Ludwig von Mises writes: Whenever the distinction between rational and irrational is applied to ultimate ends, the meaning is that the judgments of value underlying the choice of the end in question meet with approval or disapproval on the part of the speaker or writer. Now the promulgation of judgments of value is not the business of a man in his capacity as a praxeologist, economist, or historian. It is rather the task of religion, metaphysics, or ethics. FULL ARTICLE
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/8275/epistemological-relativism-in-the-sciences-of-human-action/
Epistemological Relativism in the Sciences of Human Action
Previous post: On Mises’s Ethical Relativism
Next post: Supreme-Court Justice: US “Over-Lawed”
{ 6 comments }
Quite so:
Economics does not teach that “people should not be socialists”, it teaches that socialism leads to be people not getting the goods and services that they want, campared to what “capitialism” (i.e. voluntary civil interaction) would produce.
If someone does not care about the above (or, indeed, thinks that it is a good thing), then it is open to them to be a socialist.
Even if socialism leads (eventually) to mass starvation then economics still does NOT teach against it – it simply teaches that “if you want mass starvartion, be a socialist”.
Completely agree, Paul. The context, or the goal one seeks, is important in determining the means used to achieve it, and how good or successful that means is in achieving it.
I agree, too. I think you restated Mises’s case well. For the socialists who prefer equality, poverty and slavery because they consider them to be the highest morality, economics won’t matter. Usually, that type of socialist doesn’t value reason, either, or they believe in multiple truths. They have made it impossible to talk to them. And they clearly don’t care about people. They care only for advancing their fabricated morality and they don’t care how many people they have to kill to implement it. All we can do is wait for them to get mugged by reality and come to their senses.
Where economics can have an impact is on people who still think socialism will usher in a utopia and still consider reason a valuable tool. Those people often are motivated by a sincere desire to help the poor. Econ can demonstrate to them that capitalism rescues the poor while socialism creates more poverty.
nice article , thanks and i enjoy reading your blog.
nice article , thanks a lot ! , i enjoy reading your blog.
Too often these days, Philosophies seem divorced from reality! You even get it in Science Fiction. I read a novel by Robert Sawyer, where amoral aliens visit Earth. These beings had no concept of justice, and I found that hard to believe. They came in a spaceship which used a drive, therefore they knew about Action-Reaction (one of Newton’s Laws). I have always thought that these laws, even before Newton formulated them, were widely understood, so Justice would not be whatever we thought it was, on whim. ‘An Eye for an eye’ is an old concept. Whilst we don’t practice it literally, we still want justice to equal the offence.
Any philosophy not based on the real world is not believable. Whilst socialism is an evolved version of tribalism, and so is real-world to that degree, if it does not talk about justice for individuals, it will fail.
Comments on this entry are closed.