Source
r/Anarcho_Capitalism•
MattVortex

Deontological and consequentialist anarcho-capitalism

Clearly many people in this subreddit have come to anarcho-capitalism from a deontological perspective, anarcho-capitalism being the consequence of ideas like the NAP, Natural Rights, Argumentation Ethics, Universally Preferable Behaviour, and others. Many prominent anarcho-capitalists like Rothbard, Hoppe and Molyneux have a deontological perspective.

Many of us, however, have come from a more utilitarian or consequentialist perspective. As the sidebar and header say, freedom means more liberty, opportunity, and wealth for all.

What are your thoughts on this divide, on the different philosophical and moral bases for anarcho-capitalism/voluntaryism? Do you consider yourself a deontological or consequentialist libertarian, what specifically within these categories motivates your advocacy for voluntaryism/ancapism?

(I posted a thread a few months ago about the deontological vs consequentialist divide in r/Libertarian: Consequentialist Libertarianism vs Deontological Libertarianism)

Posted Feb 28, 2012, 8:18 PM UTC · edited

1121
[deleted]•

I used to consider myself a deontological libertarian, but now I'm of the opinion that deontological justifications are ultimately grounded in consequentialist reasoning. This article (narration here, courtesy of Nielsio) was pretty influential towards that shift.

5
[deleted]•

Ok I am yet to fully resolve my ideas on ethics, but, I typically get characterised as deontological so I'm happy to take that label for now. However, this whole thing seems to hinge on one point early on: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=tljocnUpfaQ#t=171s

Right here! This distinction is complete crap. This is a statement I hate people making although they normally do it in reverse. i.e.:

"I don't like nylon because it is not natural!".

Well, it was made my a natural entity with natural components. It's definitely not "supernatural" so what the hell does that mean?

Here, a similar position is taken in that consequentialists "get it" because they understand that nylon/morality is unnatural whilst the silly deontologists think nylon/morality is a naturally occurring thing (this is the reason I'm not an moral nihilist despite thinking morality is a useless concept).

I'm sorry to seem so negative but that is bullshit. Now let me be clear; I am not against the concept that there could be multiple sets of morality. However, let me characterise my view a little more.

I agree with the statement that "purposes" constrain behaviour as stated in the video. If your purpose is to live, ceasing the intake of energy is a poor choice, for example.

So for my case; in an environment with people with a similar purpose you can choose to respect each others abilities to act in pursuit of that purpose (these normally get called rights). We tend to say that it is wrong to impinge on each others ability to act to each-others' fullest capacity (i.e. right to swing fist ends at my nose). Rather, I would argue that it is logically inconsistent with the expressed purpose (in many situations) to violate/impinge upon another ability.

However, this is not why I get called a deontologist.

I would agree that different purposes could impose different moralities. For instance, as suggested in the video, precedence placed on spirituality might skew the goals somewhat. But I don't think this is actually the case

I personally would argue that these "purposes" suggested in the video are additional items of choice layered on top of the only real "choice" of binary opposition at the heart of any organism: life or death. It would be my view that opting to live imposes certain constraints on behaviour. Violating those constraints does not cause death. But what it does do is opens up the possibility that another, acting as you are, will prevent you from realising your purpose. All people acting consistently for the same aim, logically, should not do so. That gets me labelled as deontological but I am not averse to the possibility that there could be more than one key underlying purpose. I'm agnostic to it's existence in light of lack-of-evidence. Were such evidence to exists I'd look more like a consequentialist though I'd argue I wasn't one (clarified in two paragraphs).

However, if there was evidence; there should be multiple moralities. But each of them would be governed deontologically by the implicit purpose of the organism.

In this sense each morality would all be deontological; based on a factual account of its purpose. That is not consequentialist because it makes no claim about the outcome. Rather the purpose sets the rules and these rules can only change if the purpose changes, not the consequences. All consequentialists are deontological about what outcomes they want or value (MATT I'M LOOKING AT YOU: "FREEDOM IS GOOD").

