http://freedomainradio.com/board/blogs/ ... thics.aspx
Some comments:

1. Stefan Molyneux reached the same conclusion that several of us have that "ownership of one's own body is paramount" to ethical discussion, and he has also pointed out that "responsibility for the actions of our own bodies follows."

2. Molyneux generally eschews the use of the concept of "rights" when making his case for individual liberty, which seems to be a leap forward. The use of the concept of "natural", "human", or "inherent" rights seems to be a fatal flaw in the Ethics of Liberty by Murray Rothbard, and in the works of Robert Nozick and Ayn Rand. Rand describes the acquisition of human rights at length, while Rothbard only makes a fleeting reference to how it all happened, but the arguments seem to boil down to "and so my children, because humans need their brains and their bodies to survive, they therefore have rights to the unfettered use of their bodies and brains." They neglect to answer the question of when humans acquired these rights- did Neanderthals have them" Did Cro-Magnons? Did "Lucy" have rights?" Lions, tigers, and bears need their bodies, and their brains (to recognize prey, avoid predators, and so on) to survive. How did they miss out on rights? What these philosophers seem to have done is to try to adapt "God-given rights" for their own purposes while leaving out God, and it doesn't work.

While Molyneux does not make any claims to rights to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness, he does use the term with regard to "property rights", and it seems that even here the term is confusing and unnecessary. When discussing "property rigths" or "ownership" it seems superfluous to say that one has a "right" to own a coffee mug, instead of just saying "I own that coffee mug", or that one has a right to a 50% ownership in a boat instead of just saying that one has 50% ownership of the boat.
An argument can proceed like "How did you get that vase? Mom said that I should have it", and so on. Ownership of property can be, and is, discussed without any reference to "rights". (My avoidance of the term "property rights" is not just a coy ploy, Peregrinus.)

3. Molyneux does not discuss the Golden Rule. This may be an oversight on his part, because once he dismisses the vague and illogical concept of inherent human rights with its "right to a living wage", "right to intellectual property", and on and on, his Universally Preferable Behavior seems to be very compatible with, or perhaps the same as the Golden Rule, particulary in its "Platinum " form that can be paraphrased as "Do not do unto nonagressive people that which they do not want done to themselves."

Edited to add book web site at top.(taking 3 attempts, st least)

Molyneux does start off making a compelling argument. However, he has some inconsistencies.



He says that ethical actions are only applicable to things that have free will. For example, the rock crashing into the car which was dislodged accidentally does not have free will, and therefore what it does can be "bad" but it cannot be "morally bad" or "evil". However, a test he uses later to support his system of ethics is that a person in a coma should not be morally responsible, and if someone is found to be acting immorally while they are lying in a coma then the system is flawed. The real situation, one that he has stated himself, is that a person lying in a coma is by definition not morally responsible, and therefore cannot be found to be acting morally or immorally. The "coma test" he proposes does not support his claims.



So the coma test is an invalid test to check for moral absolutes.

Hi mcfate, Your statement, "So the coma test is an invalid test to check for moral absolutes." may well be right, but I'd like to go back and check out more of the context, because I'm having a hard time thinking about it. Just got on line a little while ago, and it's 12:30 AM here, so I'm going to shuffle off to bed.

Fair call. Sleep well.

Having said that I'm interested to participate in this thread, I'm off camping for two weeks from tomorrow. So if I seem to be ignoring the thread, no offence intended. I'm sure the discussion will go just fine without me. I'll try to read the book while I'm away, and maybe dispense my pearls of wisdom on my return.

Here is Stefan Molyneux' book for those who haven't seen it:
http://freedomainradio.com/board/blogs/ ... thics.aspx

Have a good holiday, Peregrinus. We'll try not to solve all the ethical questions in your absence.

mcfate: Molyneux says that what he calls "Aesthetically Positive Actions (such as helpfulness and charity) "are universally preferable", but are not ethically enforcible through coerciion because coercion in itself is wrong, or something to that effect; and he uses the rape argument and the coma test to support his case. I agree entirely with his conclusions that rape and other forms of coercion are wrong, and my main quibble is that he takes the long way around the barn (Although it's a short cut compared to some of the books Davoz, bless his heart (as we say down this way) cites. So, while maybe I'm lazy, I don't think I'm ducking the question about Molyneux' train of logic, since I have reached the same conclusions that he has, but on a different path, and his path is kind of irrelevant to me. Maybe Davoz and/or others can go beyond your skepticism and cut his arguments to ribbons, if they wish.

You know, I was actually going to write my own reply, but I found this guy:

http://libertarian-left.blogspot.com/20 ... hical.html

has written more than I ever considered (yes, which deflated me a little, I like to think I'm sharp.)

I might read this, and then post what I think from having read them both.

Cool. I'm anxious to have at that blog, myself, and will get back to you.

That blog was from April 2009, and the author apparently gave up the blog and went back to college. I don't think that there was much there we haven't already considered.

BTW, Amazon lists a new release for Universally Preferred Ethics for
2011. Apparently it hasn't been updated. At least this wasn't mentioned.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004J7 ... 11&seller=