is the whole concept of morality valid?

[danyboy27]

do you think morality have its place in the world has we know it today?
and if yes, how far should it goes.

[Anti Freedom]

What is morality? Can I see it? Can I taste it? Can I touch it? If not, then why do I bother with it? Where does it even come from? Why must I follow it?

If I can do evil as readily as good, and if good is some spiritual, intangible thing, that comes from nothing, then why must I follow it? It would seem ridiculous to submit myself to such a thing.

[Elliot_R]

yes morality is most certainly valid, without it people will kill others and if we tolerate murder, what basis does society have? let's just kill everyone! its disturbing the lack of morality people have, morality should be strongly centered and immoral practices should be condemned. immoral people annoy the shit out of me and society tpday is very immoral. if we encourage morality, there will be more solidarity

[Anti Freedom]

yes morality is most certainly valid, without it people will kill others and if we tolerate murder, what basis does society have? let's just kill everyone! its disturbing the lack of morality people have, morality should be strongly centered and immoral practices should be condemned. immoral people annoy the shit out of me and society tpday is very immoral. if we encourage morality, there will be more solidarity
So, morality is valid because the consequences of morality are desirable?

How does that make sense?

Basically, you are saying, that because of some perception that the universe or God or whatever doesn't want you to kill people, people thus shall not be killed? The connection doesn't make sense.

If we say that morality is something from the universe/God/whatever, then how does it matter and have motivating force?

If we say that morality is from society, then why should the individual obey, and why is morality different than a social norm, and if morality is a social norm, then why call it morality?

As well, if morality is justifiable by it's consequences, then how is morality justified, and not just moral action? I mean, selfishness does not seem like the basis of most moral structures, but rather just the basis of enlightened selfishness.

Finally, can morality be absolutely defined to a conclusion upon it that all people agree upon?

[Elliot_R]

morality is valid as it organzies society in such a way that people feel connected. i'm saying that without morals people wouldnt know that killing is bad. if people think killing is wrong, then they have some sense of morality. people shoud obey because morality is based on the priniciple of not harming others. morality isnt just justifibale by the consequneces but rather as a means of creating harmony. i dont see what is so bad about not harming anyone. of course harm is universally defined.

[synthesis]

I have always distinguished "moral" and "ethical" on the grounds that morality is derived from an outside source or tradition such as the Bible, the Talmud or the Rig Veda. On the other hand, ethics are derived from an internal conversation - which is still influenced by environment - and is ultimately predicated on the "do unto others" mentality that I think is a part of human nature yet is manifested in some people more than others.

I don't think there's really any place for "morality" - good versus evil - in a rational society, but that does not mean that "ethics" - right versus wrong - shouldn't play a part in daily and political life.

[Forward Union]

No. I strongly believe that there is no such thing as morality.

[danyboy27]

but at the end, many of you hate capitalism beccause of its discutable morality, the way we lets thounsand of millions starve, and i am one supporting socialism beccause of his higher moral stand.

if there is no such thing like morality and ethics, well, why does it matter to lets million starve then?

of course we can say that communism should be applied beccause its exactly what is scientificaly correct, but dont you think its a big big turndown compared to the ethical and moral reason most of people actually suport communism?

also, without any place for ethics and moral, i could freely bnackstab anybody, if its in the better good of a majoprity of people, i could go in a comunist party, overthrow with discutable technique the leader of the group who is my best friend beccause i decided t would be better with scientifical and technical standard that my idea where actually better than his idea.

if its true there is no such thing has morality, then what stalin did was okay, i mean, its not important who he actually killed and the number of it, he build his country and did what was technicly to build it, scientifically he helped more than he actually killed, so all its did was alright.

[Junius]

No. I strongly believe that there is no such thing as morality.

Wrong. It is not a question of whether morality exists: it does.

Whether there is something such as 'objective morality' or whether one should always follow moral codes is another thing. But just because you don't like morals, doesn't make them non-existent. I don't 'believe' in patriotism; but I certainly recognize that it exists.

[Bud Struggle]

but at the end, many of you hate capitalism beccause of its discutable morality, the way we lets thounsand of millions starve, and i am one supporting socialism beccause of his higher moral stand.

Well then if there IS a morality--then what is it's source and what is our compelling reason to be moral?

[Robert]

Can I see it? Can I taste it? Can I touch it? If not, then why do I bother with it?