The interesting debates seem to come from people who believe that the purposes are different (hence the rules are different) and that would be two consequentialists arguing. Or, between two people; one who thinks there is only one set of rules at the heart of the situation (my "deontological" view) and a second who thinks there is a purpose above that level (consequentialist: based on spiritualism is good).

To put forward a really short final piece of evidence; Sam Harris does this too. He can tell you exactly how we should quantify and manage outcomes to be "moral" but he still acts with the deontological underlying purpose that "human flourishing is good" even if he then appears to be a consequentialist.

EDIT: Don't know if you'll see this now but; Just noticed your username. Traceur. Ancap who practices parkour. As someone who used to train; how does this integrate with your views on property rights given that parkour often takes place on some else property without permission?

1
Rothbardgroupie•

I think that if two different mind-sets like this reach similar conclusions, then that validates our ideas.

I consider myself a deontological voluntarist.

I'm motivated by finally being able to articulate my previously unconscious feelings that the world I lived in is deeply immoral and hypocritical.

5
[deleted]•

Both. Consequentialist approach led me to libertarianism, which all began with watching Milton Friedman on youtube. From there I became interested in austrian economics, then read about NAP, and deontological perspective started to make sense - but if I haven't heard the consequentialist arguments for the free market I wouldn't be convinced.

4
[deleted]•

but if I haven't heard the consequentialist arguments for the free market I wouldn't be convinced.

I had a similar experience. I was a minarchist until attending porcfest and subsequently reading a bunch of "here's how it could work" literature over the most recent summer. Hindsight being 20/20, I'm almost ashamed that it took me so long to embrace anarchism (I had been minarchist for a while), but that just goes to show how important it is to connect with not-yet-convinced others on their level.

1
Metzger90your flair here•

Like hmmd, I came more from the utilitarian perspective, I saw that socialism and state involvement in markets completely destroys the inherent systems of a market and basically makes capitalism impossible, always turning free markets into regulated shit holes of red tape and byzantine bureaucracy. Then I started understanding the deontological aspect of the NAP, UPB, and Self-Ownership. Without that part you can say that AnCap is better, but you don't have the moral high ground until you explain all that good stuff.

4
keeeadUm, technically, it's Doctor Whom.•

Yeah, wait, I got to AnCap by rejecting consequentialism. All I ever seem to encounter are statists using consequentialist arguments.

:-S

4
TURBOSKILLAnti-state, pro-market•

Consequentialist through and through, I don't think the deontological position is consistent. I explained in another post in another thread that I believe the NAP is flawed as the wording is a result of miscommunication of concept in the English language. We say "my body" as if we possess or 'own' it, and while this is grammatically correct it is an inaccurate expression as we don't own our body, it is just part of us, who we are.

The deontological position only gives other philosophies basis to knock us down, we're right because of consequence and that's the most important thing.

3
zoopskop•

I think the point is that people should have control over what other people can and can't do with their body. Meaning rape would be a violation of of the pact. You should have control over it like you own your watch, someone should not steal it (enslave you), you can do whatever you want with it, move about, manipulate your environment, as long as it doesn't violate someone else's property rights. This is a good lecture explaining property rights including "self ownership," and how they can be derived objectively

1
TURBOSKILLAnti-state, pro-market•

I understand what the point of it is I just think the moralist arguments are a poor defence of it and in fact unnecessary.

1
zoopskop•

I guess it depends what kind of person you are which reasoning you prefer. People who are more numbers/statistics/historical junkies are probably more likely to take the consequentialist approach, whereas philosophical type thinkers are going to like the moralistic arguments working from first principles and so forth.

Personally both sides are important to my preference for anarcho-capitalism. But I think the movement can gain a lot from both perspectives. Attract the philosophical people deontologically and the lest abstract thinkers consequentially.

The deontogical perspective is nice because you can reach the conclusion of voluntarism in just a couple of sentences, more succinctly than piles of research

1
NielsioCarl Menger with a C•

Morality playlist:

http://vforvoluntary.com/morality

3
Pavickling•

It seems like a false dichotomy to me. Anachro-capitalism seems to be a political philosophy rather than an ethical one. It's very much interested in determining how a voluntary society could function, and what should such a society look like. Although, it seems like the NAP is best justified via "rule utilitarianism".

