Autor: Renato C. Drumond | Publicado: 2007-12-18T15:01:00-07:00

Comentários sobre a ética rothbardiana IINo capítulo 2 do seu livro "Ethics of Liberty", Murray Rothbard defende a idéia de que o homem possui uma natureza:"IT IS INDEED PUZZLING that so many modern philosophers should sniff at the very term “nature” as an injection of mysticism and the supernatural. An apple, let fall, will drop to the ground; this we all observe and acknowledge to be in the nature of the apple (as well as the world in general). Two atoms of hydrogen combined with one of oxygen will yield one molecule of water—behavior that is uniquely in the nature of hydrogen, oxygen, and water. There is nothing arcane or mystical about such observations. Why then cavil at the concept of “nature”? The world, in fact, consists of a myriad number of observable things, or entities. This is surely an observable fact. Since the world does not consist of one homogenous thing or entity alone, it follows that each one of these different things possesses differing attributes, otherwise they would all be the same thing. But if A, B, C, etc., have different attributes, it follows immediately that they have different natures. It also follows that when these various things meet and interact, a specifically delimitable and definable result will occur. In short, specific, delimitable causes will have specific, delimitable effects. The observable behavior of each of these entities is the law of their natures, and this law includes what happens as a result of the interactions. The complex that we may build up of these laws may be termed the structure of natural law. What is “mystical” about that?       In the field of purely physical laws, this concept will usually differ from modern positivistic terminology only on high philosophical levels; applied to man, however, the concept is far more controversial. And yet, if apples and stones and roses each have their specific natures, is man the only entity, the only being, that cannot have one? And if man does have a nature, why cannot it too be open to rational observation and reflection? If all things have natures, then surely man's nature is open to inspection; the current brusque rejection of the concept of the nature of man is therefore arbitrary and a priori."No capítulo 3, tenta erigir a idéia de uma ética baseada em tal natureza:"IF, THEN, THE NATURAL law is discovered by reason from “the basic inclinations of human nature . . . absolute, immutable, and of universal validity for all times and places,” it follows that the natural law provides an objective set of ethical norms by which to gauge human actions at any time or place.The natural law is, in essence, a profoundly “radical” ethic, for it holds the existing status quo, which might grossly violate natural law, up to the unsparing and unyielding light of reason. In the realm of politics or State action, the natural law presents man with a set of norms which may well be radically critical of existing positive law imposed by the State. At this point, we need only stress that the very existence of a natural law discoverable by reason is a potentially powerful threat to the status quo and a standing reproach to the reign of blindly traditional custom or the arbitrary will of the State apparatus."Esta é uma passagem que não é explicada. Quando dizemos que uma maçã possui uma natureza, significa que não é possível que uma mação possa fazer(ou melhor dizendo, que algo possa ser feito com a maçã) algo que contrarie a sua natureza. Da mesma forma, quando dizemos que o homem possui uma natureza, significa que ele não pode fazer nada que contrarie a sua natureza. Não é possível que um homem engravide, nem que uma pessoa passe 10 anos sem comer. Mas a ética trata de como as pessoas devem agir, e isto não pode ser confundido com como as pessoas podem agir, visto que a natureza apenas define como as pessoas podem agir, mas o dever ético implica que o indivíduo abdique de agir de determinadas formas, mesmo que elas sejam possíveis segundo a sua natureza. A natureza humana define somente um conteúdo mínimo de discussão ética, cabendo espaço para muito mais ser discutido.A natureza humana serve, portanto, para definir os limites da discussão ética, excluindo éticas de conteúdo absurdo, mas nunca pode ser suficiente para determinar uma ética em particular.