Libertarianism tells you what rights you have, and set up the freedoms that exist for each individual. This is hard philosophy to argue against, because it is hard remove the rights that many philosophies hold self-evident. When dealing with something like the Walt Chamberlin example (Michael Jordan example), we know that people are not equal in talents, luck, hard work, etc. There are differences that arise in people and the things that come from those are in the right of the individual. There is no aspect of morality in this, everything is defined in terms of right. Government is defines in terms of right and all human actions are determined in terms of right and will.
Libertarianism tells you what you can do, but it does not comment on what you should do. I think that its weakness comes from the fact of that it does not comment on morality. I believe that there are two aspects that need to be understood when it comes to a philosophy. The first is what it believes is the position of humans compared to other humans, and the other is role humans should play. When I say I have the right to freedom of speech, this does not mean that I should say whatever comes to my head. Yes, i do have the right, but acting on the right is a different story. This is where ideas of libertarianism can meld with ideas of philosophers such as Kant. The combination of the two may go something like the following:
People have certain rights that exist for all people. They have a right to their property, to their person, and to their liberties, and through these rights people act as free rational agents. In their range of activities, there are two centers of focus. The first is that people have a right to pursue pleasure, and they do so. The other is reason. Through reason dictates what one should do in the scope of their rights. It dictates if the action that is allowed by right, is allowed by morality. This is all basically defined by the categorical imperative.
Do you guys think what i am doing is possible? Can we combine the realm of rights and morals? For me personally, I just find libertarianism inadequate, but can not really argue against it. This is a way for me to reconcile, my Kantian views with my views on rights.
Libertarianism tells you what you can do, but it does not comment on what you should do. I think that its weakness comes from the fact of that it does not comment on morality. I believe that there are two aspects that need to be understood when it comes to a philosophy. The first is what it believes is the position of humans compared to other humans, and the other is role humans should play. When I say I have the right to freedom of speech, this does not mean that I should say whatever comes to my head. Yes, i do have the right, but acting on the right is a different story. This is where ideas of libertarianism can meld with ideas of philosophers such as Kant. The combination of the two may go something like the following:
People have certain rights that exist for all people. They have a right to their property, to their person, and to their liberties, and through these rights people act as free rational agents. In their range of activities, there are two centers of focus. The first is that people have a right to pursue pleasure, and they do so. The other is reason. Through reason dictates what one should do in the scope of their rights. It dictates if the action that is allowed by right, is allowed by morality. This is all basically defined by the categorical imperative.
Do you guys think what i am doing is possible? Can we combine the realm of rights and morals? For me personally, I just find libertarianism inadequate, but can not really argue against it. This is a way for me to reconcile, my Kantian views with my views on rights.
You bring up a really good point about libertarianism and its basis in rights, not morals. I wonder if that is why libertarian philosophy is often discussed in conjunction with capitalism? Or is it that libertarianism has been affected by its marriage to capitalism to such an extent that the two ideologies have melded together?
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that it is really hard to argue against libertarianism, mainly because, as you pointed out, all of its philosophical arguments are based in "rights" and not "morals."
I'm not sure if libertarianism is wholly compatible with Kantian philosophy. I get the feeling that the categorical imperative might be too morally heavy for many libertarians, who would see the deontological view of morality as too invasive of their rights in certain situations.