I have been reading about Sartre's concept of the alienating and mediating Third (the cretique of dialectical reason), and it seems relevant in this discussion. There is no need for morality in a singular existance. The dyad you/I is affected by the third in an alienating they, and also mediating in us/them. The totality of us/we is destroyed by the them/them.

I have been reading about Sartre's concept of the alienating and mediating Third (the cretique of dialectical reason), and it seems relevant in this discussion. There is no need for morality in a singular existance. The dyad you/I is affected by the third in an alienating they, and also mediating in us/them. The totality of us/we is destroyed by the them/them.

(I'm new at this stuff so please feel free to tell me when I'm all wet)

The relevance is that individual values/morals are intrinsically tied to the group. Social systems bring funcionality to society by protecting freedoms and imposing restraints to individuals for the general good; in lieu of total anarchy. The desired result should therefore be both utilitarian for the common good and libertarian in support of the individual. I realize this idea is ultimately unatainable because the good of the whole is sometimes at the expense of the individual (and visa-versa).

In this juxtaposed (subjective/objective?) condition, ethics then strives to establish equilibrium of equality betwen the individual and the group they are a part of. One social system (moral philosophy) errs in support of the group, another errs in suport of the individual.

I think one essential fact of morals is that it breaks down the barrior between me and thee. Again, if you look at the treatment Jesus gives this subject in the Gospels, you see that he phrases it in terms of familier relations, like the prodigal son, or the good Sameritan (sp), where he answers the question, who is my brother? Those people who feared the material price of ritual defilement, the priests who walked by the injured man could not see the human being through the form of their social positions. Seeing morality in the sense of family, we know that what is good for one is good for the other. People do not have separate moralities, and so moral precepts reflect that fact: Do unto others. To be moral, one must see others as ones self. It is an emotional connectedness, and yes, it is intrusive to be told you are acting wrongly. Some people do not know they have a self until they are made to feel like an outlaw, or outcast. Too often this is a role people take on to enjoy life as a luxury, for the moment, and as a prodigal. What is gained in the self is lost in society. It is that feeling, closeness, love, affection, and good will for others that is morality. Morality does not bear rules, commandments, prescriptions, or proscriptions. Yet, almost everyone knows love, even if that is something they have been long deprived of, each has a sense of it, of what is right in regard to love, of a common being in regard to love, and for that person who grasps that love of others -then individuality seems a gross luxury in the face of wide spread famine of want. How can I deny you your humanity to enjoy my simple pleasures?

Thanks for this somewhat poetic post:). I totally agree that empathy is a vital mode of thought in anyones morality. I love the bible, and you reminded me of so many ways the bible leads us to become one or meld self with other, as I am sure other religions do also. Sartre was rationalising the unification of the sameness whenever one is in a group. Each individual can not avoid some sort of group.

History points out repeatedly that groups also alienate. Nationalism, culture, religion, race, gender, all set us apart from eachother and can lead to some group rationale that is detremental to others (imoral?). How else could our recent ancestors slaughter the native americans unless they first dehumanized them into "savages"? (This is just an example; i'm not trying to vilify anyones family.) We should also remember that condition pressures (such as servival) can shift moral behavior.

we are all deminished when there are some among us who suffer the most unspeakable want and harm. It makes me want to deliniate a minimum quality of life that no one should live below, and we could take steps to minimize the worst depravity. No, I do not advocate we abolish suffering; I'm just saying it does us all harm when any one of us is starving, infested with parasites, plauged by disease, tourtured, or forced to watch loved ones be mutilated before their eyes!

Likewise, it does us all harm to view ourselves seperate from the enironment, for we are all tied directly to its condition!

sorry to be so long in agreeing with you:D. How though, can you say people dont have seperate moralities? I dont understand that statement.

Quite true, actually. A libertarian might mention that they think their system will produce the greatest amount of happiness, but even if the opposite were true, none of the libertarian's arguments are done any damage. Libertarianism simply has no basis in utilitarianism. I'm not sure what libertarian literature you have read. Of everything I've read, nowhere are utilitarian arguments used.

At best, it seems, you might try to argue that Bentham's influence on prison reform and utilitarianism represents some sort of connection. Even then; however, Bentham is, at best, an historical note. Again, the libertarian does not use utilitarian arguments. At least not in anything I have ever encountered. If you have some literature that suggests otherwise, I'm most interested.

So you're saying that libertarians don't believe that their system of economics and government will cause the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people?

Since I do not follow the categorical imperative all the time (although (I think) I do most of the time), I am not sure I can say that I follow it at all. I think that one cannot call themselves a follower of any moral framework if they do not follow it all of the time.

No, most do accept this. What I am saying is that the matter is irrelevant to the libertarian. The greatest amount of happiness has nothing to do with libertarian arguments.

If you think libertarians are utilitarians, there's not much I can do to help you other than suggest you read a book or two.

So you're saying that libertarians believe in their ideals not because they believe that libertarianism is the best system but because they believe in the principle of individualism, even if that led to a much less happy society?

