For the longest time I wasn't aware that there were books by anarchists who answered the many criticisms of anarchism and I've recently been reading a few of them. I'm currently reading a few books about Market Anarchism in preparation for writing future pieces of my The Tao of Arizona Atheist series. One book is titled “But Who Will Build the Roads?”: Market Anarchy Explained, by Francois Tremblay. I agree with most everything he says and love the book. I've read most of the book previously, albeit out of order, but I'm reading it a second time straight through to get a better grasp of his arguments since the book seems to be largely progressive and builds upon previous chapters. Since I'd never heard of Tremblay before I did some research on the internet. I found his blog and his podcast The Machinery of Freedom. I enjoyed his podcasts and he seems to have some good ideas and arguments.
The other book I've been reading is David Friedman's The Machinery of Freedom. Both of these books go into quite a bit of detail about why anarchism is to be favored and what will replace the state, and answers many objections to those who oppose anarchism. I personally like Tremblay's book better because it covers so much ground, explains the premises upon which anarchy is desirable, why the state is evil, and unnecessary. The only main points I really disagree with Tremblay about is his belief that being a parent is essentially the same thing as owning a slave and his views about property.I might just have to start recommending these books to my detractors when they criticize my choice to favor anarchism. A lot of these books lay out quite a bit of the same things I've discussed on my blog, just in a much more organized manner, and in some cases, better argued.
A summary of and response to the basic arguments would be nice.
ReplyDeleteHi TBB,
ReplyDeleteIf you're referring to my Tao of Arizona Atheist series that is essentially what I'm planning. Though, because these and other authors go at great lengths to refute these arguments I may just say that if you want more information just read these books.
Thank you, I'm glad you liked it. You know that I refute Friedman's NAP in my book, right?
ReplyDeleteYes, I thought it was very interesting and I agree with it. Since I’ve also make use of that principle in my past writings it makes me aware about its holes, though I also favor the social contract in relationships, which isn't the statist social contract, but a bona fide agreement to abide by a societies' rules. In my view, that's the best idea to allow society to have some kind of rules to live by and a justification to enforce those rules if someone decides to go against their agreement.
ReplyDeleteBut that's a circular argument. You can't agree to live by "society's rules" if you don't have a say in what "society's rules" are.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comment.
ReplyDeleteI don't understand your objection. When creating a social contract all people get involved and discuss the rules and the kind of community they all would like to live under and all people who agree to those terms sign off on the contract, creating a binding agreement to obey those rules. That's not circular reasoning. Those who do not agree are free to go elsewhere to another community more to their liking. That is how these rules of society are created. They do not necessarily just exist (though I am reconsidering this in light of your argument about values and how values create morality) and must be agreed upon. They must be discussed and agreed to.
Having said that, I would like to discuss that argument with you about using human values to create objective morality because up to this point I'd always considered myself a staunch relativist. I think it would be interesting and educational. You very well may completely change my mind for good and cause me to believe in moral objectivism.
"I don't understand your objection. When creating a social contract all people get involved and discuss the rules and the kind of community they all would like to live under and all people who agree to those terms sign off on the contract, creating a binding agreement to obey those rules."
ReplyDeleteIn theory, yes. In practice, that's not how any society has ever been created. This premise of rule egalitarianism is also not how most societies in history have ever functioned, with some minor exceptions (all Anarchist societies would be part of this group, of course).
"That is how these rules of society are created."
Again, not in most cases.
"They do not necessarily just exist (though I am reconsidering this in light of your argument about values and how values create morality) and must be agreed upon. They must be discussed and agreed to."
The natural rules of morality "just exist." They are the result of a process of evolution. But if you read my entries, you already know this. That being said, the natural rules of morality are not equivalent to a fully fleshed-out ethical system.
"Having said that, I would like to discuss that argument with you about using human values to create objective morality because up to this point I'd always considered myself a staunch relativist. I think it would be interesting and educational. You very well may completely change my mind for good and cause me to believe in moral objectivism."
Well first of all what is it that you want to be converted to? Moral realism or ethical realism? I make a sharp distinction between morality (personal evaluations of one's own actions- like "I don't see any point to Christianity" or "I don't want to have children") and ethics (universal evaluations of actions as they affect society or social organization- like "religion should not dictate the structure of society" or "do not impose harm on others").
I don't really know how to do the former. We all have values, that's a given, and there's easy ways to evaluate our actions on their basis, so I don't really see the point in discussing this very much. Either you acknowledge that you have values and that causality dictates that there are good and bad ways of fulfilling them, or not. (all values are not equal, but for the sake of simplification I am assuming so here)
If it's the latter, then I can point you to a series of entries I made deducing ethics from first principles, if you haven't already read them, and we can go from there.
By the way, if you didn't like my views on property back then, then you would like them even less now. I am a libertarian socialist now. I've read Proudhon's book What is Property? and not being able to find any flaw in his arguments, I am now openly anti-property rights.
ReplyDeleteFrancois,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the response.
