Cyborg | Designer-Babies | Futurism | Futurist | Immortality | Longevity | Nanotechnology | Post-Human | Singularity | Transhuman

Moral nihilism – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Nihilism  Comments Off on Moral nihilism – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jun 212016
 

This article is about the meta-ethical position. For a more general discussion of amoralism, see Amorality.

Moral nihilism (also known as ethical nihilism) is the meta-ethical view that nothing is intrinsically moral or immoral. For example, a moral nihilist would say that killing someone, for whatever reason, is neither inherently right nor inherently wrong. Moral nihilists consider morality to be constructed, a complex set of rules and recommendations that may give a psychological, social, or economical advantage to its adherents, but is otherwise without universal or even relative truth in any sense.[1]

Moral nihilism is distinct from moral relativism, which does allow for actions to be right or wrong relative to a particular culture or individual, and moral universalism, which holds actions to be right or wrong in the same way for everyone everywhere. Insofar as only true statements can be known, moral nihilism implies moral skepticism.

According to Sinnott-Armstrong (2006a), the basic thesis of moral nihilism is that “nothing is morally wrong” (3.4). There are, however, several forms that this thesis can take (see Sinnott-Armstrong, 2006b, pp.3237 and Russ Shafer-Landau, 2003, pp.813). There are two important forms of moral nihilism: error theory and expressivism[1] p.292.

One form of moral nihilism is expressivism. Expressivism denies the principle that our moral judgments try and fail to describe the moral features, because expressivists believe when someone says something is immoral they are not saying it is right or wrong. Expressivists are not trying to speak the truth when making moral judgments; they are simply trying to express their feelings. “We are not making an effort to describe the way the world is. We are not trying to report on the moral features possessed by various actions, motives, or policies. Instead, we are venting our emotions, commanding others to act in certain ways, or revealing a plan of action. When we condemn torture, for instance, we are expressing our opposition to it, indicating our disgust at it, publicizing our reluctance to perform it, and strongly encouraging others not to go in for it. We can do all of these things without trying to say anything that is true.”[1] p.293.

This makes expressivism a form of non-cognitivism. Non-cognitivism in ethics is the view that moral statements lack truth-value and do not assert genuine propositions. This involves a rejection of the cognitivist claim, shared by other moral philosophies, that moral statements seek to “describe some feature of the world” (Garner 1967, 219-220). This position on its own is logically compatible with realism about moral values themselves. That is, one could reasonably hold that there are objective moral values but that we cannot know them and that our moral language does not seek to refer to them. This would amount to an endorsement of a type of moral skepticism, rather than nihilism.

Typically, however, the rejection of the cognitivist thesis is combined with the thesis that there are, in fact, no moral facts (van Roojen, 2004). But if moral statements cannot be true, and if one cannot know something that is not true, non-cognitivism implies that moral knowledge is impossible (Garner 1967, 219-220).

Not all forms of non-cognitivism are forms of moral nihilism, however: notably, the universal prescriptivism of R.M. Hare is a non-cognitivist form of moral universalism, which holds that judgements about morality may be correct or not in a consistent, universal way, but do not attempt to describe features of reality and so are not, strictly speaking, truth-apt.

Error theory is built on three principles:

Thus, we always lapse into error when thinking in moral terms. We are trying to state the truth when we make moral judgments. But since there is no moral truth, all of our moral claims are mistaken. Hence the error. These three principles lead to the conclusion that there is no moral knowledge. Knowledge requires truth. If there is no moral truth, there can be no moral knowledge. Thus moral values are purely chimerical.[1]

Error theorists combine the cognitivist thesis that moral language consists of truth-apt statements with the nihilist thesis that there are no moral facts. Like moral nihilism itself, however, error theory comes in more than one form: Global falsity and Presupposition failure.

