Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 8/23/84; site ucbcad.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!ucbvax!ucbcad!faustus
From: faustus@ucbcad.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Relativism and Libertarianism
Message-ID: <70@ucbcad.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 21-Jan-85 01:20:28 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbcad.70
Posted: Mon Jan 21 01:20:28 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 23-Jan-85 05:40:13 EST
References: <758@ratex.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: UC Berkeley CAD Group, Berkeley, CA
Lines: 18

> Listen up, vulgar Libertarians:
> 
>      Torek is right-on-the-money when it comes to attempts to derive
> Libertarianism from ethical Relativism.  If there is no absolute good, if
> right and wrong are purely subjective, then the Libertarian non-aggression
> principle (which is itself an ethical standard) is BY F***ING DEFINITION a
> purely subjective precept.

Since trying to logically derive ethics from objective truths has been
proven useless (see Hume), why not approach the problem from the
standpoint of which ethical views are the least "absolute" in nature.
Probably universal toleration and libertarianism are the most
compatible with relativism, so if you really like to be consistent,
then you should be a libertarian. Personally, I don't care if I'm not
absolutely consistent, so if my view of "good" has some assumptions in
it that aren't very relativistic in spirit, that is not a big problem.

	Wayne