No comments

Ethics of Liberty, Chapter 1: Natural Law and Reason

  By
Let’s start this blog by gradually reviewing the literature I have to hand over several posts. It helps that I’m familiar with it. First, Rothbard’s Ethics of Liberty. I’ll skip straight to the book proper (Hans-Herman Hoppe’s introduction doesn’t have anything special that wasn’t already in Hoppe’s work, which I’ll come to later). このブログを始めようとして、今持っているエクリチュールを徐々に復習しよう。よく知っているからうまく説明できるし。その一はロスバードの自由の倫理。ハンスヘルマンホッペ（Ｈａｎｓ－Ｈｅｒｍａｎ　Ｈｏｐｐｅ）の前振りには特別な一役はあるが、ホッペの作物に進んだ時に見るからこっちの本文に飛ぶ。
Rothbard’s theory is a natural law formulation. So, his first task is to justify “natural law” itself. The creation of natural law can be described as man’s use of reason to discern the laws of nature. Surprisingly, there are two groups of people who oppose this process. They are, if I may casually label them, the theocrats and the scientistics. Theocrats assert that only divine revelation can illuminate people’s proper behavior, and the scientistics assert that “natural law” is theological in origin and therefore invalid as a scientific concept. ロスバードの論は自然法の打ち立てだ。で、初めての仕事は自然法自身を言い開くことだ。自然法を作成するのは人が理性を使って自然の法則を悟ることと言える。案外に反対派は二手ある。それは神政派と科学万能派だ。神政派は天啓でしか人の正しい行動が分かられないと言い、そして科学万能派は自然法が神学で本ずくから科学な概念として無効だと言う。
An odd agreement, as Rothbard points out. 奇妙な同意だ、ロスバードの認めたとおりに。
I have a great respect for religion, it having guided mankind for a good long time. But to attack the use of reason- which is obviously one of God’s gifts to us- for improving our understanding of ourselves and our world is tantamount to criticizing God for giving it to us in the first place. It is actually irreverent. What kind of theology is it that bids us to cast away God’s gifts? 長い歴史に人類を導いた神教に拙者が深く尊敬する。だけど神が我々に送った理性を使うことを攻めるなんて、神を批評するに近いものだろう。なんの神学が神の贈り物を捨てることを言う？
Then there’s the supposedly scientific criticism that natural law is theological. It’s true that Christians, such as the Thomists and the Scholastics, did much of the early formulations of natural law. But, even if we presumed that all religion is wrong as such, that doesn’t mean that anything that’s ever been proposed by any believer is wrong. Every argument deserves to be decided on its merits, and “brought forth by a man of faith” is neither a merit nor a demerit. Dismissing it on that ground is a logical fallacy, a species of ad hominem. または自称「科学」の批評、自然法の神学の本。自然法はたしかにキリスト教の人が（たとえばトミスムのものとクコラ学のもの）よく作った論だ。だけど全部の神教が外れたと推定しても信者の言った全てが外れと言えない。論は理か偽りかで見定めるものだ。”信者が言い出した”はそれに関係ない。その理由で否定するのは人身攻撃の類だ。
These arguments addressed, it is perfectly clear that we can- and, if we desire to be successful in our endeavors, should- use our reason to the utmost, to learn about our natures and the nature of our environment. Natural law is the branch of this project that deals with the interactions between men; which interactions are justified, and which are not. この反対の論を否定して、理性を限界まで使って我々とわが環境を分かれる。それに成功したいなら、そうしなければならない。自然法はその為の人の絡みを分かれることだ。なんの絡みが正しいか、なんの絡みが正しくないか。
No comments

Welcome to my blog.

  By
To make a long story short, I’m not fully satisfied with any of the formulations of ethics that I have read. Not being one to simply complain, my intention is to create a new one; one that’s complete and consistent. 長い話を略して、拙者の読んだ倫理の論では満足する論は見つかったことはない。不足を言うだけのはしたくないので、新しい倫理の論を作ってみたい。完全な、道理至極な論を。
The best ethic I’ve found so far is that of Murray Rothbard, in his Ethics of Liberty. Nevertheless, I want to lay ethics on a somewhat different basis (although most of the conclusions should remain the same), and I have a few other minor critiques. 今まで見つかった論に一番良いのはマリーロスバード（Ｍｕｒｒａｙ　Ｒｏｔｈｂａｒｄ）の論、自由の倫理（Ｅｔｈｉｃｓ　ｏｆ　Ｌｉｂｅｒｔｙ）に。にしても、断じることはほとんど変わらないが別の基本に立てたい。あと、少数の批正をしたい。
I also need to read more on this topic. It simply wouldn’t do to try to reinvent the wheel, if the “wheel” is already out there. Rothbard is known as extremely radical, and since I’m close to his position, I won’t likely find the perfect solution exists already. But it is my conscientious duty to try to find it. Also, I’d like to read a number of ethic systems, for the sake of critique, and even the most wrong people may happen to state something incredibly well, or even something correct! まだまだ読まなきゃならない。もしかして、もう拙者をも納得する論がどこかにあるかもしれない。ロスバードは極めて抜本的な人だという、あの人に近い拙者には完璧な論があるなんて思えないが、真面目に探さないとならない。また、批正をするためにいろんな論をしりたい。理は珍しい所に潜むこともあるし。
In the end, I may publish a book on ethics. That is my expectation at this point. 結局、倫理の本を書くかも知らない。今では、拙者はそうなると思う。
Incidentally, I want to write this blog (and the book) in Japanese as well as English, mostly as practice in Japanese. ついでに、このブログを、そして本を、同時に英語と日本語で書きたい。主に日本語の練習に。