The first, which one might call the global falsity form of error theory, claims that moral beliefs and assertions are false in that they claim that certain moral facts exist that in fact do not exist. J. L. Mackie (1977) argues for this form of moral nihilism. Mackie argues that moral assertions are only true if there are moral properties that are intrinsically motivating, but there is good reason to believe that there are no such intrinsically motivating properties (see the argument from queerness and motivational internalism).

The second form, which one might call the presupposition failure form of error theory, claims that moral beliefs and assertions are not true because they are neither true nor false. This is not a form of non-cognitivism, for moral assertions are still thought to be truth-apt. Rather, this form of moral nihilism claims that moral beliefs and assertions presuppose the existence of moral facts that do not exist. This is analogous to presupposition failure in cases of non-moral assertions. Take, for example, the claim that the present king of France is bald. Some argue[who?] that this claim is truth-apt in that it has the logical form of an assertion, but it is neither true nor false because it presupposes that there is currently a king of France, but there is not. The claim suffers from “presupposition failure.” Richard Joyce (2001) argues for this form of moral nihilism under the name “fictionalism.”

The philosophy of Niccol Machiavelli is sometimes presented as a model of moral nihilism, but this is at best ambiguous. His book Il Principe (The Prince) praised many acts of violence and deception, which shocked a European tradition that throughout the Middle Ages had inculcated moral lessons in its political philosophies. Machiavelli does say that the Prince must override traditional moral rules in favor of power-maintaining reasons of State, but he also says, particularly in his other works, that the successful ruler should be guided by Pagan rather than Christian virtues. Hence, Machiavelli presents an alternative to the ethical theories of his day, rather than an all-out rejection of all morality.

Closer to being an example of moral nihilism is Thrasymachus, as portrayed in Plato’s Republic. Thrasymachus argues, for example, that rules of justice are structured to benefit those who are able to dominate political and social institutions. Thrasymachus can, however, be interpreted as offering a revisionary account of justice, rather than a total rejection of morality and normative discourse.

Glover has cited realist views of amoralism held by early Athenians, and in some ethical positions affirmed by Joseph Stalin.[2]

Criticisms of moral nihilism come primarily from moral realists,[citation needed] who argue that there are positive moral truths. Still, criticisms do arise out of the other anti-realist camps (i.e. subjectivists and relativists). Not only that, but each school of moral nihilism has its own criticisms of one another (e.g. the non-cognitivists’ critique of error theory for accepting the semantic thesis of moral realism).[citation needed]

Still other detractors deny that the basis of moral objectivity need be metaphysical. The moral naturalist, though a form of moral realist, agrees with the nihilists’ critique of metaphysical justifications for right and wrong. Moral naturalists prefer to define “morality” in terms of observables, some even appealing to a science of morality.[citation needed]

Visit link:

Moral nihilism – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Australian computer scientist claims he created Bitcoin – May …

 Bitcoin  Comments Off on Australian computer scientist claims he created Bitcoin – May …
May 022016
 

Australian computer scientist Craig Steven Wright has publicly identified himself as “Satoshi Nakamoto,” founder of the widely-used cryptocurrency Bitcoin.

Wright has told three media organizations — the BBC, the Economist and GQ — that he is the father of Bitcoin. The computer scientist has also published a blog post that he says includes cryptographic proof for the claim.

Bitcoin was created in 2009, but the identity of its founder has remained shrouded in secrecy. The creator used the name “Satoshi Nakamoto,” but many experts have assumed the moniker was a pseudonym.

Speculation over the mystery flourished in recent years, and multiple media outlets carried out investigations that sought to unmask the founder. At least a dozen of people have in the past been named as Bitcoin creators.

Newsweek, for example, reported in 2014 that a retired engineer named Dorian Satoshi Nakamoto was the one. But Nakamoto forcefully denied the report, saying he had never even heard of the currency.

The New Yorker ran an article in 2011 that suggested a graduate student in cryptography at Trinity College could be the founder. The student denied the claim.

