Natural Law and Consequentialism
I have to admit that I used to love the sorts of deductivist natural rights arguments James is putting forward, until they got beat out of me as an undergraduate. My latter-day consequentialism doesn’t find these as interesting or persuasive as my earlier-day quasi-Randianism.
And I swear, if James makes one more haggis joke... and now he's decided to pick on me as the example for his "heavily-armed" economist mugger. Oops, now he's had me shoot Glen! The good news for me is that Glen's will left me his spot on Agoraphilia.
Cross-posted at Agoraphilia, along with Glen's original post.
comments powered by Disqus
Jason Kuznicki - 7/10/2005
I've always thought of Rand as neither a consequentialist nor a natural rights theorist. With her doctrine that the moral and the practical are really one and the same, one could easily argue that we should respect rights both because it is ethically imperative and because it produces the desired effects in society.
- 115-Year-Old Shipwreck Finally Located Along Lake Superior's 'Shipwreck Coast'
- There’s no surge in immigrant children across the border
- A Chinese boy has made the discovery of a lifetime by stumbling across a 3,000-year-old bronze sword
- Are Biblical Epics Epically Racist?
- Eric Hobsbawm is remembered as a polyglot of a kind that's vanished
- Once again Ken Burns turns to Geoffrey Ward to write his script, this time about the Roosevelts
- NYT praises Kissinger’s new book as right for the times