I said the same thing about electricity once. Then I stuck a fork in an electrical outlet.

[danyboy27]

i said the same thing about electricity once. Then i stuck a fork in an electrical outlet.


lolololololol

[Anti Freedom]

I said the same thing about electricity once. Then I stuck a fork in an electrical outlet.
Well, *thats* that electricity touching you! :D

In any case, my point still remains.

[Anti Freedom]

Wrong. It is not a question of whether morality exists: it does.

Whether there is something such as 'objective morality' or whether one should always follow moral codes is another thing. But just because you don't like morals, doesn't make them non-existent. I don't 'believe' in patriotism; but I certainly recognize that it exists.
No, the issue really is the definition of the term. Many people consider morality to be an external factor to human existence, as Kun Fana put forward.


morality is valid as it organzies society in such a way that people feel connected. i'm saying that without morals people wouldnt know that killing is bad. if people think killing is wrong, then they have some sense of morality. people shoud obey because morality is based on the priniciple of not harming others. morality isnt just justifibale by the consequneces but rather as a means of creating harmony. i dont see what is so bad about not harming anyone. of course harm is universally defined.
I don't see why that validates morality, or how that separates morality from a sense of community, which *is* different than morality.

Killing isn't bad, so there is nothing to know. *Some* killing may be bad, but it falls along the lines of "don't bite the hand that feeds you".

the principle of "not harming others" does not bring us to the point "People ought to obey morality". There is no connection at all. Not only that, but not all people believe in that same morality, to the same level you are likely thinking of.

And why is harmony justifiable if I am not in the mood for harmony?

[black magick hustla]

Obviously morality does exist, to deny otherwise is just being infantile and rebellious for the sake of rebelliousness. Marxists understand thatmorality isa superstructural phenomenon of the economic base.

Morality in individual terms is impossible to discuss. It is something that comes from the heart and not logic or reason and therefore it is impossible to discuss. The only thing that can be discussed is whether something is compatible with certain moral axioms.

[RGacky3]

Morallity does'nt exist, its a concept, the same way freedom does'nt exist or happiness.

Morallity is either something you accept or you don't, if you do accept it your obligated to live by it, and defend it rationally, if you don't, then you have no business being a leftist, go and do the best for yourself as you can everyone else be damned, if you don't believe in morality thats the logical mindset.

I do accept morality and I try and live morally, and would like the world to be an ethical place, thats why I'm a socialist.

Essencially though, everyone belives in morality, even if they claim to not believe in it, I don't think I know of anyone that has some inborn sense of morality, be it twisted misguided or whatever, its still there, an inborn human desire to want things to be fair, just and free.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

What is morality? Can I see it? Can I taste it? Can I touch it? If not, then why do I bother with it? Where does it even come from? Why must I follow it?

If I can do evil as readily as good, and if good is some spiritual, intangible thing, that comes from nothing, then why must I follow it? It would seem ridiculous to submit myself to such a thing.
The same can be said for ideals and ideologies. I can't taste, touch or see communism or anarchism or whatever ideology it is you're touting, so why bother? I think this is a classic misunderstanding of materialism. People seem to think that nothing which you cannot reach out and physically touch is worth acknowledging, much less fighting for. In many cases where materialism is one aspect of a greater ideal, that (mis)understanding directly contradicts itself.

Regarding the question put forward in the OP, it of course depends on how you define morality (*shudder* I hate saying that, because it's a totally generic beat-around-the-bush answer to any question asking one's opinion on anything, but it must be said in this case). I am aware that some people may define morality as "how God says things should be done" or whatever, which is a pretty vague and not particularly compelling definition. If morality is by definition dependent on the existence of a God whose existence cannot possibly be proven, then it could be said that morality needn't be a part of society at all. But that itself is a flawed view of morality. I think any materialist should know that morality exists and has a large influence on society whether or not God (or whatever entity certain people may use to subjectively rationalize their particular morality) actually exists. In that regard, it's similar to religion.

It's clear to any objective observer that morality is a system of value judgement based on categorizing things into right or wrong (though in reality most systems of morality work on a sliding scale of sorts). Miriam Webster Online defines "moral" principally as "of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior". To deny that people do not views actions or views as being right or wrong, or at least some as being more right or wrong than others, is patently unmaterialist. That's exactly my point to the person I quoted above; morality exists as a system of thoughts and ideas, and thoughts ideas exist (though not in tangible form) so so does morality.

