A reader on Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism blog writes in:
Libertarians who reject Meyer’s objective moral order are, in the process, destroying the historical and logical foundations of that which they claim to cherish. Reducing irreducible virtues (liberty and individualism) to means to making “lifestyle choices” leaves libertarians defenseless in the face of the enemies of liberty. Jihadis don’t give a damn about lifestyle choices, any more than Maoists do, and a love of liberty that is based on nothing more than more or less whimsical preference rankings is not the sort of love that endures.
Of course some utilitarian/nihilistic libertarians, as individuals, would defend liberty down to the last bullet, even the last fingernail. I don’t deny that. They just can’t explain why they would defend it, much less why anyone else should.
This is completely preposterous and conservatives need to stop saying things like it!
Many conservatives have a penchant for ridiculously loaded conditions, like this one:
If liberty is worth defending, then there is an objective moral order.
I’m not sure what an “objective moral order” is supposed to be, but it sounds sort of religious. This is true for sure:
If liberty is worth defending, then there are reasons to defend it.
If “objective moral order” is just an obscure way of saying “reasons” then conservatives should stop being obscurantist.
Of course, it turns out that liberty is worth defending. So there must be some reasons to defend it. What are those reasons? The objective moral order perhaps? If that’s just a weird way of talking about good old-fashioned cause and effect, then fine. I defend liberty because it tends to promote things like health, wealth, longevity, happness, innovation, progress, creativity, and so on, and I think these things are tremendously valuable. Neither God nor Nature will cause your head to implode should you refuse to care about them. It can be done! It can be done without contradicting the transcendental conditions for the very possibility of your existence. And you’ll be a monstrously horrible person who hates life, prosperity, happiness, etc., and we will have every reason to exclude from our company.
Lord, I KNOW conservatives like the way it feels to thunder on about how if God is dead, then everything is permitted yadda yadda. But, lord knows, there’s no lord that knows. Nevertheless, if you want prosperity, happiness, health, etc. then you need liberty. It turns out that’s the way things work! Maybe that’s why we think liberty is such a good idea!
Don’t you think liberty (or autonomy or substantive freedom or some such related notion) has value in itself? Or is it only valuable because it promotes those other values you mention? Since you’re a value pluralist libertarian, I’d have thought liberty would have more than instrumental value for you. Maybe it does, but it’s not clear from your post.
Don’t you think liberty (or autonomy or substantive freedom or some such related notion) has value in itself? Or is it only valuable because it promotes those other values you mention? Since you’re a value pluralist libertarian, I’d have thought liberty would have more than instrumental value for you. Maybe it does, but it’s not clear from your post.
Do Jihadis “give a damn” about explanations?
Do Jihadis “give a damn” about explanations?
Indeed! Do Jihadis care about conceptions of the objective moral order different from theirs?
Indeed! Do Jihadis care about conceptions of the objective moral order different from theirs?
I second MDM. Pinning liberty to health, wealth, etc. is potentially dangerous. Sometimes liberty and individualism work against health and wealth, or at least slow their progress. I would be against a totalitarian system even if it could provide all of those “basic” values more efficiently than a completely free system.
I second MDM. Pinning liberty to health, wealth, etc. is potentially dangerous. Sometimes liberty and individualism work against health and wealth, or at least slow their progress. I would be against a totalitarian system even if it could provide all of those “basic” values more efficiently than a completely free system.
MDM, I do value liberty for its own sake, and I’d be happy trade a bit of some other things I value for more liberty, if it came down to it. But I don’t hold much stock in “it’s just good, dammit” as an argumentative strategy, so I find it pretty useful to point out what it’s good for, as well. Since it’s good for so many things that so many people value, that’s a pretty great way of arguing.
MDM, I do value liberty for its own sake, and I’d be happy trade a bit of some other things I value for more liberty, if it came down to it. But I don’t hold much stock in “it’s just good, dammit” as an argumentative strategy, so I find it pretty useful to point out what it’s good for, as well. Since it’s good for so many things that so many people value, that’s a pretty great way of arguing.
Do you have any posts where you set out more fully your moral theory, Will? In particular, I’m curious about your view on the nature of duties and the like (questions of supererogation, etc.). I lean towards a Pettit-ish global consequentialism, but it seems like such a view will identify a much more narrowly defined set of claim-rights and duties than you appear to endorse.
Do you have any posts where you set out more fully your moral theory, Will? In particular, I’m curious about your view on the nature of duties and the like (questions of supererogation, etc.). I lean towards a Pettit-ish global consequentialism, but it seems like such a view will identify a much more narrowly defined set of claim-rights and duties than you appear to endorse.
I value liberty because what good is living if you can’t be free? To live is to be free. To merely exist is to be a slave.
I value liberty because what good is living if you can’t be free? To live is to be free. To merely exist is to be a slave.
“I defend liberty because it tends to promote things like health, wealth, longevity, happness, innovation, progress, creativity, and so on…”
Hmm, now just why would this follwing this MORAL principle OBJECTIVELY lead to these sorts of results? It’s as though there were a certain ORDER behind it, or something?
But if there’s one thing education in modern, analytical philosophy teaches you, it’s how to hide from the obvious behind a web of sophistry.
“I defend liberty because it tends to promote things like health, wealth, longevity, happness, innovation, progress, creativity, and so on…”
Hmm, now just why would this follwing this MORAL principle OBJECTIVELY lead to these sorts of results? It’s as though there were a certain ORDER behind it, or something?
But if there’s one thing education in modern, analytical philosophy teaches you, it’s how to hide from the obvious behind a web of sophistry.
What good is freedom if you can’t live? Some folks seem to be arguing that anything other than absolutism is sophistry. “Liberty” is understandable in terms other than distance from State supervision. I’ll gladly trade theoretical choice in health care providers (few of us are really in a position to so choose), for the freedom to choose my employer regardless of my need for health insurance, for instance.
What good is freedom if you can’t live? Some folks seem to be arguing that anything other than absolutism is sophistry. “Liberty” is understandable in terms other than distance from State supervision. I’ll gladly trade theoretical choice in health care providers (few of us are really in a position to so choose), for the freedom to choose my employer regardless of my need for health insurance, for instance.
Gene, Like I said, if by MORAL ORDER you just mean CAUSALITY than that’s fine. There is in fact a natural order that determines what means will achieve what ends. How is this “sophistry”? I suspect you know full well that most uses of “objective moral order” refer to superstitious nonsense. “Homosexuality defies the objective moral order” … that kind of thing. Do you think creationist essentialism is what “objective moral order” is about? Because I’m afraid that what most conservative mean by it.
Gene, Like I said, if by MORAL ORDER you just mean CAUSALITY than that’s fine. There is in fact a natural order that determines what means will achieve what ends. How is this “sophistry”? I suspect you know full well that most uses of “objective moral order” refer to superstitious nonsense. “Homosexuality defies the objective moral order” … that kind of thing. Do you think creationist essentialism is what “objective moral order” is about? Because I’m afraid that what most conservative mean by it.