In theory, yes. In practice, that's not how any society has ever been created. This premise of rule egalitarianism is also not how most societies in history have ever functioned, with some minor exceptions (all Anarchist societies would be part of this group, of course).
I'd agree partially, but it seems to me that the reason this is so is because most societies have been based upon ruler/subject hierarchies where the ruling class hands down the laws those in the lower class must obey. As you said, anarchist societies are the exception to this rule but it has been done. If anarchism were achieved this is (or at least I hope would be) the form that society would take in order to ensure all peoples' freedoms.
The natural rules of morality "just exist." They are the result of a process of evolution. But if you read my entries, you already know this. That being said, the natural rules of morality are not equivalent to a fully fleshed-out ethical system.
I agree completely.
Well first of all what is it that you want to be converted to? Moral realism or ethical realism? I make a sharp distinction between morality (personal evaluations of one's own actions- like "I don't see any point to Christianity" or "I don't want to have children") and ethics (universal evaluations of actions as they affect society or social organization- like "religion should not dictate the structure of society" or "do not impose harm on others").
I don't really know how to do the former. We all have values, that's a given, and there's easy ways to evaluate our actions on their basis, so I don't really see the point in discussing this very much. Either you acknowledge that you have values and that causality dictates that there are good and bad ways of fulfilling them, or not. (all values are not equal, but for the sake of simplification I am assuming so here)
If it's the latter, then I can point you to a series of entries I made deducing ethics from first principles, if you haven't already read them, and we can go from there.
I do believe there are moral principles in nature, I just want to find out if morality is relative or objective. By relative I mean different depending upon the person, culture, and time. There is no fixed morality; it's all relative depending upon the previous factors. I do not believe, like some moral relativists seem to do, that just because in one society something is OK just because that's what they do. Take the Yamamoto tribe as one example. In Shermer's Science of Good and Evil he explains how in their culture rape is seen as ordinary behavior and is tolerated. I do not agree with this and if I witnessed a man raping a woman if visiting their tribe I would definitely try to stop him.
Cont.
Of course, that leads me to wonder, am I truly a moral realist then and not a relativist? I am not trained in philosophy and have read a little bit of it but I'm not very familiar with all the proper terms.
ReplyDeleteRealism seems to be the same thing as objectivism is it not? If that's the case I would not agree with that position because I do not believe in objective moral values. The reason is because objective is defined as “The view that the objects of the most basic concepts of ethics (which may be supposed to be values, obligations, duties, oughts, rights, or what not) exist, or that facts about them hold, objectively and that similarly worded ethical statements by different persons make the same factual claims (and thus do not concern merely the speaker’s feelings). To say that a fact is objective, or that something has objective existence, is usually to say that its holding or existence is not derivative from its being thought to hold or exist.” (emphasis mine)
Because of the philosophical position I hold, that of Prime, it follows that morality must come from human beings and is subjective, not objective.
My issue here is I know what I believe, it's just I do not know the proper philosophical terms to describe and define my position, assuming there is even a term that describes my views on morality.
By the way, if you didn't like my views on property back then, then you would like them even less now. I am a libertarian socialist now. I've read Proudhon's book What is Property? and not being able to find any flaw in his arguments, I am now openly anti-property rights.
It's not that I “don't like” them it's just that I disagree. Please view why here. I wouldn't be opposed to you or anyone else living in a communal fashion, I just personally wouldn’t want to. I also see no reason why a society couldn't have both communal cities and communities that favored property rights. In this way each person could live however they wanted.
I must also admit that I too have read Proudhon's What is Property? and I agree that his arguments were very persuasive, and yet I couldn't bring myself to accept this view. I think the reasons are because of my commitment to Prime, and I've always highly valued my personal space and wouldn't want to have to share my personal space with others. But, as I said, if someone wanted to live communally I have no problem with that. It's just not how I'd choose to live.
"I must also admit that I too have read Proudhon's What is Property? and I agree that his arguments were very persuasive, and yet I couldn't bring myself to accept this view."
ReplyDeleteWell, I mean what are your logical reasons? You can't argue by stating that your worldview trumps facts. (if you don't want to argue on the topic then just disregard this- I don't really care anyhow).
"it follows that morality must come from human beings and is subjective, not objective."
ReplyDeleteYes, I agree with the fact that ultimately all knowledge is mired in personal evaluation. We can't escape that fact. So if that's what you mean, I agree with you that morality is relative to individual cognition, like all knowledge. Is that what you mean?
Well, I mean what are your logical reasons? You can't argue by stating that your worldview trumps facts. (if you don't want to argue on the topic then just disregard this- I don't really care anyhow).
ReplyDeleteIt's been a few years since I read the book and cannot recall all of Proudhon's arguments but I reject it for the following reasons:
1. When I read the book I do recall wondering how effective this communal society might be. I thought to myself, it was tried in Russia with disastrous results, though it still could work as long as this form of living is not forced on anyone. That seems to be one of the downfalls of Communism; it's totalitarian nature forcing people to adhere to its beliefs about property, etc.
