Theme: Coercion

—“My philosophical problem with consequentialism is it’s lacking solid base.”— A Friend (Free Northerner)

[I]’d like to give you a different suggestion. That we practice four levels of ethics depending upon the skill in the area of our actions. 1) Pedagogical Myths...(very young)..............Stories (WESTERN PATHOLOGICAL ALTRUISM) 2) Virtue Ethics.............(young)......................Biographies 3) Rule Ethics...............(inexperience adult)...Laws 4) Outcome Ethics........(experienced adult)....Science But more importantly, ethical systems can be used as an excuse to steal. We are aware that altrusim can be abused easily. This is why I always suggest we test ethical statements for both the obverse (what is stated) and the reverse (what is not stated). So the lower the precision (information content) of the ethical system, the more opportunity there is to claim that one is ethical while acting unethically. My argument is that rothbardian libertarianism is built on this principle. So instead I argue that we must use the most sophisticated (informationally dense) ethical system that we can, given our abilities, and fall back if we lack it. ARTIFICIAL DISTINCTION FALLACY So there is no difference in ethical models, only a difference in our skill level in any given area of thought. And that all ethical systems are simply increasingly precise variations on the same theory that we must achieve our greatest potential but do so without externalizing costs. “SOLID BASE” Therefore all ethical systems have a ‘solid base’. Impose no cost, and in particular impose no cost that will cost YOU due to retaliation by physical means(violence), procedural means(restitution), or normative means (reputation that costs you opportunities). The method of imposing no cost on others is to limit ones actions that impose no involuntary costs, and engage in actions that impose costs only if they are product of, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary, and free of imposition of cost by externality. As far as I know this is the correction of the artificial distinction between ethical systems. There is none. There are only different rules we can follow (techniques) given the information at our disposal. SEE: INTENTIONAL ABUSES OF RULE ETHICAL SYSTEMS http://www.propertarianism.com/…/intentional-abuse-of-ethi…/ THE FALLACY OF “FREE TRADE ABSOLUTISM” AS PATHOLOGICAL ALTRUISM http://www.propertarianism.com/…/the-fallacy-of-free-trade…/ Please keep up your good work. I enjoy Free Northerner. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.

—“My philosophical problem with consequentialism is it’s lacking solid base.”— A Friend (Free Northerner)

[I]’d like to give you a different suggestion. That we practice four levels of ethics depending upon the skill in the area of our actions. 1) Pedagogical Myths...(very young)..............Stories (WESTERN PATHOLOGICAL ALTRUISM) 2) Virtue Ethics.............(young)......................Biographies 3) Rule Ethics...............(inexperience adult)...Laws 4) Outcome Ethics........(experienced adult)....Science But more importantly, ethical systems can be used as an excuse to steal. We are aware that altrusim can be abused easily. This is why I always suggest we test ethical statements for both the obverse (what is stated) and the reverse (what is not stated). So the lower the precision (information content) of the ethical system, the more opportunity there is to claim that one is ethical while acting unethically. My argument is that rothbardian libertarianism is built on this principle. So instead I argue that we must use the most sophisticated (informationally dense) ethical system that we can, given our abilities, and fall back if we lack it. ARTIFICIAL DISTINCTION FALLACY So there is no difference in ethical models, only a difference in our skill level in any given area of thought. And that all ethical systems are simply increasingly precise variations on the same theory that we must achieve our greatest potential but do so without externalizing costs. “SOLID BASE” Therefore all ethical systems have a ‘solid base’. Impose no cost, and in particular impose no cost that will cost YOU due to retaliation by physical means(violence), procedural means(restitution), or normative means (reputation that costs you opportunities). The method of imposing no cost on others is to limit ones actions that impose no involuntary costs, and engage in actions that impose costs only if they are product of, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary, and free of imposition of cost by externality. As far as I know this is the correction of the artificial distinction between ethical systems. There is none. There are only different rules we can follow (techniques) given the information at our disposal. SEE: INTENTIONAL ABUSES OF RULE ETHICAL SYSTEMS http://www.propertarianism.com/…/intentional-abuse-of-ethi…/ THE FALLACY OF “FREE TRADE ABSOLUTISM” AS PATHOLOGICAL ALTRUISM http://www.propertarianism.com/…/the-fallacy-of-free-trade…/ Please keep up your good work. I enjoy Free Northerner. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.