That egoism is fundamentally subjective and even farther from a principle based approach to politics than utilitarianism.
Steve,
Your wrote:
Satisfying "a passion for justice" (or any passion) is egoism, no?
What is the relevance of your reasonable observation to Rothbard's anti-utilitarian message?
Best, Michael
STEVE: That egoism is fundamentally subjective and even farther from a
principle based approach to politics than utilitarianism.
MICHAEL: Since Rothbard's justice-based libertarianism is also based on principle (it's unjust to initiate aggression), what is your point?
That principle in itself tells us nothing. It requires a definition of aggression to be meaningful and such a definition requires one to specify some set of property rights (so we can determine who is the aggressor) which in turn requires some set of ethics to decide on which property rights to choose.
The utilitarians provide a root principle (net happiness, which can be observed by polling individuals) for objectively answering questions about which set property rights are better or worse.
STEVE: That principle in itself tells us nothing. It requires a definition of
aggression to be meaningful and such a definition requires one to
specify some set of property rights (so we can determine who is the
aggressor) which in turn requires some set of ethics to decide on
which property rights to choose.
The utilitarians provide a root principle (net happiness, which can be
observed by polling individuals) for objectively answering questions
about which set property rights are better or worse.
MICHAEL: Doesn't utilitarianism also require fundamental ethics to reach conclusions?
For example, why choose happiness as better? And why choose the happiness of the
greatest number as even more better?