David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Critical Review 6 (1):83-96 (1992)
This is a rejoinder to some of the contentions of Part II of Jeffrey Friedman's monster article (or mini?book?) about ?The New Consensus.? After questioning his supposedly ?non?tendentious understanding of Marx,? it proceeds to deny that what Friedman calls Positive Libertarianism is any more a sort of libertarianism than imaginary or non?existent cows are a kind of cows; and to insist that what Friedman calls morality is light years removed from the dutiful, domestic decencies of what would normally be considered moral conduct. Next it examines Friedman's misunderstandings of option rights, which actually presuppose only the weakest possible claims to equality. Finally it concludes with criticism of his bizarre and perverse assumption that concern about the consequences of our actions has little or nothing rather than almost everything to do with their morality.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Antony Flew (1995). Thinking About Social Thinking. Prometheus Books.
Citations of this work BETA
Jeffrey Friedman (1997). What's Wrong with Libertarianism. Critical Review 11 (3):407-467.
Jeffrey Friedman (1998). The Libertarian Straddle: Rejoinder to Palmer and Sciabarra. Critical Review 12 (3):359-388.
Jeffrey Friedman (1992). After Libertarianism: Rejoinder to Narveson, McCloskey, Flew, and Machan. Critical Review 6 (1):113-152.
Similar books and articles
David L. Brooks (1994). The Problems of Postlibertarianism: Reply to Friedman. Critical Review 8 (1):85-94.
Tom G. Palmer (1998). What'snotwrong with Libertarianism: Reply to Friedman. Critical Review 12 (3):337-358.
David Teira (2009). Why Friedman's Methodology Did Not Generate Consensus Among Economists? Journal of the History of Economic Thought 31 (2):201-214.
Jan Narveson (1992). Libertarianism, Postlibertarianism, and the Welfare State: Reply to Friedman. Critical Review 6 (1):45-82.
W. William Woolsey (1994). Libertarianisms: Mainstream, Radical, and Post. Critical Review 8 (1):73-84.
Walter Block (2010). Milton Friedman on Intolerance: A Critique. Libertarian Papers 2.
Lesley Friedman (1993). Reply to Flage's On Friedman's Look. Hume Studies 19 (1):199-202.
Ingrid Harris (1994). “Instincts Into Sacred Cows”: Are Hermeneutical Universalsreducibleto Agreement? Reply to Friedman. Critical Review 8 (1):113-136.
Walter Block (2011). David Friedman and Libertarianism: A Critique. Libertarian Papers 3.
Farhad Rassekh (2000). Smith, Friedman, and Self-Interest in Ethical Society. Business Ethics Quarterly 10 (3):659-674.
Bill Shaw (1988). A Reply to Thomas Mulligan's “Critique of Milton Friedman's Essay 'the Social Responsibility of Business to Increase its Profits'”. Journal of Business Ethics 7 (7):537 - 543.
Thomas Mayer (1997). The Rhetoric of Friedman's Quantity Theory Manifesto. Journal of Economic Methodology 4 (2):199-220.
Richard J. Ellis (1993). The Case for Cultural Theory: Reply to Friedman. Critical Review 7 (1):81-128.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2011-10-18
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?