Aristotelian-Liberal Political Philosophy
by Geoffrey Allan Plauché on June 3, 2008 @ 12:19 pm · 4 comments
in Democracy, Dialectical Libertarianism, Market Anarchism, statism
Previous post: Dr. Bob Carter on Climate Change
Next post: The Prick-Waving Theory of War
Funny As Hell LOL Cat 
Poli Sci PhD
Adj. Instructor
Buena Vista U.
Contact Me
Father, husband, political philosopher, sci-fi fan
Recommended Reading (Facebook)Get smart with the Thesis WordPress Theme from DIYthemes.
Bad Behavior has blocked 348 access attempts in the last 7 days.
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
Hello Geoffrey,
I’m looking forward to reading your completed dissertation. I was wondering if you had reviewed Molyneux’s UPB theory of ethics? Well, not so much a theory of ethics but rather, a methodology of determining the validity of ethical theories.
Thanks!
I haven’t had a chance to read Molyneux’s book on his theory yet. Maybe after I’m through with my dissertation. I have read descriptions of it though, and a short essay by him on it. From what I have seen I suspect I will ultimately find much to disagree with; it strikes me as too deontological, Kantian/Hoppeian.
Very perceptive of you, I think, to point out that it is probably better described as a method of determining the validity of ethical theories. It reminds me very much of Hoppe’s Argumentation Ethics, and Hoppe’s theory, as well as the discourse ethics of Habermas and Apel which are its immediate predecessors, are not so much ethical theories themselves but tests that purport to show whether an ethical theory cannot, according to the standards of the test, be justified. They do not even justify ethical theories but really only show whether they can’t be justified. Presence of a performative contradiction at best merely shows that they can’t be justified, absence of a performative contradiction still leaves justification to be done.
Your understanding of UPB is pretty much correct. Which is why its popularity disturbs me, frankly.
What purpose is there behind liberty that is not justified by the pursuit of happiness?
It's too bad we don't hear McElroy's admonition more often, that we view anarchism as an ideal to worked toward—not unlike a christian's attempt be a "righteous" christian. Most are not deluded enough to actually believe they'll ever achieve righteousness (except theoretical righteousness thru Christ's crucifixion), yet they always hold that (actual) righteousness up as the ultimate goal…at least until they die and go to heaven, purgatory, or wherever their chosen sect believe's they're headed.
The reason it's "too bad" we don't hear this more is that this line of thinking is, imho, far more likely attract intelligent, open-minded, proactive folks toward a movement (if you can call it a movement) which the VAST majority of people believe is full of hemp-wearing, dope-smoking, window-smashing, ne'er-do-wells who, if they weren't smashing windows in Davos, would probably be nothing more than petty thieves and dope-peddlers.
Remember, as long as there are two people willing to trade goods and services with each other, and do it without "rendering to Caesar what is Caesar's"….there WILL ALWAYS be a free market. The real question then becomes, How much of YOUR life and liberty will YOU risk to live a life of "righteous" anarchism?
http://guns-drugs-n-queers.blogspot.com/2006/09/coming-out-of-closet.html