We changed our privacy policy. Read more.

Hot answers tagged

10

Heading into the library: The book awaits, retrieved from a 6.5 million book warehouse: Excitement as page 57 is present: Compared to the consecutive pages, the page itself is rather hard to read. My first thought was that when compiling the book, it had been retrieved from a different source. But there are more similarly unclear pages later in the book, ...


6

You should stop conflating people like Friedman with Ayn Rand. Friedman was far less consistent than Rand in his advocacy of freedom. So I'm going to address the sort of thing I think Rand would say. Also, Rand wasn't a libertarian in part because libertarianism is such a big tent that it includes people like Friedman who advocated anti-capitalist policies: ...


6

Some libertarians oppose patents and copyrights in principle, see Kinsella's manifesto Against Intellectual Property. A common view is that due to its reproducibility (e.g. "theft" does not deprive the owner of the use of his/her creation or invention) "intellectual property" lacks a crucial feature of being "property". The alternative interpretation is of a ...


5

At the time Nozick wrote Philosophical Explanations, the theories of conditionals advanced by David Lewis and Robert Stalnaker were still fairly new. Lewis' book Counterfactuals was published in 1973 and Stalnaker's work was published in a series of papers from about 1968 onwards. Previously there hadn't been any generally accepted account of how ...


5

Excellent question. J.S. Mill regarded the Greatest Happiness Principle as the moral truth. The principle states that "actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness." Mill then equated happiness with pleasure, following Benthamite tradition. After all, both Bentham and Mill are ...


4

Nozick does not evade such examples, he bites the bullet on their consequences. Since the tracking/sensitivity conditions (the last two bullets of the OP) are fulfilled the brain in a vat (BIV) does know who won the World Series. He does know it despite not knowing that he is a brain in a vat. This is an example of what DeRose dubbed "abominable conjunctions"...


3

A new government wants to take control. They want to give everyone $5 a month. Because they believe that is equality. There are rich people and poor people. So if the government gives $5 to everyone they are making the rich richer and the poor a bit better off. But still the two classes are not equal However that government says they are. There's ...


3

'Different' and 'differential' are not synonymous. The phrases 'differential entitlements' and 'differential deserts' have meanings that cannot be captured with 'different entitlements' and 'different deserts'. In this context, 'differential' means discriminating. For instance, if I say that I give differential treatment to my students, that means that I am ...


3

The fourth condition is a subjunctive conditional. However, I believe that Nozick tentatively proposed a slightly different set of truth-conditions for subjunctive conditionals. He endorsed the following: “If it were the case that P, S would believe that P” is true iff, in every close possible world in which P is true, S believes that P. You are correct ...


3

▻ NOZICK'S CONDITIONS On Nozick's analysis, S knows that p if and only if (1) p is true. (2) S believes, via method or way of coming to believe M, that p. (3) If p weren't true and S were to use M to arrive at a belief whether (or not) p, then S wouldn't believe, via M, that p. (4) If p were true and S were to use M to arrive at a ...


2

I'd understand this as the formation of a state, in the same vein as Hobbes Leviathan, and Rousseaus theory of the General Will in social contract theory. Hobbes argues for an absolute sovereign and state (this is the Leviathan), whereas Roussea argues for a more egalitarian possibility; notably Rousseau was writing during the French Revolution when pure ...


2

The question is what would libertarian morality say to a person who wonders whether it is morally permissible for him to save his own life by taking a bottle of water, which belongs to someone else. The situation is such that the parched person cannot gain the consent of the bottle owner (either the owner is not there or refuses to give him although she ...


2

Technically, both are allowed. But that's not the real question here. The question is which scenario would be chosen in a Rawlsian Original Position. To decide that, I would argue, there isn't enough information. That is, Nozick's claim is unjustified and probably mere polemics. 1. Distribution vs. political system What we are given are allocations (...


2

Reading the quote just in isolation it is very confusing, and the way Wacks clips it does not help (at least just reading that page doesn't help much). Let's explain it as follows: Nozick's minimalist position is that people have the right to engage in transactions with each other and that there's nothing wrong with this leading to unequal outcomes as long ...


1

'Differential' in this context means differences in outcome based on some natural or well-ordered dimension or dimensions. For example, innate differences in size and physical strength predicate differential outcomes for people pursuing a professional football career; pre-given differences in parental wealth predicate differential access to educational ...


1

Nozick's objection to Rawls' 'difference principle' is that it is a patterned principle. This means that it considers, without regard to how actual distributions of property or entitlements ('goods' for short) have come about, that there is a proper or just pattern of distribution. That is, a pattern in which 'Social and economic inequalities are to be ...


1

Central to Nozick's position is a belief in individual property rights or 'holdings'. He believes that provided individuals have gained their property by just acquisition and just exchange - the conditions for which he lays down - their property should not be at the disposal of society or the state. It is owned by individuals as of right and is not a kind of ...


1

What is happiness or pleasure??? Depending on the answer, you question can be either meaningful or meaningless. Philosophers have offered at least four different answers. happiness = hedonistic pleasures Problem: Those who seek these pleasures eventually became unhappy. too much gluttony leads to health problems. happiness = desire satisfaction ...


1

I can't resist to make two general remarks: The principle "to enjoy the fruits of one's talent and labor" is a meritocratic principle. If Libertarianism is about meritocracy, Libertarians could also argue for anti-discrimination laws, state grants for gifted students, extremely high inheritance taxes, etc. but Libertarians don't seem to do that. To argue ...


1

Rand's thoughts on this issue can be gleaned from her published work on the ethics of what she called "lifeboat situations", where a person is placed in a situation where they can only survive by killing another. Rand regarded the notion that one should based one's moral philosophy on these extreme emergency situations as irrational, since these are ...


1

Nobody can know what Rand or Nozick would have said, but here is what they should have said: Suppose the medicine costs, say, $100, and that a healthy infant has a 1% chance of someday needing it. Then as long as there are functioning markets, one can insure against needing the medicine at a price of about $1 (maybe a bit more to cover administrative ...


1

In general, an Objectivist would say that a government should not use force to take property from its owner and give it to another. This really reduces down to the old philosophical gotcha 'is it ok to steal bread if you're hungry', which reduces further to the question 'is it right to do wrong if you really want to?' There are various libertarian defenses ...


1

How is Nozick's Demoktesis Argument supposed to show that modern democracy (by representation) is equivalent to slavery?


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible