On a recent episode of Liberty Curious, Kate Wand sat down with Bruce Pardy, professor of Law and Executive Director of Rights Probe to discuss the woke virus of the mind.
The comments section was full of passionate and interesting criticism and debate on one particular issue: can we all universally agree on what is right and wrong and then let that determine our rights?
So Kate asked Bruce to come back and go through some of your comments together. To begin, they examined how we might differentiate moral philosophy from individual rights and the law.
In delving deep into these kinds of questions and concepts, they came across two common arguments for liberty: the moral argument, and the consequentialist one (liberty produces better outcomes). Bruce argues that both of these arguments for liberty fall short, and shares his thesis for a third way.
Visit Bruce’s organization at Rightsprobe.org
We hope you enjoy this episode of liberty curious, and as always, please feel free to let us know what you think in the comments section.
Please note that the opinions expressed in this podcast are solely those of the host and her guests. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Institute for Economic Research. The content presented in this show is intended for educational purposes only, and should not be considered as financial advice.
Enjoy all our podcasts at aier.org/podcasts
Use these time stamps to navigate the discussion:
0:00 – intro
2:00 – Objective Morality
5:30 – Comment #1
10:30 – Of Course, ‘This is Immoral’
12:50 – Utility Argument
14:50 – Bodily Autonomy
17:28 – Misgendering
18:35 – Comment #2
21:00 – The Ten Commandments
24:07 – The Non-Aggression Principle
27:10 – One Choice
32:58 – The Use of Force
34:40 – Social Contract Theory
36:10 – Comment #3
42:22 – Arguments for Liberty
47:50 – Producing Efficient Outcomes
51:15 – Liberty By Consent (Third Way)
55:40 America’s Founding Principles
1:02:43 – What Would That World Look Like?