So yes, I think morality as a concept is valid (that is an answer indpeendent of the maerits of any particular moral system or code). I have a morality. Certain acts I view as rights, certain acts as wrong. Some are more right or wrong than others. The overwhelming majority of people think this way so it is right to say that morality has a place in the world.

[Anti Freedom]

The same can be said for ideals and ideologies. I can't taste, touch or see communism or anarchism or whatever ideology it is you're touting, so why bother? I think this is a classic misunderstanding of materialism. People seem to think that nothing which you cannot reach out and physically touch is worth acknowledging, much less fighting for. In many cases where materialism is one aspect of a greater ideal, that (mis)understanding directly contradicts itself.
I haven't put forward an ideology. Not only that, but I haven't strove to say that all things must be material. I have just tried to put forward a basis for doubting the existence of morality, without having to cite something more complex, such as the "Is-Ought problem" or the "argument from queerness". This is particularly effective, because morality is not the same as an idea, but rather more like a global level constant, such that if it has no effect, then it can be reduced away.


It's clear to any objective observer that morality is a system of value judgement based on categorizing things into right or wrong (though in reality most systems of morality work on a sliding scale of sorts). Miriam Webster Online defines "moral" principally as "of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior". To deny that people do not views actions or views as being right or wrong, or at least some as being more right or wrong than others, is patently unmaterialist. That's exactly my point to the person I quoted above; morality exists as a system of thoughts and ideas, and thoughts ideas exist (though not in tangible form) so so does morality.
The issue is that morality isn't an idea, it is a prescription. To suggest that the universe prescribes a certain means of acting is preposterous. To suggest that what other people prescribe has real meaning to it seems equally preposterous. To suggest that *I* need to prescribe morality, also seems preposterous. Now, would I deny that certain people view certain actions through a "moral code". No. But the issue is that morality does not refer to individuals and their notions, but rather refers back to something above individuals and their notions. As such, the meta-ethical principle I would adhere to would be skepticism/nihilism towards these notions, as opposed to relativism, as relativism tends to deny the traditional understandings of morality, which are notably non-relativist.



So yes, I think morality as a concept is valid (that is an answer indpeendent of the maerits of any particular moral system or code). I have a morality. Certain acts I view as rights, certain acts as wrong. Some are more right or wrong than others. The overwhelming majority of people think this way so it is right to say that morality has a place in the world.
And I think that morality has problems in terms of actually existing. People can have moral notions, but the notion that these moral notions *ought* to be followed does not follow. Thus morality, if it cannot translate the is to the ought, is incoherent.

[ernie]

but at the end, many of you hate capitalism beccause of its discutable morality, the way we lets thounsand of millions starve, and i am one supporting socialism beccause of his higher moral stand.
I don't think we should oppose capitalism because it is immoral. I would say that it's idealist to think that a revolution that stands on such shaky ground could be successful. The reason for workers to oppose capitalism is objective: they lead crappy lives. The reason for workers to want communism is also objective: their quality of life will infinitely improve. You can objectively measure these two things.

On the other hand, it is perfectly understandable that the ruling class defends capitalism and opposed communism. To them, it's perfectly "moral" to condemn millions to a life of wage-slavery, and they know that a revolution would mean, at best, the end of their lavish lifestyles (and at worst, their execution).

You may call these reasons morals, if you want, but it wouldn't be a very accurate use of the word. Morality usually means a code of conduct that is universal to all inhabitants of a certain place.


if there is no such thing like morality and ethics, well, why does it matter to lets million starve then?
It matters to the ones who are starving! They are the ones who have to destroy capitalism, based on the objective observation that they are starving.


but dont you think its a big big turndown compared to the ethical and moral reason most of people actually suport communism?
No. If anything, a revolution that destroyed capitalism because it is "immoral" wouldn't be very successful. Nothing based on idealism is usually successful.


if its true there is no such thing has morality, then what stalin did was okay
It was OK to him. It wasn't OK to those that he executed. I don't think we ought to be discussing if it was "right" in general, but if it was right for the working class of the USSR.

