Vallentyne 2010 and Zwolinski 2008 are internet encyclopaedia articles on “libertarianism” which include various serious faults. Vallentyne 2010 has the following ones. It does not properly explain mainstream libertarianism or consider criticisms of it. Instead, it mainly discusses self-ownership and natural-resource egalitarianism. Every aspect of the alleged “strict sense” of “libertarianism” is dubi ous, at best. So- called “left - libertarianism” is not made sense of as any kind of liberty-based libertarianism. Problems arise because self-ownership is assumed to (...) be libertarian without an explicit theory of libertarian liberty. The replies to “five impor tant objections to full self- ownership” are confused and mistaken; both as regards philosophical analysis and as regards empirical assumptions. The long discussion about various ways to “Appropriate Natural Resources” is rendered muddled and barren by the lack of a clear libertarian theory of liberty, the mere presumption of some form of egalitarianism, and the inclusion of various non-libertarian criteria. The remaining sections are largely uninformed by any relevant libertarian literature. It reaches a justificationist conclusion that cites mistaken welfare concerns and ignores the productivity of free markets. Zwolinski 2008 shares some errors with Vallentyne 2010, but also includes the following ones. It is even less clear about what libertarian liberty is. It fails to understand that libertarianism (private-property anarchy and, possibly, minarchy) is a subset of classical liberalism. It asserts that libertarianism is about “the proper role of government.” It assumes (illogical) justificationist/foundationalist epistemology and does not mention critical-rationalist libertarianism. It eventually faults justificationism and unwittingly assumes something approaching critical rationalism. Finally, it embraces John Rawls’s “overlapping consensus” as a “justification” (i.e., defence) of libertarianism oblivious to the similar position in Lester 1996 and 2000. (shrink)

Standard decision theory has trouble handling cases involving acts without finite expected values. This paper has two aims. First, building on earlier work by Colyvan (2008), Easwaran (2014), and Lauwers and Vallentyne (2016), it develops a proposal for dealing with such cases, Difference Minimizing Theory. Difference Minimizing Theory provides satisfactory verdicts in a broader range of cases than its predecessors. And it vindicates two highly plausible principles of standard decision theory, Stochastic Equivalence and Stochastic Dominance. The second aim is (...) to assess some recent arguments against Stochastic Equivalence and Stochastic Dominance. If successful, these arguments refute Difference Minimizing Theory. This paper contends that these arguments are not successful. (shrink)

Suppose we wish to decide which of a pair of actions has better consequences in a case in which both actions result in infinite utility. Peter Vallentyne and others have proposed that one action has better consequences than a second if there is a time after which the cumulative utility of the first action always outstrips the cumulative utility of the second. I argue against this principle, in particular I show how cases may arise in which up to any (...) point of time action a1 produces more utility than action a2, yet for each individual involved a2 produces more utility. (shrink)

Je m’interroge dans cet article sur les implications du principe libertarien de la pleine propriété de soi sur la question du rapport moral à soi-même. À travers le principe de la pleine propriété de soi, les libertariens défendent la liberté entière de chacun de vivre comme il l’entend, pourvu que les droits des autres soient respectés. Apparemment, ce principe n’a pas grand-chose à nous dire sur ce que nous sommes moralement autorisés à nous faire à nous-mêmes ou non. Certains libertariens, (...) comme Vallentyne, soutiennent toutefois que le principe de la pleine propriété de soi est incompatible avec l’existence de devoirs envers soi. La pleine propriété de soi impliquerait l’indifférence morale du rapport à soi. Je soutiens dans cet article que le principe de la pleine propriété de soi n’implique pas que ce que nous nous faisons à nous-mêmes soit moralement indifférent. Je veux aussi montrer que même si les libertariens, et en particulier Vallentyne, soutiennent la thèse de l’indifférence morale du rapport à soi, celle-ci n’est pas liée à la thèse de la pleine propriété de soi, mais bien plutôt à leur subjectivisme moral. (shrink)