3 ms·
If your proposed system ended up leading to large amounts of suffering, worse than the current system, would that convince you it was less moral?
by bananaface 6y ago
If your proposed system ended up leading to large amounts of suffering, worse than the current system, would that convince you it was less moral?
- luckylion 6y agoThat would only work for consequentialists, which Ancaps are not, I believe.
- zo1 6y agoCorrect yes - The ends don't justify the means essentially. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/
- Ancapistani 6y agoCorrect. Ancaps - well, Voluntaryists, if you want to be precise about it - are deontological libertarians. Consequentialist libertarians seek to maximize individual Liberty. Deontological libertarians seek to minimize immoral actions.
- zo1 6y agoI would feel very sad, and I would want to do something about it. But I would do so without breaking the NAP. Which means not taking other people's money/labor and letting some third-party spend it as they see fit under the guise of "reducing suffering", even though the goal is noble. I would spend my own money to the degree with which I'm comfortable and how strongly I feel. This doesn't mean it's a "less moral" system. As a counter-example: Would putting surveillance cameras inside every house to prevent domestic violence be a "more moral" system just because it reduces more suffering? Where do we draw the line for which rights we're okay with violating in order to stop suffering? I just put it at a very non-arbitrary spot, which is the NAP.