tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post5059836143823079012..comments2023-10-29T10:32:36.914-04:00Comments on Philosophy, et cetera: Why We Needn't Hold Politics Hostage to MetaphysicsRichard Y Chappellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-21167931752247959262011-11-12T15:47:39.394-05:002011-11-12T15:47:39.394-05:00many of our journalists are brazen bullshit artist...many of our journalists are brazen bullshit artists. it's not that they are bullshit artists that bother me so much (though it does) as the fact that they are so insolent in their bullshitting. when you try to correct them they will engage in all sorts of sophistry, word games, and insults to avoid being held accountable to their errors. <br /><br />the author may also be assuming that libertarianism (political) depends on libertarianism (metaphysical) because the same word is used or he may be making an outright equivocation.NChenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925449187109030870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-12726915424520978762011-11-12T15:32:47.856-05:002011-11-12T15:32:47.856-05:00Your comments are well taken, at least by me, as t...Your comments are well taken, at least by me, as they're related to replies I made to Richman's essay. (See two comments by "Jim Hull" on Richman's page.) I suggested that his free-will argument could easily fall to the thresher of science, but that it's unnecessary, as science itself has demonstrated the limits of predictability through discoveries in quantum mechanics and Chaos Theory.<br /><br />(One commenter took me to task for missing the vital importance of free will to libertarian thought, as it allows for self discipline, lest we all collapse into depravity. I replied that this was an authoritarian argument better suited to statists, and that the evidence of human activity belies it.)<br /><br />In answer to your challenge, here are three libertarian arguments that involve moral choice without all the shrillness:<br /><br />1. People take action, review the results, and alter their actions to suit; saying they're stuck with, or "deserve", their first results is like saying a scientist "deserves" the data stream from his experiment. It's irrelevant. Besides, if the poor deserve it, then their lives are determined in precisely the way Richman rails against.<br /><br />2. Some people get better results than others, but penalizing the rich is tantamount to killing the golden goose; without the example of success, the less well-off have nowhere to aim.<br /><br />3. The point of life isn't necessarily merely to become rich; many careers -- the arts, small business, charitable, etc. -- often confer benefits other than great wealth.Jim Hullhttp://jimhull.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-20406316526206979252011-11-12T07:52:32.842-05:002011-11-12T07:52:32.842-05:00Hi, I'm sorry if I have misunderstood, but how...Hi, I'm sorry if I have misunderstood, but how is your second example of an libertarian argument any more relevant in depending on moral responsibility than the first argument. Even in "deserving" their lot, libertarians would argue since people are individually responsible for their lives, unless their liberty is immorally restrained, all individuals would deserve their lives. Therefore following your analysis even in the second example people can be or act responsibly without being morally responsible.Sarangahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17022028605698477515noreply@blogger.com