3
MattVortexOP•

Anachro-capitalism seems to be a political philosophy rather than an ethical one.

This is an interesting point that I have considered before. Imo deontological libertarianism is at its heart ultimately a moral philosophy instead of a political one, and its advocacy for statelessness is simply a consequence of deontological morality. Consequentialist anarcho-capitalism is a political philosophy, and makes no particular claim about morality.

1
Pavickling•

What you said makes sense. For me the distinction would be that the statelessness consequence that you refer to is "anachro-capitalism". As seen in this thread there are multiple ethical theories that lead to the political theory that is discussed in this subreddit. While it's true that sometimes the NAP itself is debated here, it seems a lot more emphasis is given to the application of the NAP.

1
FiftySeven57•

I'm not sure anyone could arrive at an AnCap conclusion without a good measure of both. I can't think of any AnCap that supports the concept from strictly one of the two perspectives. (Can someone else?)

I think early on I leaned more toward libertarians with mostly deontological perspectives (I'm thinking of Rand, and Ron Paul. Er, wait, AYN Rand, and Ron Paul.) I did notice that even a small amount of government was inconsistent with their POVs though, and eventually decided there had to be a way for a libertarian society to exist without those contradictions.

Ultimately I now approach the idea from a consequentialist perspective, because I think that's the one other people are more comfortable discussing, and it's ultimately the reason I believe an AnCap society is possible, realistic, and perhaps even inevitable in the long run.

People's moral beliefs tend to be deeply internal, instinctive, and inherent which is why people get so worked up when their ethics and politics are questioned; it's difficult to accept that something so deeply ingrained within you is wrong. I don't think it's possible, and certainly not efficient, to try and establish a primarily AnCap world by trying to convince every individual of the logic behind its morals.

I do, however, think once an AnCap society is established, it will flourish. Anarcho Capitalism will grow first through people's immigration toward it, and then imitation of it. I don't think every person, or even most people, will understand the morals or even the economics of it, but they will understand that people living in those societies have a quality of life that doesn't exist elsewhere and that's why I think the world will constantly move in a libertarian direction (from a big-picture, historical perspective) and ultimately an AnCap one.

2
FiftySeven57•

Tl;dr

Every AnCap/libertarian I've ever heard of believes in some measure of both deontological and consequentialist reasoning.

However, I think it's the consequentialist reasons that will ultimately bring about an AnCap world since, once one AnCap society is established, people will see the benefits it has to offer.

3
[deleted]•

[deleted]

2
lazernerdAnarcho-Capitalist•

I feel it is a bit of both. If it were not for the benefits free market capitalism provides over other alternatives I may have never made it to Anarcho-Capitalism. I have adapted the deontological perspective as well though after learning about the NAP and Voluntaryism.

1
establish_a_norm•

It seems the two are independent and not mutually exclusive, as much as people try to make a divide. Inevitably, any complete ethical system has both to some extent. So both for me.

1
CaptainJamesHook•

I wonder why no one has mentioned the third alternative, contractarianism. Thinkers such as Benjerman Tucker, David Gauthier and Jan Narveson have used the approach to argue fairly successfully against the state.

Even better, in my opinion, is the non-cognitive "strict" contractarianism offered by Anthony De Jasay. His preference for real contracts as opposed to hypothetical ones makes his view inherently anarchist. Againstpolitics.com advocates precisely this approach, and you guys would do well to read up on it.

1
SuperNinKenDo無政府資本主義者•

I guess I'm both now, but I really don't know which led me here if either if it was one it was deontology, but I'm not sure that got me here either.

My case is kinda interesting because within a few days I went from hardline Anarcho-Communist to pure Anarcho-Capitalist, and I think I actually did it using what at the time were "Marxist" ideas/retoric, of workers being entitled to their labour.

It suddenly dawned on me that being entitled to ones labour, but not being entitled to decide who could do what with it was simpyl absurd, meaningless and a self-contradicting idea.

1