellectualist freedom » 12/26/2018 5:35 pm

@DanielCC unfortunately that thread doesn't give a definition of what freedom is. Is it "the ability to pursue multiple options and not be punished for taking advantage of this ability" or is it "being unlimited"?

Practical Philosophy » I hate libertarianism » 12/26/2018 5:28 pm

ClassicalLiberal.Theist wrote:

Due_Kindheartedness wrote:

Libertarians believe all externalities are irrelevant. Social externalities are irrelevant, so the only thing that matters are laws that defend property. Economic externalities are irrelevant, so the only thing that matters is market fundamentalism. National externalities are irrelevant, so the only thing that matters is free trade. But they haven't proven that these externalities are irrelevant. They just want you to shut up and support them. Your opinions and personal values are also another externality that doesn't matter.

Libertarians also lie. For instance, they claim that they're "objectivists" but they don't actually believe in objective reality. What they believe is no externalities so their internal model of the world is objective reality. When they say everyone should be objective they mean "other people's worldview is another externality I won't bother with so shut up and accept my externality-free worldview."

I personally, am on the libertarian side of things so I suppose I suffice as a good candidate to respond. Although, I am more of a minarchist then a ancap, so this may not completely pertain to me. I would first, like you to define what you mean by "externality." Mainly, because you are claiming that libertarians believe that "all externalities" are irrelevant and I believe this simply isn't the case. Myself and many others, hold true to a principle known as the non-aggression principle, which essentially states that all action is permitted until said action aggresses some other person or their property. Agression is an externality, so I am a little confused. When you say that sub category X's specific potential externalities are irrelevant to libertarians, I would say that they are not irrelevant to them, they just shouldn't be handled by the state. Or, in the case of economics, they believe aswell as I, that there is a case to be made for freedom within an economy, and that this fr

Board footera


Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum