The post is concerned with whether people can consider their moral demands as actually true and binding, or just subjectively valid for a specifc end-goal (equality, liberty, nationalism).
Other than for discussions sake what does this provide us?
I have the right to demand others don't harm me or steal from me and that can have no theistic moral basis. Yet, the values are consistent with many theistic morals. So it's really a mute point.In other words, who cares if we both agree?
The only real argument that can be made is where reason and theistic morals diverge.
As such, these are hardly "hard truths" for libertarians as many libertarians realize this already. Where reason and theistic morals diverge may be hard truths for libertarian theists but not for libertarians in general.
"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."
Click Here To See The Candidates On The Record
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: