Total Posts:221|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Help in libertarianism

InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2010 3:14:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I know this has probably already been covered in some of the other many threads on economics, but it'll be easier to keep it in one thread, etc. As far as I'm aware, libertarians are against all social programs to help the unemployed, poor, and other needy people. I have come across a few answers to these such as them being poor because they choose not to work(this one is just repulsive, untrue, and proof that not too many libertarians have ever experienced poverty). There has also been private charity as a suggestion(which is slightly better).

However, that only covers one aspect of needy people. Would the same options apply to disabled people who are actually incapable of working? How would they get support when everybody in a libertarian society is expected to help themselves?

P.S- this isn't intended as an attack. I just need an answer that is straight on-topic instead of derailing another thread.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2010 3:15:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/24/2010 3:14:14 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I know this has probably already been covered in some of the other many threads on economics, but it'll be easier to keep it in one thread, etc. As far as I'm aware, libertarians are against all social programs to help the unemployed, poor, and other needy people. I have come across a few answers to these such as them being poor because they choose not to work(this one is just repulsive, untrue, and proof that not too many libertarians have ever experienced poverty). There has also been private charity as a suggestion(which is slightly better).

However, that only covers one aspect of needy people. Would the same options apply to disabled people who are actually incapable of working? How would they get support when everybody in a libertarian society is expected to help themselves?

Also private charity of some sort. Family, friends, significant other, UNICEF, whatever. It's not as if the disabled deserve help by virtue of their being disabled. It's absurd to reward someone on the basis of his inability.

P.S- this isn't intended as an attack. I just need an answer that is straight on-topic instead of derailing another thread.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2010 3:18:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/24/2010 3:15:52 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:

Also private charity of some sort. Family, friends, significant other, UNICEF, whatever. It's not as if the disabled deserve help by virtue of their being disabled. It's absurd to reward someone on the basis of his inability.

Ok. Here's another scenario. What if the disabled person's family is too poor to help provide for them? Then what?
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2010 3:20:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/24/2010 3:18:54 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 8/24/2010 3:15:52 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:

Also private charity of some sort. Family, friends, significant other, UNICEF, whatever. It's not as if the disabled deserve help by virtue of their being disabled. It's absurd to reward someone on the basis of his inability.

Ok. Here's another scenario. What if the disabled person's family is too poor to help provide for them? Then what?

Moar private charity and the above mentioned methods.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2010 3:21:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
No demands of legal property unless he agrees with the demands.

No charity unless one gives by choice.

Morally F'cked up, but a perfect ethic if you follow maximum personal success and abide by the categorical imperative.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2010 3:22:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/24/2010 3:18:54 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 8/24/2010 3:15:52 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:

Also private charity of some sort. Family, friends, significant other, UNICEF, whatever. It's not as if the disabled deserve help by virtue of their being disabled. It's absurd to reward someone on the basis of his inability.

Ok. Here's another scenario. What if the disabled person's family is too poor to help provide for them? Then what?

Friends. Significant other. Private charities or donors. The lack of forced charity in a free-market society doesn't mean that human good will is extinct; in fact, it's only in a free society that true good will can exist without the perversions of altruism.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2010 3:22:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/24/2010 3:21:08 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
No demands of legal property unless he agrees with the demands.

No charity unless one gives by choice.

Morally F'cked up, but a perfect ethic if you follow maximum personal success and abide by the categorical imperative.

The Categorical Imperative is an illegitimate moral tool.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2010 3:23:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/24/2010 3:20:21 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 8/24/2010 3:18:54 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 8/24/2010 3:15:52 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:

Also private charity of some sort. Family, friends, significant other, UNICEF, whatever. It's not as if the disabled deserve help by virtue of their being disabled. It's absurd to reward someone on the basis of his inability.

Ok. Here's another scenario. What if the disabled person's family is too poor to help provide for them? Then what?

Moar private charity and the above mentioned methods.

Your a libertarian too?

INH, Libertarianism opposes all major religions (+Buddhism).
'sup DDO -- july 2013
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2010 3:23:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I don't think many libertarians actually believe poor people are poor because they're lazy. (Of course, I'm sure that's true for some poor people, but not in general). The more common libertarian explanation is that poverty is caused by government interference such as taxes, minimum wage laws, welfare programs, crappy government schools, etc.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2010 3:23:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/24/2010 3:22:00 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 8/24/2010 3:18:54 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 8/24/2010 3:15:52 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:

Also private charity of some sort. Family, friends, significant other, UNICEF, whatever. It's not as if the disabled deserve help by virtue of their being disabled. It's absurd to reward someone on the basis of his inability.

