Why Libertarianism?Essay Preview: Why Libertarianism?Report this essayWhy Libertarianism?People in the earlier period have this conundrum on what is better between Utilitarianism and Libertarianism. Both of these beliefs are opposed to each other. Utilitarianism suggests that a morally good action is one that helps the greatest number of people while Libertarianism says that each one of us has an inherent right on liberty that cannot be exchange with the benefit of the greatest number of people. But which of these two is better? Because of this feud, I came up with this paper. I shall argue why libertarianism makes better governing philosophy of human beings than the utilitarianism.
First, Libertarianism is a political philosophy that affirms the rights of individuals to liberty, to acquire, to keep, and exchange their holdings, and considers the protection of individual rights the primary role for the state (Vallentyn, Peter and van der Vossen, Bas, “Libertarianism”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2014 Edition), Edward N. Zalta ). Moreover, Libertarian’s theory says that man is entitled of himself, his work, and his time and man is responsible for these things and no one should interfere and control of them than himself. While Utilitarianism imposes the morality of “utility” and it is focused on the greatest good for the greatest number. However, as long as it benefits many, utilitarianism does not sufficiently respect the fact that persons are separate according to Both Rawls and Nozick.
In conclusion, the Libertarian view of personal rights is a pragmatic one. It offers few options when it comes to freedom and the rights of individuals, and it makes no attempts to explain how an individual will ultimately have a legitimate and justified interest in his particular task. There is, however, significant merit to Libertarians’ arguments that the State should be used to protect individual rights and not to punish them. Indeed, they offer much of the same arguments as we see at the end of this column (Bennett and Erikson, 2016). However, in view of one’s unique and distinctive place in American contemporary history, the case for either view cannot be made. The liberty of individuals as stated in the classical libertarian theory (Vallentyn, P. and Siegel, 2007) does not apply to all. But in considering the liberty of free individuals, we are given a broad conception of the role given to both individuals and the other. In fact, this conception reflects a fundamental human condition and a social necessity for a free society. These principles are expressed by the idea of man as the agent of all things as expressed in the principle that man is entitled of himself to the same, exclusive rights, as his own or as his neighbour or as his friend. The freedom embodied by individual rights gives men the freedom to pursue the interests and rights which they share. In this respect, libertarianism, as expressed by the idea of liberty, represents a social idea of human agency. What distinguishes its form from utilitarianism about the same point (see the next section), however, is that the two have little in common and, in particular, they do not take the same position on the social dimension of individual liberty as they do on the moral dimension of state action (see the last section).
The Libertarian position on liberty has been expressed in many different ways. For example, as mentioned earlier, it includes the same premises as Utilitarianism about self-interest, the pursuit of individual rights, and the pursuit of individual liberties. It is also in some respects in agreement with the Kantian position that each person must be entitled of himself or herself (including his property holdings, his social relations, his property relations, and his private lives). The same may even be said of Kant’s other philosophical works, such as The Ethics of Justice, which are clearly libertarian. However, all of these work has differed in their attitudes towards individual liberty. In regard to the individual, Kant is an admirer of the right to a fair trial. In relation to the State, Kant is generally opposed to the right of those who wish to pursue or protect private and public interests. Such a conception of individual liberty is consistent with their position on the subject itself. And it does not stand in contradiction to their respective views on the ethical and political issues involving individual liberty. Kant also holds that individual liberty is the right to a fair trial.
The Libertarians believe that persons are equal as human beings. However, this belief is based on the concept of personal property. The rights of individual persons vary depending on how far from the point of view they take their positions on the question. To understand private property on social surfaces we need to be able to understand the rights of the individual.
In conclusion, the Libertarian view of personal rights is a pragmatic one. It offers few options when it comes to freedom and the rights of individuals, and it makes no attempts to explain how an individual will ultimately have a legitimate and justified interest in his particular task. There is, however, significant merit to Libertarians’ arguments that the State should be used to protect individual rights and not to punish them. Indeed, they offer much of the same arguments as we see at the end of this column (Bennett and Erikson, 2016). However, in view of one’s unique and distinctive place in American contemporary history, the case for either view cannot be made. The liberty of individuals as stated in the classical libertarian theory (Vallentyn, P. and Siegel, 2007) does not apply to all. But in considering the liberty of free individuals, we are given a broad conception of the role given to both individuals and the other. In fact, this conception reflects a fundamental human condition and a social necessity for a free society. These principles are expressed by the idea of man as the agent of all things as expressed in the principle that man is entitled of himself to the same, exclusive rights, as his own or as his neighbour or as his friend. The freedom embodied by individual rights gives men the freedom to pursue the interests and rights which they share. In this respect, libertarianism, as expressed by the idea of liberty, represents a social idea of human agency. What distinguishes its form from utilitarianism about the same point (see the next section), however, is that the two have little in common and, in particular, they do not take the same position on the social dimension of individual liberty as they do on the moral dimension of state action (see the last section).
The Libertarian position on liberty has been expressed in many different ways. For example, as mentioned earlier, it includes the same premises as Utilitarianism about self-interest, the pursuit of individual rights, and the pursuit of individual liberties. It is also in some respects in agreement with the Kantian position that each person must be entitled of himself or herself (including his property holdings, his social relations, his property relations, and his private lives). The same may even be said of Kant’s other philosophical works, such as The Ethics of Justice, which are clearly libertarian. However, all of these work has differed in their attitudes towards individual liberty. In regard to the individual, Kant is an admirer of the right to a fair trial. In relation to the State, Kant is generally opposed to the right of those who wish to pursue or protect private and public interests. Such a conception of individual liberty is consistent with their position on the subject itself. And it does not stand in contradiction to their respective views on the ethical and political issues involving individual liberty. Kant also holds that individual liberty is the right to a fair trial.
The Libertarians believe that persons are equal as human beings. However, this belief is based on the concept of personal property. The rights of individual persons vary depending on how far from the point of view they take their positions on the question. To understand private property on social surfaces we need to be able to understand the rights of the individual.
Second, Utilitarianism says that it is morally permissible, even necessary to kill terminally ill patients. Libertarianism, in that case does not allow it to kill a person for it has its right to live whether he/she may be a terminally ill patient.
Third, Libertarians hold that the free market is inherently unjust, and redistributive taxation violates people’s property rights. (W. Kymlicka, Contemporary Political Philosophy, pp. 102-103). Utilitarians, by contrast, are concerned with the promotion of the human welfare. Libertarians, however, ignores the future. They set aside the things which are going to happen and does not give enough attention to the immediate consequences of their principles but it gives importance on the characteristic of an action, while utilitarians also ignores the past, it focuses on the future or the consequence of an action no matter how good or bad an action is.
Libertarians are focused in the right of an individual.