Comment: I'm sorry that you were

(See in situ)

I'm sorry that you were

I'm sorry that you were unable to follow the reasoning, you seem to have come away without any understanding of the points.

I'll just summarize:

If naturalism is accurate, and it may well be, there is no reason to think there are moral demands on other people.

There can be legal agreements they've made, enforced by law or violence, but moral standards are just subjective.

But if my interests are better served by violating some demand that is traditionally considered morally binding on everyone, I can apply my own subjective rules: advancing my personal interests, my family, my class or party, my professional group, my nation, my ethnic group, some ideology, some business interests, etc.

If people were not just animals, but souls with a creator, the picture is arguably different. In that scenario, every person might have objective worth in the eye of its creator, who imposes rules.

I don't adhere to either view, but I realize that on the former view, libertarianism cannot be maintained except as an argument rooted in the subjective values or interests of a person.

It's right because its good for me, or because it serves my highest ideological end of 'freedom,' or my end of social well being, which others might not adhere to.

But even if I adhere to libertarian ideals as the utilitarian end of my own ideology, it is highly unlikely the average person will adopt my goals because its best for 'everyone.' We can observe that isn't how people behave or adopt views.

People act in self interest in general and if they accept naturalism, they aren't likely to adopt libertarianism by being convinced of its long run social utility. They'll just act in self interest.