Related: Alleged Bitcoin creator denies he’s the one

In 2015, tech publications Wired and Gizmodo put forward Wright’s name. “Either Wright invented Bitcoin, or he’s a brilliant hoaxer who very badly wants us to believe he did,” Wired wrote at the time. Australian media reported at that time that a house believed to be owned by Wright has been searched by the Australian Federal Police in connection to a tax issue.

But many questions remained unanswered.

The blog published by Wright on Monday seeks to remove all doubts. In it, the computer scientist claims to verify the cryptographic keys to a key Bitcoin “block,” or group of transactions, that dates to the early days of the currency.

Two leading Bitcoin developers, Jon Matonis and Gavin Andersen, came forward on Monday, backing Wright’s claims.

Andersen, who is the chief scientist at the Bitcoin Foundation, said Wright demonstrated the supposed verifications keys to him at a meeting in London a couple of weeks ago. “After spending time with him I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt: Craig Wright is Satoshi,” he said in a blog post.

Matonis, who is the founding director at Bitcoin Foundation, said he was also convinced Wright was the founder of Bitcoin, after attending a private proof session with him.

Related: What is Bitcoin?

But many other Bitcoin developers remain skeptical. They say the blog itself proves nothing, publishing something that has been “out there” for a while. They also claim cryptographic keys found on Wright’s blog posts have been backdated.

“The page copies a signature out of the Bitcoin Blockchain from 2009,” said Greg Maxwell, the chief technology office at Blockstream, a Bitcoin startup.

Wright reportedly demonstrated the procedure for the Economist, which reported that, “as far as we can tell he indeed seems to be in possession of the keys.”

But even the Economist, which agreed not to write about the computer scientist until the blog post was published, has doubts.

“Our conclusion is that Mr. Wright could well be Mr Nakamoto, but that important questions remain,” the magazine said in its report.

Wright did not immediately respond to a request for comment Tuesday. “Some people will believe, some people won’t,” he told the BBC. “And to tell you the truth, I don’t really care.”

He told the Economist and the BBC he was not seeking publicity. “I don’t want money, I don’t want fame, I don’t want adoration. I just want to be left alone,” he said in a video posted by the BBC.

On his blog, Wright said he came out as the founder of Bitcoin to “set the record straight” and “dispel the myths out there and unleash its potential to change the world for the better.”

CNNMoney (London) First published May 2, 2016: 4:59 AM ET

Here is the original post:
Australian computer scientist claims he created Bitcoin – May …

 Posted by at 5:42 pm  Tagged with:

Dr. Charles Kay Egoism

 Ethical Egoism  Comments Off on Dr. Charles Kay Egoism
Mar 232016
 

Egoism is a teleological theory of ethics that sets as its goal the benefit, pleasure, or greatest good of the oneself alone. It is contrasted with altruism, which is not strictly self-interested, but includes in its goal the interests of others as well. There are at least three different ways in which the theory of egoism can be presented:

Psychological Egoism This is the claim that humans by nature are motivated only by self-interest . Any act, no matter how altruistic it might seem, is actually motivated by some selfish desire of the agent (e.g., desire for reward, avoidance of guilt, personal happiness). This is a descriptive claim about human nature. Since the claim is universalall acts are motivated by self interestit could be proven false by a single counterexample.

It will be difficult to find an action that the psychological egoist will acknowledge as purely altruistic, however. There is almost always some benefit to ourselves in any action we choose. For example, if I helped my friend out of trouble, I may feel happy afterwards. But is that happiness the motive for my action or just a result of my action? The psychological egoist must demonstrate that the beneficial consequences of an action are actually the motivation of of all of our actions. But why would it make me happy to see my friend out of trouble if I didn’t already care about my friend’s best interest? Wouldn’t that be altruism?

Ethical Egoism This is the claim that individuals should always to act in their own best interest. It is a normative claim. If ethical egoism is true, that appears to imply that psychological egoism is false: there would be no point to saying that we ought to do what we must do by nature.