Ok. Here's another scenario. What if the disabled person's family is too poor to help provide for them? Then what?

Friends. Significant other. Private charities or donors. The lack of forced charity in a free-market society doesn't mean that human good will is extinct; in fact, it's only in a free society that true good will can exist without the perversions of altruism.

I doubt very many people would help others. That very idea goes against human nature so there needs to be some one encouraging it(according to libertarians, forcing it).
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2010 3:25:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/24/2010 3:23:05 PM, Zetsubou wrote:

INH, Libertarianism opposes all major religions (+Buddhism).

I know. It's a terrible ideology anyway, and goes against almost all my moral values.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2010 3:26:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/24/2010 3:23:57 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 8/24/2010 3:22:00 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 8/24/2010 3:18:54 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 8/24/2010 3:15:52 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:

Also private charity of some sort. Family, friends, significant other, UNICEF, whatever. It's not as if the disabled deserve help by virtue of their being disabled. It's absurd to reward someone on the basis of his inability.

Ok. Here's another scenario. What if the disabled person's family is too poor to help provide for them? Then what?

Friends. Significant other. Private charities or donors. The lack of forced charity in a free-market society doesn't mean that human good will is extinct; in fact, it's only in a free society that true good will can exist without the perversions of altruism.

I doubt very many people would help others. That very idea goes against human nature so there needs to be some one encouraging it(according to libertarians, forcing it).

Actually, plenty of people help each other. You just have a really biased, religious perspective of humanity which depicts mankind as miserable, hedonistic creatures who, no matter the circumstances, will stomp on anyone in their way to get to the top.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2010 3:26:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/24/2010 3:23:57 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 8/24/2010 3:22:00 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 8/24/2010 3:18:54 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 8/24/2010 3:15:52 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:

Also private charity of some sort. Family, friends, significant other, UNICEF, whatever. It's not as if the disabled deserve help by virtue of their being disabled. It's absurd to reward someone on the basis of his inability.

Ok. Here's another scenario. What if the disabled person's family is too poor to help provide for them? Then what?

Friends. Significant other. Private charities or donors. The lack of forced charity in a free-market society doesn't mean that human good will is extinct; in fact, it's only in a free society that true good will can exist without the perversions of altruism.

I doubt very many people would help others. That very idea goes against human nature so there needs to be some one encouraging it(according to libertarians, forcing it).

If people aren't going to do something then why should a coercive entity exist enforce it anyway?
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2010 3:27:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/24/2010 3:22:35 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 8/24/2010 3:21:08 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
No demands of legal property unless he agrees with the demands.

No charity unless one gives by choice.

Morally F'cked up, but a perfect ethic if you follow maximum personal success and abide by the categorical imperative.

The Categorical Imperative is an illegitimate moral tool.

Categorical Imperative, Formulation I - Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.

A necessity in a working moral law.

Objectivists should in theory also agree with the second and third formulation.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2010 3:27:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/24/2010 3:26:55 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 8/24/2010 3:25:01 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 8/24/2010 3:23:05 PM, Zetsubou wrote:

INH, Libertarianism opposes all major religions (+Buddhism).

I know. It's a terrible ideology anyway, and goes against almost all my moral values.

It could be that your moral values are terrible.

Umm...no.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2010 3:27:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/24/2010 3:23:57 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 8/24/2010 3:22:00 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 8/24/2010 3:18:54 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 8/24/2010 3:15:52 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:

Also private charity of some sort. Family, friends, significant other, UNICEF, whatever. It's not as if the disabled deserve help by virtue of their being disabled. It's absurd to reward someone on the basis of his inability.

Ok. Here's another scenario. What if the disabled person's family is too poor to help provide for them? Then what?

Friends. Significant other. Private charities or donors. The lack of forced charity in a free-market society doesn't mean that human good will is extinct; in fact, it's only in a free society that true good will can exist without the perversions of altruism.

I doubt very many people would help others. That very idea goes against human nature so there needs to be some one encouraging it(according to libertarians, forcing it).

That's completely false. In the United States, there is quite a bit of private charity, and private donations to charity have historically been strongly correlated with the amount of public welfare. (for example, big jumps in donations in the early 80s, as well as after the 1996 welfare reform law)
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2010 3:28:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/24/2010 3:25:01 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 8/24/2010 3:23:05 PM, Zetsubou wrote:

INH, Libertarianism opposes all major religions (+Buddhism).

I know. It's a terrible ideology anyway, and goes against almost all my moral values.

Since when does libertarianism oppose all major religions? What evidence do you have for that?
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2010 3:29:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/24/2010 3:14:14 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I know this has probably already been covered in some of the other many threads on economics, but it'll be easier to keep it in one thread, etc. As far as I'm aware, libertarians are against all social programs to help the unemployed, poor, and other needy people.

I am not against helping those people.
I am against taking others money and putting it towards those things.

I have come across a few answers to these such as them being poor because they choose not to work(this one is just repulsive, untrue, and proof that not too many libertarians have ever experienced poverty).

Some do not choose to work. Some can not find a job that they want. Some can not find a job period; for those people there are charities and family to help.

There has also been private charity as a suggestion(which is slightly better).


See

However, that only covers one aspect of needy people. Would the same options apply to disabled people who are actually incapable of working?

They can work or a charity will be set up to help those who can not.

How would they get support when everybody in a libertarian society is expected to help themselves?


I could do so much good if my taxes were lower, and I would do so much good.

P.S- this isn't intended as an attack. I just need an answer that is straight on-topic instead of derailing another thread.

I am not a libertarian but that is how I look at things.
i am a Classical Liberal.

I do understand where you are coming from with the disabled people but the federal government should not have their hand in these things. Let the states decide what to do with these people.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2010 3:29:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/24/2010 3:26:55 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 8/24/2010 3:25:01 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 8/24/2010 3:23:05 PM, Zetsubou wrote:

INH, Libertarianism opposes all major religions (+Buddhism).

I know. It's a terrible ideology anyway, and goes against almost all my moral values.

It could be that your moral values are terrible.

Terrible is subjective.

-Objectivism works to keep you alone a happy as possible.

-Moderate Altruism works to keep a maximum amount of people happy as possible.

Choose your morals.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2010 3:30:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/24/2010 3:27:29 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 8/24/2010 3:23:57 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 8/24/2010 3:22:00 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 8/24/2010 3:18:54 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 8/24/2010 3:15:52 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:

Also private charity of some sort. Family, friends, significant other, UNICEF, whatever. It's not as if the disabled deserve help by virtue of their being disabled. It's absurd to reward someone on the basis of his inability.

Ok. Here's another scenario. What if the disabled person's family is too poor to help provide for them? Then what?

Friends. Significant other. Private charities or donors. The lack of forced charity in a free-market society doesn't mean that human good will is extinct; in fact, it's only in a free society that true good will can exist without the perversions of altruism.

I doubt very many people would help others. That very idea goes against human nature so there needs to be some one encouraging it(according to libertarians, forcing it).

That's completely false. In the United States, there is quite a bit of private charity, and private donations to charity have historically been strongly correlated with the amount of public welfare. (for example, big jumps in donations in the early 80s, as well as after the 1996 welfare reform law)

I object. Cite.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2010 3:31:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/24/2010 3:29:44 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 8/24/2010 3:26:55 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 8/24/2010 3:25:01 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 8/24/2010 3:23:05 PM, Zetsubou wrote:

INH, Libertarianism opposes all major religions (+Buddhism).

I know. It's a terrible ideology anyway, and goes against almost all my moral values.

It could be that your moral values are terrible.

Terrible is subjective.

-Objectivism works to keep you alone a happy as possible.

-Moderate Altruism works to keep a maximum amount of people happy as possible.

Choose your morals.

Your "morality" is not altruism. Giving your money away to the poor is altruism. Giving someone else's money away is theft.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2010 3:32:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/24/2010 3:29:44 PM, Zetsubou wrote:

Terrible is subjective.

-Objectivism works to keep you alone a happy as possible.

-Moderate Altruism works to keep a maximum amount of people happy as possible.

Choose your morals.

I'm not exactly sure what Moderate Altruism is, but it certainly sounds better than objectivism.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2010 3:34:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/24/2010 3:31:43 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 8/24/2010 3:29:44 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 8/24/2010 3:26:55 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 8/24/2010 3:25:01 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 8/24/2010 3:23:05 PM, Zetsubou wrote:

INH, Libertarianism opposes all major religions (+Buddhism).

I know. It's a terrible ideology anyway, and goes against almost all my moral values.

It could be that your moral values are terrible.

Terrible is subjective.

-Objectivism works to keep you alone a happy as possible.

