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.
- Veteran Congressman Still Pushing for Reparations in a Divided America
- Hitler's phone, 'the most destructive 'weapon' of all time,' sold for $243,000
- NYT features fascinating story about Ford’s fantasyland in Brazil
- Migration To Americas Came in Waves, According to Big Data
- Trump Chooses Historian H.R. McMaster as National Security Adviser
- Holocaust Historian Deborah Lipstadt Explains Why People Believe Trump's Lies
- Princeton’s Harold James warns World War Three is now a "serious threat”
- Israeli schools' history lessons create good soldiers, says pundit
- Yuval Noah Harari foresees a god-like future for humans