But if altruism is possible, why should it be avoided? Some writers suggest we all should focus our resources on satisfying our own interests, rather than those of others. Society will then be more efficient and this will better serve the interests of all. By referring to the interests of all, however, this approach reveals itself to be a version of utilitarianism, and not genuine egoism. It is merely a theory about how best to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number.

An alternative formulation of ethical egoism states that I ought to act in my own self-interesteven if this conflicts with the values and interests of otherssimply because that is what I value most. It is not clear how an altruist could argue with such an individualistic ethical egoist, but it is also not clear that such an egoist should choose to argue with the altruist. Since the individualistic egoist believes that whatever serves his own interests is (morally) right, he will want everyone else to be altruistic. Otherwise they would not serve the egoist’s interests! It seems that anyone who truly believed in individualistic ethical egoism could not promote the theory without inconsistency. Indeed, the self-interest of the egoist is best served by publicly claiming to be an altruist and thereby keeping everyone’s good favor.

Minimalist Egoism When working with certain economic or sociological models, we may frequently assume that people will act in such a way as to promote their own interests. This is not a normative claim and usually not even a descriptive claim. Instead it is a minimalist assumption used for certain calculations. If we assume only self-interest on the part of all agents, we can determine certain extreme-case (e.g., maximin) outcomes for the model. Implicit in this assumption, although not always stated, is the idea that altruistic behavior on the part of the agents, although not presupposed, would yield outcomes at least as good and probably better.

See the rest here:

Dr. Charles Kay Egoism

 Posted by at 10:44 pm  Tagged with:

PAUL WESTON LIBERTY GB: I’M AN ISLAMO REALIST – Video

 Liberty  Comments Off on PAUL WESTON LIBERTY GB: I’M AN ISLAMO REALIST – Video
Apr 132015
 



PAUL WESTON LIBERTY GB: I'M AN ISLAMO REALIST
BBC, 9th April 2015.BBC. Election 2015 smaller parties: Liberty GB… Last updated at 13:45 BST A party leader who made a video declaring “I am a racist” was asked about the claim on the Daily…

By: Roni Stoker

Original post:
PAUL WESTON LIBERTY GB: I’M AN ISLAMO REALIST – Video

Seamless SEO 2.0 Review – $300000 Bonus & Discount – Video

 SEO  Comments Off on Seamless SEO 2.0 Review – $300000 Bonus & Discount – Video
Mar 072015
 



Seamless SEO 2.0 Review – $300000 Bonus Discount
Seamless SEO 2.0 Review – $300000 Bonus Discount 3 SIMPLE STEPS TO CLAIM THIS BONUSES Get Seamless SEO 2.0 Review through my link: http://goo.gl/7QADaZ After completing the …

By: Review Linda

See the article here:
Seamless SEO 2.0 Review – $300000 Bonus & Discount – Video

 Posted by at 1:42 am  Tagged with:

Don’t Let Sydney Siege Claim Your Freedom: Russell Brand The Trews (E212) – Video

 Freedom  Comments Off on Don’t Let Sydney Siege Claim Your Freedom: Russell Brand The Trews (E212) – Video
Dec 172014
 



Don't Let Sydney Siege Claim Your Freedom: Russell Brand The Trews (E212)
Russell Brand The Trews (E212). Analysis of the media and government's reaction to the siege in Sydney, as a lone gunman seized dozens of hostages on Monday. Subscribe Here Now: …

By: Russell Brand

Read the original post:
Don’t Let Sydney Siege Claim Your Freedom: Russell Brand The Trews (E212) – Video

 Posted by at 10:47 am  Tagged with:

How india got freedom by Retd Major General G D Bakshi – Video

 Freedom  Comments Off on How india got freedom by Retd Major General G D Bakshi – Video
Sep 272014
 



How india got freedom by Retd Major General G D Bakshi
Major General G.D. Bakshi tells how India got its freedom and highlights the role on Indian National Army, British Indian Army soldiers, Bhagat Singh and Netaji Bose. He demolishes the claim…