-Moderate Altruism works to keep a maximum amount of people happy as possible.

Choose your morals.

Your "morality" is not altruism. Giving your money away to the poor is altruism. Giving someone else's money away is theft.

http://en.wikipedia.org...(ethics)

As an ethic.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2010 3:34:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/24/2010 3:34:10 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 8/24/2010 3:31:43 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 8/24/2010 3:29:44 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 8/24/2010 3:26:55 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 8/24/2010 3:25:01 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 8/24/2010 3:23:05 PM, Zetsubou wrote:

INH, Libertarianism opposes all major religions (+Buddhism).

I know. It's a terrible ideology anyway, and goes against almost all my moral values.

It could be that your moral values are terrible.

Terrible is subjective.

-Objectivism works to keep you alone a happy as possible.

-Moderate Altruism works to keep a maximum amount of people happy as possible.

Choose your morals.

Your "morality" is not altruism. Giving your money away to the poor is altruism. Giving someone else's money away is theft.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism_(ethics)

As an ethic.

c/p
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2010 3:37:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/24/2010 3:32:34 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 8/24/2010 3:29:44 PM, Zetsubou wrote:

Terrible is subjective.

-Objectivism works to keep you alone a happy as possible.

-Moderate Altruism works to keep a maximum amount of people happy as possible.

Choose your morals.

I'm not exactly sure what Moderate Altruism is, but it certainly sounds better than objectivism.

The ethic which is the base of moderate Socialism.

The Libertarian base would be, but not exclusively, rational self interest.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2010 3:37:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/24/2010 3:30:51 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 8/24/2010 3:27:29 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 8/24/2010 3:23:57 PM, InsertNameHere wrote
I doubt very many people would help others. That very idea goes against human nature so there needs to be some one encouraging it(according to libertarians, forcing it).

That's completely false. In the United States, there is quite a bit of private charity, and private donations to charity have historically been strongly correlated with the amount of public welfare. (for example, big jumps in donations in the early 80s, as well as after the 1996 welfare reform law)

I object. Cite.

Well, first of all, you didn't cite anything supporting your belief that government interference helps the poor. Second:

AAFRC Trust for Philanthropy, "Giving USA 2002," Indianapolis, Ind., 2002, p. 32, 38.

Frederic Almy, "The Relation between Public and Private Charities," Charities Review 9: 65-71.

Stephen Ziliak, "The End of Welfare and the Contradiction of Compassion," Independent Review 1 (Spring 1996): 56.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2010 3:38:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/24/2010 3:27:05 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 8/24/2010 3:22:35 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 8/24/2010 3:21:08 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
No demands of legal property unless he agrees with the demands.

No charity unless one gives by choice.

Morally F'cked up, but a perfect ethic if you follow maximum personal success and abide by the categorical imperative.

The Categorical Imperative is an illegitimate moral tool.

Categorical Imperative, Formulation I - Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.

A necessity in a working moral law.

Objectivists should in theory also agree with the second and third formulation.

Problem is, Kant argues that one should act for the sake of duty, rather than in mere compliance with it, because, if one allows any personal motivations whatsoever to enter into the decision--that is, if one even so much as expectsto benefit from his action--it has no moral worth. This, on a surface level, intrinsically contradicts your idea of following "maximum personal success". Kant makes a similar mistake.

One of the tests implied by the categorical imperative is reversibility, in the fourth hypothetical scenario he presents in exposition of the imperative in his Groundwork. He argues that, to test whether the maxim is desirable as a universal law, one should put oneself in the shoes of the person affected by acting on the maxim; for example, on the idea of giving to charity, Kant argues that it could be willed a universal law based on the fact that one's interests are served by a maxim whereby one person gives what he has for the sake of someone in greater need. Naturally, the opposite is true in the opposite case, inasmuch as Kant argues that one would not want to live in a society where one does not act charitable toward others. The point is that, though he argues that one should not act in a way that shows concern with one's personal interests, one of the primary tests of the categorical imperative, reversibility, inherently appeals to one's personal interests (generally put, to "desirability") as a means of determining whether one could will the maxim universal by means of action.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2010 3:40:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/24/2010 3:32:27 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 8/24/2010 3:29:22 PM, comoncents wrote:
Do you believe in tax?

At a state level.

I do not like it, but it is necessary; in my eyes, as long as it is represented.
Not many things will ever go my way, so I fight for the things that are important; taxes will never go to a solely state level, so I ask that it at least be lowered.