2. Prime assumes other human beings only because all we can be sure of is that we our conscious. If I were not conscious nothing would exist, therefore, it follows that each individual human being is an island unto themselves, but because we can perceive the world around us we can interact with other people. Because each individuals' consciousness is responsible for their awareness individualism follows from this. One of the “rights” as an individual human being is the right to be left alone and to pursue whatever they would like and their right to privacy and in order to best do this people ordinarily require their own property. This would be very difficult if not impossible in a communal society.
3. Again, I value my personal space. This is my own personal value judgment.
To reiterate, I wouldn't mind if you or half the population wanted to live communally it's just not how I would choose to live. After all, there have been successful anarchist societies that held private property. Two were founded by Josiah Warren called Utopia and Modern Times.
Just because there may be some good reasons to abolish private property (I'd have to reread the book to see if I still agree. My opinion may have changed) doesn't mean I have to go along with it. Besides, there are many facts in the world that people disregard because they choose to live their life how they want. People sky dive and risk death. People race cars where some are bound to crash and the driver likely to be injured. These people are ignoring the facts that they could be seriously harmed or killed but it's their life and their choice. It's my choice to favor private property for the reasons I outlined above. I respect your view about property, I just don't agree with it. Besides, what it really boils down to is if holding private property can be successful in an anarchist society and I see no reason why it can't.
Yes, I agree with the fact that ultimately all knowledge is mired in personal evaluation. We can't escape that fact. So if that's what you mean, I agree with you that morality is relative to individual cognition, like all knowledge. Is that what you mean?
Yes, to an extent. When I look up the term objective it means something that comes from without, not within. If that's the case how can objectivism be possible when each individuals' consciousness is responsible for bringing into being everything that person experiences, including their beliefs about morality? There would be no moral statements without conscious creatures.
Therefore, I believe all morality is relative but that it is possible to have a standard form of morality that applies to everyone through their personal values (as you argue), the golden rule, and most importantly, to solidify the moral conventions that are agreed upon, a social contract.
"Therefore, I believe all morality is relative but that it is possible to have a standard form of morality that applies to everyone through their personal values (as you argue), the golden rule, and most importantly, to solidify the moral conventions that are agreed upon, a social contract."
ReplyDeleteI agree. So is your question about what this form of morality is?
So is your question about what this form of morality is?
ReplyDeleteYeah. I would think it's relative but I may be wrong.
Could you expand on that- what do you understand exactly by "it's relative." Because I may very well agree with you on that.
ReplyDeleteBTW, have you seen my comment on your Open Challenge.
ReplyDeletewhat do you understand exactly by "it's relative."
ReplyDeleteI just mean that even with using values as a benchmark for morality this basis of morality is relative, meaning it depends upon what each individual values. Not all people value the same things. Some people may actually want to starve, or kill themselves for example. So, in my view, if someone were following their own values to preserve their own life and try to stop someone from killing themselves, I’d see that as a violation of the suicidal man’s rights and their personal values (or lack thereof rather).
BTW, have you seen my comment on your Open Challenge.
Actually no, so thanks for telling me. I’ve read a little bit on your blog and wouldn’t mind learning more about it. I’m honestly doubtful about it but I wouldn’t mind discussing it and learning the pro and con arguments.
"I just mean that even with using values as a benchmark for morality this basis of morality is relative, meaning it depends upon what each individual values. Not all people value the same things."
ReplyDeleteWell, we actually share most of our values because they are biological, and some of the rest are cultural. But yes, we don't all have the same values. So what? Diversity is good, as long as it's not "I value killing people."
"Some people may actually want to starve, or kill themselves for example."
And they can have perfectly valid reasons to do so.
"So, in my view, if someone were following their own values to preserve their own life and try to stop someone from killing themselves, I’d see that as a violation of the suicidal man’s rights and their personal values (or lack thereof rather)."
I agree. So I think so far we are in agreement...
"Actually no, so thanks for telling me. I’ve read a little bit on your blog and wouldn’t mind learning more about it. I’m honestly doubtful about it but I wouldn’t mind discussing it and learning the pro and con arguments."
ReplyDeleteWell, that was my purpose in asking you to debate it with me. Obviously it wouldn't do if you agreed. :)
:- ) I guess you can begin with what you feel are the best arguments for it and I'll post my responses. Would you like to just discuss it on this comment thread or elsewhere?
ReplyDeleteHere's the page if you want to join the debate:
ReplyDeletehttp://argumentclinic.net/debate/proposed/28/
I am helping out a buddy develop his debating web site, you see. It's really pretty nice.
Never mind... someone joined the debate. Maybe another time. :)
ReplyDeleteThat's me who joined...Ken. Maybe I should have used my pen name. :- ) See you at the discussion.
ReplyDeleteOoooh. Good luck, then. And my offer to give you the strongest counter-arguments is still standing.
ReplyDeleteThanks... I'll need all the luck I can get since I know almost nothing about this topic. I may take you up on your offer : -) But I'll see how well I can do with my own research first. I'll reply as soon as possible but may be a few days. Take care!
ReplyDelete