This line I can't let stand:
The problem with this is that other goods compete with liberty, goods such as health, safety, and other classic duties that are part of the [definition of government]
History doesn't support this. It is despotic governments that make society unhealthy and unsafe. See the genocide page for this.
Not only this, but freer countries tend to have greater wealth per capita (not coincidentally, of course), meaning where there is greater liberty there is greater ability to pay for improved health and safety.
Ray, the article that was on the theory of value page is below:
A theory of value says which goods are good. Arguably, it is the whole of ethics.
The best practical advice is to avoid unknown dangers yet get clear goods. One way of doing so is to adopt an ancient casuistry such as the Bible or Confucianism and deviate from it only when it demands significant income, the life of one's family, or advises against some clear long-term aid to human knowledge, wealth, health or safety.
There are several competing systems.
Libertarian or Liberal theory says that if you give people liberty, they will figure out what is good and do it by themselves. The problem with this is that other goods may compete with liberty. Liberty by itself can't answer the charge that these goods are important. Libertarian theories also give no advice about a theory of conduct. This is a substantial problem when a liberty-based government such as the U.S. tries to operate a school system. Almost by definition, an educational system has to teach conduct, and thus requires a theory of conduct.
[Natural Law]? says that the good is defined by combining consequentialism and human biology, especially [evolutionary theory]? and sociobiology. This is remarkably cogent, and good science and reductionist? but is believed to fail because of circularity in the scientific use of the word good, and its cognates. That is, when a scientist uses the word 'good', it appears impossible to locate an ultimate good. Instead there seems to be an infinite regression. This problem is called the naturalistic fallacy.
Relativism? says that goodness cannot be separated from human beliefs. This theory is widely believed by people without any moral training, and is therefore the last refuge of scoundrels. Further, it appeals to sociologists and cultural anthropologists because it seems to fit their observations. However this theory cannot guide the formation of a society, because it cannot create expectations about people's behaviors. To an honest relativist, any act is right, given the right context. Also, some societies clearly succeed more than others, so this is a fishy belief. Also, since relativists have no theory of value, they can't know when to go to extremes to pursue a good.
The [Aristotelian mean]? says that the opposite of evil is evil. This makes sense as far as it goes, but if we try to pin this down, the result is [natural law]? or casuistry, with all their attendant problems. This theory helps to calm somone down, but can't be used to guide law or a theory of conduct.
Utilitarianism says that the good is pleasure? or the avoidance of pain when combined with consequentialism. Utilitarianism is wonderful for making law most of the time. For example, a bigger highway can be justified without much argument if it reduces wasted travel time. However utilitarianism weighs all pains and all pleasures in the same pan. For example, it says that given a choice between a new watch for a wealthy man, or a meal that makes starving child sick, we should choose the watch (whcih creates no pain). For another example, it is the surprisingly respectable justification for animal rights-- because it consders the pain of people and animals interchangeable. There are adjustments for these problems, but they ruin the theory by making it more difficult to compare competing uses.
Casuistry compares realistic cases, not theories. The idea here is to have a shopping list of goods, and a moral code of evils. Buy from one list, and avoid the other. This works perfectly, except that the best, most trusted lists are from ancient religions. Since God does not seem to make a verifiable appearance, skeptics mistrust these codes, and worry that they will miss some good, or adopt some evil, or waste their wealth and effort on nonsense.
Larry, thanks for publishing your lecture. It is very well presented. However, I would like to see the lecture aspect of it reduced and a bit of neutrality added.
![[Home]](wikipedia.png)