philosophy pt.2, take two

This post will replace the previous "part 2" post on philosophy that I had. I've reexamined my thinking on this issue and figure that I would like  to be more specific on what I am saying.

I've been reading a book by philosopher Stefan Molyneux called Universally Preferable Behavior: A Rational Proof for Secular Ethics. I haven't finished reading the book, but I think I have a pretty good grasp of the libertarian rights theorist (LRT from now on) justification for a body of ethic.

One important thing to note about the LRT is that it's essentially a form of neo-nihilism, and you can see that from the title of Molyneux's book, "preferable".

The argument goes as follows. An individual has self-ownership, or the most legitamte claim to ownership of his own body over any other individual. One might ask why a rock does not own itself, and the LRT-ist might say it is because a rock is not a rational, conscience decision maker. However, regardless, this right to self-ownership is universal, because no rational justification can be given for one person to have these rights, but not another.

"If A. can prove, however conclusively, that he may, of right, enslave B.--why may not B. snatch the same argument, and prove equally, that he may enslave A?--

You say A. is white, and B. is black. It is color, then; the lighter, having the right to enslave the darker? Take care. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with a fairer skin than your own.

You do not mean color exactly? You mean the whites are intellectually the superiors of the blacks, and, therefore have the right to enslave them? Take care again. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with an intellect superior to your own.

But, say you, it is a question of interest; and, if you can make it your interest; you have the right to enslave another. Very well. And if he can make it his interest, he has the right to enslave you."

- Lincoln

Now, an issue comes with Hume's is-ought problem, which states that you cannot derive an "ought" statement from an "is" statement, which is called Hume's guillotine. An example of this is the Biological Imperative. The argument is that there is no rational link between the two.

However, if I said I wish to go to east Washington, it would be perfectly rational to say you "ought to travel East".

So, let's take everything so far into account and try to see how the LRT ethic would work.

Self-ownership (the idea that you have the most legitimate claim to your person) is universal to all men, because it's impossible to justify any other sort of ethic. However, simply because you own yourself (is) does not mean that people should respect your property rights (ought).

However, if you're a murderer, you have no reason to ask people to protect your property rights. Since most people want their property rights protected (universally preferable), most people will accept other's property rights, or risk being ostracized from society!

If I understand correctly, that was the basis of Locke's "social contract" theory, that I went over last time. However, in my opinion, the validity or necessity of such a thing could be disputed.

Regardless, this ethic gives a very powerful basis for natural rights; not because we're obliged to nature or universality, but because we prefer, ourselves, to be protected.

A Christian may interpret this ethic for his own, however, and say that all property rights belong to God, and, if one wishes to please God, he should obey his ethic. Not because it guarantees us salvation, but because we love God, and wish to serve him and act out his word.

There is also stewardship, and dominion over the land. God wishes for us to use and protect and allocate our resources properly. Socialism has been shown as a waste of resources; therefore, socialism violates the dominion mandate.

We respect individualism, and prefer voluntary, non-coercive engagements because of respect for God's property. The debate between the Libertarian atheist and the Libertarian Christian is now rests on the existence of God, and the implication of his son's death. It is an argument over aesthetics; over what is beautiful. Christians must content, therefore, that Christ is beautiful, and is the greatest ally we could have.