By: ToxicTonicVideos

See original here:
How india got freedom by Retd Major General G D Bakshi – Video

 Posted by at 9:45 pm  Tagged with:

Taliban suicide bomb kills 3 soldiers in NATO convoy – Video

 NATO  Comments Off on Taliban suicide bomb kills 3 soldiers in NATO convoy – Video
Sep 172014
 



Taliban suicide bomb kills 3 soldiers in NATO convoy
Taliban Claim Afghanistan Suicide Bombing Taliban Claim Afghanistan Suicide Bombing Afghanistan: Taliban claims responsibility for suicide attack … Taliban suicide bomb kills 3 soldiers…

By: z plus tv

Read the original here:
Taliban suicide bomb kills 3 soldiers in NATO convoy – Video

 Posted by at 6:50 pm  Tagged with:

Joan Rivers "Murdered by Illuminati" Over Anti-Obama Comments According to Conspiracy Theorists – Video

 Illuminati  Comments Off on Joan Rivers "Murdered by Illuminati" Over Anti-Obama Comments According to Conspiracy Theorists – Video
Sep 072014
 



Joan Rivers “Murdered by Illuminati” Over Anti-Obama Comments According to Conspiracy Theorists
Joan Rivers Murdered by Illuminati in Celebrity Blood Sacrifice Over Anti-Obama Comments, Claim Crazy Conspiracy Theorists After the 81-Year-Old Comic Passed Away. *SUBSCRIBE* for more great…

By: Mark Dice

Read the original:
Joan Rivers "Murdered by Illuminati" Over Anti-Obama Comments According to Conspiracy Theorists – Video

 Posted by at 4:44 am  Tagged with:

Joan Rivers "Murdered" on Beyonce’s 33rd Birthday in "Illuminati Sacrifice" Claim Conspiracies – Video

 Illuminati  Comments Off on Joan Rivers "Murdered" on Beyonce’s 33rd Birthday in "Illuminati Sacrifice" Claim Conspiracies – Video
Sep 052014
 



Joan Rivers “Murdered” on Beyonce's 33rd Birthday in “Illuminati Sacrifice” Claim Conspiracies
Joan Rivers Died on Beyonce's 33rd Birthday in Illuminati Murder Sacrifice, Claim Crazy Conspiracy Theorists Because Joan Was Born in 1933, Beyonce was Born in 1981, Joan was 81, it Must be…

By: Mark Dice

Continued here:
Joan Rivers "Murdered" on Beyonce’s 33rd Birthday in "Illuminati Sacrifice" Claim Conspiracies – Video

Libertarians reality problem: How an estrangement from history yields abject failure

 Misc  Comments Off on Libertarians reality problem: How an estrangement from history yields abject failure
May 182014
 

It has long been customary to divide the Republican Party into three camps: big business or Wall Street Republicans, the religious right and neoconservatives or national security Republicans. The third group, it must be admitted, somewhat unsteadily combines neoconservatives proper (such as William Kristol) with old-fashioned defense hawks (such as Donald Rumsfeld), but perhaps this is the Republican big tent we keep hearing about.

In any case, this neat three-part logic was roiled by two events in 2008: the Great Recession and the election of Barack Obama as president. The latters decision to respond to the crisis with a fairly traditional mix of demand-side remedies some tax cuts, some increased spending ignited a fire storm on the right. CNBCs Rick Santelli is often fingered as the principal arsonist. On Feb. 19, 2009, outraged by Obamas plan to assist homeowners caught up in the collapse of the housing market,Santelliwent on air to unburden himself of the following ideas:

The spark had been struck; the Tea Party roared to life. Five years later it has remade American politics, largely through its impact on the GOP. Profoundly alienated from the modern American state, which it regards as a bureaucratic embodiment of foreign social-democratic ideals, intensely ideological, intransigent and scornful of compromise, the Tea Party has used its electoral success in the South and Midwest and its power in primaries and caucuses to impose sharp limits on the policy options available to GOP politicians. Rick Santellis wildfire consumed immigration reform and an extension of unemployment benefits; it flared into a government shutdown and crept perilously close to two debt defaults.