[Elliot_R]

anti-freedom: sorry i cant quote :P haha if everyone is united by a common moral code, we can feel secure as a group. otherwise there is no solidarity. in order for society to work in such the way that we want it to, we need people connected in the sense that people should not harm others, as that is all morality is based on. everyone has, in a sense, some moral foundation, although they might be screwed up, it is evident. the thing is why must people harm others in the first place? encouraging or emphasizing people to treat others the way you want to be treated is the very principle of morality. however when people treat others like scum, it would be morally acceptable to limit their freedom in order for society to feel secure, hence we are back to the security concept as the why people would encourage morality.

[Anti Freedom]

anti-freedom: sorry i cant quote :P haha if everyone is united by a common moral code, we can feel secure as a group. otherwise there is no solidarity. in order for society to work in such the way that we want it to, we need people connected in the sense that people should not harm others, as that is all morality is based on. everyone has, in a sense, some moral foundation, although they might be screwed up, it is evident. the thing is why must people harm others in the first place? encouraging or emphasizing people to treat others the way you want to be treated is the very principle of morality. however when people treat others like scum, it would be morally acceptable to limit their freedom in order for society to feel secure, hence we are back to the security concept as the why people would encourage morality.
You can't quote? Strange.

The notion "let's all have a common moral code" has a totalitarian tendency to it. Thus I say, "I don't care, just don't fuck with me". By this rule, there is of a national god over anyone, and we get the same result. Part of the issue you give here, is that everyone has moral foundation, which is arguably true, but it just reveals how everybody defines the term differently. In any case, I hold to egoism, I do what I want to do, and nobody can tell me otherwise.

As for the principles of morality, there is no set statement one what they are, we have had divine kings, murderous churches, extremist pacifists, and objectivists, all claiming that they represent morality.

[Jazzratt]

Everyone thinks of actions as acceptable, commendable or reprehensible (well, somewhere on a continuum with those points anyway). This could well be called their personal morality, and that is certainly a thing. However this personal morality is invented entirely invented by those that hold them - so yes there well be a morality but "objective" not so much.

[Anti Freedom]

Everyone thinks of actions as acceptable, commendable or reprehensible (well, somewhere on a continuum with those points anyway). This could well be called their personal morality, and that is certainly a thing. However this personal morality is invented entirely invented by those that hold them - so yes there well be a morality but "objective" not so much.
And if that is the case, the the concept of morality is merely a matter of personal psychology, but not valid beyond that simple point. In which case, it hardly carries the weight that the term "moral" has traditionally laid claim to.

[Jazzratt]

And if that is the case, the the concept of morality is merely a matter of personal psychology, but not valid beyond that simple point. In which case, it hardly carries the weight that the term "moral" has traditionally laid claim to.

It's perfectly valid. My judgement that exploiting workers is wrong carries weight, it is shared by people and we can argue, logically, why it is immoral. This carries weight. Simply because there is no objective morality does not mean that one moral system is not superior to another.

[Anti Freedom]

It's perfectly valid. My judgement that exploiting workers is wrong carries weight, it is shared by people and we can argue, logically, why it is immoral. This carries weight. Simply because there is no objective morality does not mean that one moral system is not superior to another.
It carries as much weight as my judgment that Beethoven was a better musician than Mozart.

The issue is that to argue why your morality is better requires a such thing as an objective moral fact to base the argument off of, just as to argue that a piece is aesthetically better than another requires an aesthetic fact.

If we then have, based upon objective moral fact, a justified moral conclusion, then what makes morality *not* objective? There isn't a single non-objective element to it. And the betterness of something according to subjective criterion is just that, subjective.

Frankly, I find the notion that moral facts can be found to be absurd.

[Bud Struggle]

It's perfectly valid. My judgement that exploiting workers is wrong carries weight, it is shared by people and we can argue, logically, why it is immoral. This carries weight. Simply because there is no objective morality does not mean that one moral system is not superior to another.

Who is to say what's superior--the winner?


Frankly, I find the notion that moral facts can be found to be absurd.

Without a final decision maker (God) I agree. I find it impossible to even believe any moral hierarchy can be found.

[Jazzratt]

Who is to say what's superior--the winner?

If need be.


Without a final decision maker (God) I agree. I find it impossible to even believe any moral hierarchy can be found.

I am more moral than savage cock splashes that throw acid in women's faces. All the anti-morality brigade can consider that before they go off on their ivory tower rants about the "weight" of morality.

[Bud Struggle]

If need be.



