Libertarian Ethics
Lecture 6
December 9, 2011
Daniel James Sanchez
Rothbard’s Critique of Mises
Rothbard’s Critique of Hume
Values Implied by Living
“If Crusoe had eaten the mushrooms without learning of their poisonous effects, then
his decision...
Hoppe
• “Equally applicable”; “Universally acceptable”
• “…if all goods were co-owned by everyone, then no one, at no
time...
Hoppe
• “Equally applicable”; “Universally acceptable”
• “…if all goods were co-owned by everyone, then no one, at no
time...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Libertarian Ethics, Lecture 6 with Danny Sanchez - Mises Academy

172

Published on

For lecture videos, readings, and other class materials, you can sign up for this independent study course at academy.mises.org.

Published in: News & Politics, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
172
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Libertarian Ethics, Lecture 6 with Danny Sanchez - Mises Academy

  1. 1. Libertarian Ethics Lecture 6 December 9, 2011 Daniel James Sanchez
  2. 2. Rothbard’s Critique of Mises
  3. 3. Rothbard’s Critique of Hume
  4. 4. Values Implied by Living “If Crusoe had eaten the mushrooms without learning of their poisonous effects, then his decision would have been incorrect—a possibly tragic error based on the fact that man is scarcely automatically determined to make correct decisions at all times. Hence, his lack of omniscience and his liability to error. If Crusoe, on the other hand, had known of the poison and eaten the mushrooms anyway—perhaps for “kicks” or from a very high time preference—then his decision would have been objectively immoral, an act deliberately set against his life and health. It may well be asked why life should be an objective ultimate value, why man should opt for life (in duration and quality).[5] In reply, we may note that a proposition rises to the status of an axiom when he who denies it may be shown to be using it in the very course of the supposed refutation.[6] Now, any person participating in any sort of discussion, including one on values, is, by virtue of so participating, alive and affirming life. For if he were really opposed to life, he would have no business in such a discussion, indeed he would have no business continuing to be alive. Hence, the supposed opponent of life is really affirming it in the very process of his discussion, and hence the preservation and furtherance of one’s life takes on the stature of an incontestable axiom.”
  5. 5. Hoppe • “Equally applicable”; “Universally acceptable” • “…if all goods were co-owned by everyone, then no one, at no time and no place, would be allowed to do anything unless he had previously secured every other co-owner’s consent to do so. • “Argumentation between Crusoe and Friday requires that both have, and mutually recognize each other as having, exclusive control over their respective bodies (their brain, vocal chords, etc.)” • “Conflict-generating norms contradict the very purpose of norms.”
  6. 6. Hoppe • “Equally applicable”; “Universally acceptable” • “…if all goods were co-owned by everyone, then no one, at no time and no place, would be allowed to do anything unless he had previously secured every other co-owner’s consent to do so. • “Argumentation between Crusoe and Friday requires that both have, and mutually recognize each other as having, exclusive control over their respective bodies (their brain, vocal chords, etc.)” • “Conflict-generating norms contradict the very purpose of norms.”
  1. A particular slide catching your eye?

    Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

×