Mindblown: a blog about philosophy.

Dan, I agree with your conclusion but not for the reason you give. There _is_ an objective component to our well-being, but _nevertheless_ we should reject coercion (of adults by the state), because one of the objective components of our well-being is freedom to act on our choices and values (even when these are wrong)…

In reply to <a href=”https://prosociallibertarians.com/2022/12/14/government-actions-arent-pareto-optimal-they-are-paternalist/comment-page-1/#comment-270″>Daniel L. Schmutter</a>. Much as I want to agree that the original syllogism works, I can’t. You say there “there is no objectivity in people’s preferences and values.” Of course, there is an objective answer about what any particular individual prefers or values–and I am committed to accepting that their answer…

I think there is a very important error in the reasoning here: the claim that there is an objective component to well-being (or perhaps the term “well-being” is circular as a metric). There is objectivity in facts, but there is no objectivity in people’s preferences and values. Whatever a person’s “well-being” is intended to mean,…

In reply to butimbeautiful. You certainly have a point. I speak in very general terms about “the corporation” and “the state,” but really what I’m saying applies best to the United States. My essay is a little too Americo-…

In reply to David Potts. That’s a great story. Critical Review first started publishing in 1986, the year before I started college, so I’m guessing that your story dates to the mid-1980s. Your portrait of Jeff rings true. I was the stick-in…

[…] STOICISM AND FREE WILL – David Potts […] LikeLike