I am more moral than savage cock splashes that throw acid in women's faces. All the anti-morality brigade can consider that before they go off on their ivory tower rants about the "weight" of morality.

But what if the "winner" is the guy that spills acid in a girls face? What if the "winner" is the Nazis (as in 1933 Germany) so they are "right?"

What makes you think you are more moral than anyone else? Who makes the rules--who is to say?

[Anti Freedom]

I am more moral than savage cock splashes that throw acid in women's faces. All the anti-morality brigade can consider that before they go off on their ivory tower rants about the "weight" of morality.
Says who? Why is throwing acid in women's faces wrong? I mean, I wouldn't do that, it is against my best interests, but I don't see why morality falls into it. I mean, the connection has no logical connection to it.

In the end, I have to agree with TomK that morality *is* a religious concept, and that removing it from that framework does not work. Nature has no care for what people do. And what one group people think has nothing to do with what the individual does. Thus, a person who casts down religion, would logically cast down the rest of that whole mess as well.

[Elliot_R]

yeah you can do whatever the hell you want but if cause harm to me or anyone else then someone should be allowed to kill you from preveting harm to others. you know, you can still live with this screwed up concept of "morality" or egoism or whatever but eventually the things you do is gonna haunt you and you'll wind up dead. i would assume morality is rather universal. its based on not harming others, as simple as that.

[Bud Struggle]

yeah you can do whatever the hell you want but if cause harm to me or anyone else then someone should be allowed to kill you from preveting harm to others. you know, you can still live with this screwed up concept of "morality" or egoism or whatever but eventually the things you do is gonna haunt you and you'll wind up dead. i would assume morality is rather universal. its based on not harming others, as simple as that.

I don't see it as being universal--morality is always specific to a paticular place and time. Being in Hitler's Germany it was perfectly natural to hate Jews, being in the American South before the Civil war it was perfectly natural to believe in slavery. Living in ancient Rome it was perfectly natural for a father to have life or death rights over his family. North Koreans find Kim Jong-Il glorius leadership quite pleasing, some people think Stalin was quite wonderful. It's all arbitrary. Who's to judge what is good or bad?

Looking back into the past a man from the future may see our society as being perfectly barbaric.

[RGacky3]

Thats not because Morality changes, its because understanding of reality changes. Morality generally stays the same, the reason in Germany it was natural to hate jews was because they thought that Jews ruined society, they believed all the lies about Jews, their morality was the same, but they were in ignorance so their morality could be overcome.

Same with the South, Slaves were seen as subhuman, almost animalistic, so slavery could be justified and their moral counsious be in tact.

[Bud Struggle]

Thats not because Morality changes, its because understanding of reality changes. Morality generally stays the same, the reason in Germany it was natural to hate jews was because they thought that Jews ruined society, they believed all the lies about Jews, their morality was the same, but they were in ignorance so their morality could be overcome.

Same with the South, Slaves were seen as subhuman, almost animalistic, so slavery could be justified and their moral counsious be in tact.

Then our understand of reality is subjective? It changes according to our conditions and our place and time? I more or less see it that our morality changes. Jefferson KNEW that blacks were totally human and intelligent--yet he chose to keep them. Most Germans lived next door to Jews and knew them and their lives--yet they chose to kill their neighbors on some flimsey excuses.

When you construct an ethic without God--everyone is God.

[RebelDog]

Of course there is morality. Marmot touched on the reality when he/she stated that there is a configuration between reality and the economic base. Look at formal morality like things like the deceleration of human rights or the NHS. Modern society has won those through struggle and working class culture and ideas permeating bourgeois culture and politics. These 'gains' in morality were not given they were won by a new force in society (the working class) influencing bourgeois power. Morality is crudely dependent on class, and the human brain is wired to favour which morality is more 'acceptable' given the historical age or circumstance. Morality is something that is within the abstract evolution of memetics and can thus be influenced, exploited, corrupted, within a generation by conteporary powerful ideas. Thus given a real change in society we see a real change in morality.

[trivas7]

Ask yourself: what gives rise to the whole idea of morality? Does anyone need a moral code? What good are values? Why?

[Anti Freedom]

When you construct an ethic without God--everyone is God.
And shit, why shouldn't we be? If I am not God, then who else should be God? Who else should dictate what is right and wrong for me to do? Some anthropized universe? Some other body of men? Some sophism that I will dangle over myself and everyone else?

[PostAnarchy]

Morality is something that is totally subjective depending on the individual. Therefore gov and society have no business enforcing it.

[Bud Struggle]

Morality is something that is totally subjective depending on the individual. Therefore gov and society have no business enforcing it.

This would be the best defense of Capitalism ever made. Good for you! :)

[Plagueround]

This would be the best defense of Capitalism ever made. Good for you! :)

Except if the government isn't around, there is no guarantee that capitalism will have anyone to defend it. Recall that property rights require a recognition either by agreement or force.

[Bud Struggle]

Except if the government isn't around, there is no guarantee that capitalism will have anyone to defend it. Recall that property rights require a recognition either by agreement or force.

You don't need a government to have force. In fact government gets in the way of Capitalist force. The Mafia is raw Capitalism.

[PostAnarchy]

That is true, gov is no solution

[Bud Struggle]

That is true, gov is no solution

Private Capitalist armies. :thumbup1:

[Plagueround]

You don't need a government to have force. In fact government gets in the way of Capitalist force.

Right. However, without government there is no guarantee that people would maintain capitalism. Government as we have it legitimizes capitalism as our economic system, and there isn't much one can do to get around that. There is no guarantee that the agreement that people come to (or force upon one another) would look anything like capitalism. Personally, I'm of the mind that without government (but with organization) the majority of society would move toward autonomous collectives (like Dennis in Monty Python describes :D). If capitalism continued without government I think we would likely descend into a quasi-feudalist hellhole. To be honest, GeneCosta articulates this better than I do.


Private Capitalist armies. :thumbup1:

Anarcho-cappie! Get him!

[Bud Struggle]

Right. However, without government there is no guarantee that people would maintain capitalism. Government as we have it legitimizes capitalism as our economic system, and there isn't much one can do to get around that. There is no guarantee that the agreement that people come to (or force upon one another) would look anything like capitalism. Personally, I'm of the mind that without government (but with organization) the majority of society would move toward autonomous collectives (like Dennis in Monty Python describes :D). If capitalism continued without government I think we would likely descend into a quasi-feudalist hellhole. To be honest, GeneCosta articulates this better than I do. Without government there would be minor capitalism. You'd sell your apples to me for my tomatos, etc. Money is just an add on value. That's just basic human understanding of how to survive. On the other hand you do need a government to have an Exxon. Completely different kind of Capitalism.

I agree that government keeps Capitalism in check. The United States is just a Capitalistic as the Soviet Union was Communist--neither are/were the real thing.


Anarcho-cappie! Get him! As we say inthe Mafia : Whack him!:)

[Ele'ill]

do you think morality have its place in the world has we know it today?
and if yes, how far should it goes.

I guess I have to first define what morality means to me. Making sure nobody is better than anybody else and every individual's talents are accepted as long as these talents do not interfere with someone elses life(?)

As for the first few posts in this thread, killing is wrong, not mainly because it removes someone from the food chain permanently, but because its one of the harshest forms of control that we know. I guess you can say its a permanent form of slavery.

[Anti Freedom]

Morality is something that is totally subjective depending on the individual. Therefore gov and society have no business enforcing it.
How does non-enforcement look?

I mean, technically, if the government has no right enforcing morality, then it has little right to exist, as governmental actions all stem from a moral precept, save perhaps in cases where the government is run by an egoist. As for society, well... how do you stop society from basing actions upon it's own view points? I mean, the counter-force to that would be a force to enforce a moral standard. Thus, in essence, a statement like this ignores the non-neutrality of any individual government or group.

As for the issue of whether or not the result would be capitalist or not, I suppose that *could* be arguable. However, individualist anarchists branching down from Stirner have based some of their positions upon this anti-moral idea for awhile, whereas libertarians have tended towards notions of rights or utilitarian ideas. Per Bylund is probably the most explicitly anti-imposed structure anarcho-capitalist though, as seems to be his argument in this piece here:
http://www.perbylund.com/the_library_statistmindsetofanarchists.htm
I would say that David Friedman also does well in arguing a society with no absolute moral basis, but free association in the absence of government; his arguments for this system are utilitarian. Nozick also should get *some* credit for his notion of freely chosen utopias in the back of his major book on government. However, most cappies seem pretty intensely focused upon moral rights, or maybe utilitarian arguments for how things should be done.