One consequence of the Tea Party ascendancy has been a new prominence for the term libertarian. In many ways this is unfortunate. There is reason to believe that any connections between libertarianism and the Tea Party are tenuous at best. A recentstudyfound that 60 percent of libertarians do not identify with the Tea Party, while only 26 percent of Tea Party supporters think of themselves as libertarians. (Fully twice as many affiliate with the religious right.) Still, animpressionpersists that the Republican Party is increasingly animated by the spirit of John Galt. I think there are mainly four reasons for this.

The first is that some conservative activists, quick to sense the electoral (and financial) potential of the Tea Party, moved quickly to associate its concerns with their own, often quite different, agendas. (The absurdist theater that swirled around DickArmeysdeparture from FreedomWorks is apposite here.)

A second more important source of confusion is that libertarian, as a rubric, offers Republicans certain rhetorical advantages. It suggests theyreforsomething and not just against the Democrats, and that this something is related to liberty. (And it performs this latter function while avoiding the hated epithet liberal.) It also serves an irenic purpose insofar as it gestures at common ground for Tea Partyers, the religious right generally, and Wall Streeters. If these factions can agree on anything, its that they want less government meaning lessliberalgovernment and this is easily elided into the claim that they want more liberty. As long as no one inspects the logic too closely, this Were all libertarians now line can seem helpfully plausible. Which brings us to the fourth reason, a national media always ready to exploit the helpfully plausible in its constant search for the appealingly (or is it appallingly?) simple.

So one increasingly hears certain prominent Republicans referred to as libertarians or as members of the partys libertarian wing.Ted CruzandPaul Ryanhave been identified as such at one time or another, as have (with slightly more reason) bothPauls, Ron and Rand. This, again, is a mistake. As Ive arguedelsewhere,no important Republican politician is a libertarian. Still, perceptions are important in politics, and there is certainly no doubt that real libertarians belong noisily, busily belong to the Republican coalition.

Given this, all of us have an interest in understanding the nature of libertarian thought, and in knowing whether it forms the basis of a workable politics. Michael Lind has written brilliantly about these issues (here,for example) in the context of practical politics. I want to take them up in a more theoretical light. I will focus on the central concept of libertarian thought the idea of personal freedom and argue that it cannot be coherently explained on libertarian grounds. I will also argue that a libertarian society, if fully realized, would be actively hostile to the development of free selves. Libertarianism, in other words, cannot give a persuasive account of its own core concept. Its as close to self-refuting as a political theory can be.

* * *

Some criticisms of libertarian thought are unwarranted. For example, it issometimesalleged that libertarians lack concern for others, or are motivated only by greed, or embrace a crass, materialistic ethic. Libertarians think such charges are based on a simple confusion. Their intent is to advocate for liberty, they say; what free people choose to do with their liberty is an entirely separate matter. I think this reply is conclusive if it is meant to rebut the claim that libertarians, because they value freedom, must also value the content of every free choice. (In other contexts, as I will argue below, it is much less conclusive.) That claim really is a confusion. I do not have to approve of pornography simply because I endorse the First Amendment. Similarly, I do not have to approve of choices to be selfish or shallow because I favor economic and political liberty. Liberals, who are often on the receiving end of this kind of attack from conservative critics, should think twice before directing it at libertarians.

Link:
Libertarians reality problem: How an estrangement from history yields abject failure

 Posted by at 5:40 pm  Tagged with:

Hollywood documentary says Diaoyu Islands belong to China – Video

 Islands  Comments Off on Hollywood documentary says Diaoyu Islands belong to China – Video
Mar 272014
 



Hollywood documentary says Diaoyu Islands belong to China
Hollywood writer and director Chris D. Nebe's new documentary makes the claim that China should be the rightful owner of Diaoyu Islands, a small group of isl…

By: China View

Read more from the original source:
Hollywood documentary says Diaoyu Islands belong to China – Video

Kurt Cobain Murdered by Illuminati, According to New Evidence, Claim Conspiracy Investigators – Video

 Illuminati  Comments Off on Kurt Cobain Murdered by Illuminati, According to New Evidence, Claim Conspiracy Investigators – Video
Mar 252014
 



Kurt Cobain Murdered by Illuminati, According to New Evidence, Claim Conspiracy Investigators
Kurt Cobain Murdered by Illuminati, According to New Evidence Discovered, Claim Conspiracy Investigators. *SUBSCRIBE* for more great videos! Mark Dice is a m…

By: Mark Dice

See more here:
Kurt Cobain Murdered by Illuminati, According to New Evidence, Claim Conspiracy Investigators – Video

 Posted by at 10:44 am  Tagged with:

Disputed Islands Are Ours, Japan’s New Teaching Manuals Claim – Video

 Islands  Comments Off on Disputed Islands Are Ours, Japan’s New Teaching Manuals Claim – Video
Jan 312014
 



Disputed Islands Are Ours, Japan's New Teaching Manuals Claim
Japan risked further irking their close neighbors China and South Korea, when the government announced textbooks were being changed to make it clear that two…

By: WochitGeneralNews

The rest is here:
Disputed Islands Are Ours, Japan’s New Teaching Manuals Claim – Video

Libertarians become vocal critics of exhortation

 Misc  Comments Off on Libertarians become vocal critics of exhortation
Jan 302014
 

Column

The most interesting criticisms of Pope Francis’s apostolic exhortation, Evangelii Gaudium, have come from libertarians who are closest to the economic views the pope denounced.

In this document, Francis did not mince words. He condemned “trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and nave trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system.” He warned against laissez-faire adherents who “reject the right of states, charged with vigilance for the common good, to exercise any form of control. A new tyranny is thus born, invisible and often virtual, which unilaterally and relentlessly imposes its own laws and rules.” The pope chastised “the dictatorship of an impersonal economy lacking a truly human purpose.”

“Speaking for libertarians, my objection to what the pope wrote derives from two things,” the Cato Institute’s Marian Tupy said in an interview with NCR. “First, there is the factual statement. The pope says the world is becoming worse, but that can be measured. In almost 200 pages, he never cites a single study, a single number, to support his claim.” Tupy, who wrote an article encapsulating his objections in The Atlantic, cites a host of statistics to support his claim that “capitalism, compared to other systems, does very well at bringing people out of poverty.”

Tupy’s second objection has to do with the lens through which he and the pope view the prevailing economic situation. “The pope compares the world to a future utopia,” Tupy said. “I look to the past and find data to support my views.” Francis would, no doubt, plead guilty to the charge, but he would be unlikely to use the word “utopia.” In the language of the Catholic church, that future to which Catholics are called is “the kingdom of God.”

“My factual disagreement with the pope has no bearing on my respect for the man nor on my belief that everyone has a moral duty to help the poor,” Tupy said. But, he sticks by his conclusion in his Atlantic article: “Pope Francis has a big heart, but his credibility as a voice of justice and morality would be immeasurably improved if he based his statements on facts.”

A similar critique of Evangelii Gaudium came from the pro-market Acton Institute, which is run by a Catholic priest, Fr. Robert Sirico. In a video discussing Evangelii Gaudium, Sirico posed a series of questions: “Where are these unhampered markets?” he asked. “Where is the market absolutely autonomous?” Sirico seems to be suggesting that the pope was creating straw men and attacking them, and expresses the hope that future exhortations will confront the economic questions Sirico poses.

