= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
taw comments on Survey Results - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (210)
I'm not at all sympathetic to the libertarian point of view, but I have to say that this does not sound like your true rejection. I find thomblake's Boyle's Law analogy quite apt: if you are really interested in thermodynamics, you have to start with material at the Boyle's Law level. Likewise, if you are truly interested in understanding libertarian thought, it behooves you to start with a basic text.
If someone wants to argue for libertarianism versus status quo on consequentialist and empirical grounds, it stands to reason they should have some idea about status quo, what a person writing in 1869 couldn't possibly have without breaking causality.
I'm not saying Mill doesn't make good deontologist arguments, as these can be timeless, I'm simply not interested in deontology here.
You seem to have missed the part where thomblake claims J. S. Mills more-or-less originated consequentialism.
Seriously, asking for a reference on LW, getting one, and dismissing it without even flipping through it? Lame.
ETA: My bad -- you did not ask for the reference. I am lame.
Wasn't it ciphergoth who asked, not taw?