Interesting that you say this, as I've never heard a libertarian argue that we should adopt libertarianism for the principle of human rights, individualism, etc.

No, they think libertarianism to be the best system because of their principles of individual liberty.

You could start with the modern economic conservative classic, "Capitalism and Freedom" by Milton Friedman. He is not a hard libertarian, but the bulk of his arguments are based on the notion of individual liberty; he makes a few exceptions for things like parks because he thinks the private sector could not be expected to maintain them.

So you're saying that libertarians believe in the principle of individual liberty above all else?

Even if this would mean a markedly worse society than today?

That the most just system will, at the end of the day, work out better than any other system, is an absurdly evident fact, certainly nothing to debate about.

Basically, yes, of course this principle has a number of corrolaries in their eyes, for example, non-violence. And some libertarians take this indifferent directions, having disagreements over what is and what is not naturally the rights of man.
You keep talking about the way libertarians think their system will relate to society, and you miss the point entirely.
Libertarians embrace individual freedom, that's what they promote, because they think it to be the most just way to organize society. That in itself is enough, as evident by the fact that they generally disdain government economic intervention, on principle, even when this intervention amounts to feeding the poor. That the most just system will, at the end of the day, work out better than any other system, is an absurdly evident fact, certainly nothing to debate about. This is a fact almost always introduced to address utilitarian concerns with libertarianism, not a bad idea considering most people probably are utilitarians, even if they make specific exceptions.

If you ever read any utilitarian and libertarian literature, maybe you will understand. Maybe then you will understand why this statment of yours is inaccurate: "Libertarians want to increase the utility of the middle and upper classes". Maybe you would then know that libertarianism is concerned with the individual's rights, utilitarianism is concerned with the greatest happiness of all.

As a quasi-libertarian (in reality, a paleoconservative), I think it funny how you think I know nothing about libertarianism.

I never disagreed with the fact that libertarians believe in individual freedom.

Economically speaking, I said that most libertarians recognize there will be a "loser" class, and that class is obviously the lower class. Whereas in socialism, the lower class will benefit economically, in libertarianism, the lower class will not benefit economically.

As a side note, many libertarians don't disdain economic intervention on principle, but because we believe that economic intervention doesn't better the economy, but make it worse.

You yourself noted Milton Friedman as someone who believes in individual liberty. As a Nobel laureate economist, do you think Friedman would support individual rights on principle? No, he believed that the strongest economy was the one with as little regulation as possible.

I cannot see how you can make a valid argument claiming that most libertarians are not utilitarians.

Ahhhh. That's why you hate Randroids. You're a COMMUNIST!!! Hah!

work out better than any other system, for who?

most just, for who?

I dont care what you call yourself, if you dont know what you're talking about, you dont know. Either you know very little of libertarianism, or you know very little of utilitarianism, otherwise you would understand that they are different. Perhaps you've read some Bentham, or Mill - they were much closer to libertarians with respect to their view of happiness than JS Mill.

I never suggested you did, only that you might have some confusion over what that means to libertarians with respect to why libertarians reject utilitarianism, ie, the difference between utilitarianism and libertarianism. Perhaps you forget that libertarians reject taxation? You may not, personally, but that is fairly basic libertarian stand - to favor taxes is radical among libertarians.

Just to remind you, my clarification was: "libertarianism has absolutely no interest in the well being of one class of people as compared to another. They do not seek "to increase the utility of the middle and upper classes"."

Sure, there are some who are as you say, but this does not represent the general libertarian perspective. Yes, generally, libertarians would say that economic intervention is harmful, but not just with respect to the strength of the economy, also with respect to the rights of the individual. The latter being the bulk of the argument, the former being introduced more as evidence that their principles are sound than anything else, a sort of 'see, we must be right!' and they make a good point.

Utilitarians in the tradition of JS Mill have fundamental differences when it comes to the use of the word "happiness" - libertarians would equate this to our amount of individual liberty, while JS Mill had a much more refined notion of "happiness" a la his higher pleasures doctrine. JS Mill is concerned with the proper exercise of our capacities, libertarians with being able to exercise those those capacities as we please so long as we do not disturb another's right to do the same. Remember he said "it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied"

In normal contexts, honesty is the
best policy, even if at times it does not achieve
the desired good results; so is respect for every
individual's rights to life, liberty and property.
All in all, this is what will ensure the best consequences
-- in the long run and as a rule.
In which case one need not be very concerned about
the most recent estimate of the consequences of
banning or not banning guns or breaking up or not
breaking up Microsoft or any other public policy,
for that matter. It is enough to know that violating
the rights of individuals to bear arms is a bad
idea, and that history and analysis support this
principle. To violate rights has, in the main, produced
greater damage than good, so let's not do it
even when we are terribly tempted to do so.

To have a right, then, is, I conceive, to have something which society ought to defend me in the possession of. If the objector goes on to ask, why it ought? I can give him no other reason than general utility.