Francis has not been lacking in defenders. “The Catholic apologists for libertarianism — and, sadly, there are a few who try to do this — always begin with condescension,” said Stephen Schneck, director of The Catholic University of America’s Institute for Policy Research & Catholic Studies. “The pope’s pity for the poor is understandable, they say, but he’s naive about the miracle of the market. Baloney. Not only are such remarks patronizing, they’re proof that the apologists don’t understand the papal teachings. Pope Francis is not telling Christians to stoop to pity the poor. He’s saying private charity, however wonderful and holy it is, can never be enough. He’s saying that the poor also need justice. They need social justice, distributive justice, redistributive justice. He’s saying that private charity by itself can never provide that justice given the moral deficiency of economic and social systems governed only by heartless invisible hands.”

Lew Daly, a fellow at the secular think tank Demos in New York, thinks Francis hit the nail on the head in Evangelii Gaudium. “Pope Francis is not an innovator of church teaching in any way,” Daly told NCR. “The innovation, compared to other voices in the Catholic church, is in his correct and properly urgent analysis of what is wrong in the church’s eyes. Capitalism is not just ‘broken’; it is inherently out of control, in a late phase of development, because a libertarian creed with mistaken precepts about human nature has infected political institutions, economic elites and even the church.”

It is true that while Francis’ speaking and writing style is more accessible than that of his predecessors, the content of what he says exhibits deep continuity with previous doctrinal statements. In 1891, Pope Leo XIII issued the first major papal statement on socioeconomic issues and he warned against the excesses of both capitalism and socialism. In 1931, Pope Pius XI wrote, “Just as the unity of human society cannot be founded on an opposition of classes, so also the right ordering of economic life cannot be left to a free competition of forces. For from this source, as from a poisoned spring, have originated and spread all the errors of individualist economic teaching.” And, just one year ago, in his World Day of Peace message, Pope Benedict XVI stated, “It is alarming to see hotbeds of tension and conflict caused by growing instances of inequality between rich and poor, by the prevalence of a selfish and individualistic mindset which also finds expression in an unregulated financial capitalism.”

Read more:
Libertarians become vocal critics of exhortation

 Posted by at 10:40 am  Tagged with:

In Re: Lomaxient’s Claim of Constitutional Dogmatism and the First Amendment – Video

 Misc  Comments Off on In Re: Lomaxient’s Claim of Constitutional Dogmatism and the First Amendment – Video
Jan 112014
 



In Re: Lomaxient's Claim of Constitutional Dogmatism and the First Amendment
In response to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDwAdDjqBY4.

By: The Justicar

Here is the original post:
In Re: Lomaxient’s Claim of Constitutional Dogmatism and the First Amendment – Video

 Posted by at 9:44 am  Tagged with:

New Tupac Shakur Documentary Full Movie by KnowTheTruthTV Killuminati Illuminati Exposed Part 1 – Video

 Illuminati  Comments Off on New Tupac Shakur Documentary Full Movie by KnowTheTruthTV Killuminati Illuminati Exposed Part 1 – Video
Oct 042013
 



New Tupac Shakur Documentary Full Movie by KnowTheTruthTV Killuminati Illuminati Exposed Part 1
http://tinyurl.com/ofudb3o Claim Your FREE 50$ Poker Money – no deposit required!

By: Tupac

Go here to see the original:
New Tupac Shakur Documentary Full Movie by KnowTheTruthTV Killuminati Illuminati Exposed Part 1 – Video

 Posted by at 10:42 pm  Tagged with:

Griff from Public Enemy answers questions about Tupac’s death and the Illuminati – Video

 Illuminati  Comments Off on Griff from Public Enemy answers questions about Tupac’s death and the Illuminati – Video
Oct 042013
 



Griff from Public Enemy answers questions about Tupac's death and the Illuminati
http://tinyurl.com/ofudb3o Claim Your FREE 50$ Poker Money – no deposit required!

By: Tupac

See the rest here:
Griff from Public Enemy answers questions about Tupac’s death and the Illuminati – Video




Pierre Teilhard De Chardin | Designer Children | Prometheism | Euvolution