csbrown28
DP Veteran
- Joined
- May 6, 2013
- Messages
- 3,102
- Reaction score
- 1,604
- Location
- NW Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Ok, if we're going to have an intelligent discussion about the NAP then you can't throw a bunch of weird situations at me and expect me to have the ultimate solution to all of them.
I'll answer the construction example, since that at least has some modicum of reality in it. Breaking contractual agreement does not initiate violent force against someone. It cannot be compared to punching someone in the face or taking their stuff. Besides, no one in their right mind would persecute you for delaying your job to save the life of a child.
Let me say something that might help you understand a bit better. The NAP is an absolute principle, but all moral codes must be taken into context. A moral code is there as a guiding principle, not something you have to follow 100% or the whole world will end. You can throw weird, crazy, highly unorthodox examples at me and watch me struggle to live up to your expectation of me having every solution to every moral dillema you could dream up. But that's counterproductive, isn't it? Your train situation, while cleverly thought up, has less than 1% chance of ever happening in your life. Using that example does not discount the NAP as a generally good guiding principle to follow in our daily lives. Don't hurt people, and don't take their stuff. Individual judgement and context is still necessary. It is necessary for every moral code man has ever thought up.
That was your argument though. Your argument was that the NAP principle which is essentially a principle built on peace would somehow lead to chaos and war. There is no real historical or logical basis for your comments at all.
This is true. Sometimes the alternative is to allow those willing to use force to do anything they want to anybody. Including not defending yourself, your property, your spouse, your children, your neighbor, your community, targeted victims, your nation, etc. And is NAP a moral decision or immoral decision in such circumstances?
I've talked to many-a-libertarian who has justified non-action based on the ideals of non-aggression. For instance preventing someone from hurting or killing themselves, or in a less drastic example is someone who wants to do meth (which, arguably, unlike other drugs is clearly very harmful) or suffers from Pica and drinks Pin Sol or eats excrement.
Rare as it is (Pica not meth), according to NAP, I would have no right to forcefully prevent someone from hurting themselves, be it acute or not.
If you're faced with a decision to A.) Do nothing and let 5 people die or B.) pull a lever and save 5 people while letting one die, where is the aggression in that? That's not aggressive or violent at all, I think.
I've talked to many-a-libertarian who has justified non-action based on the ideals of non-aggression. For instance preventing someone from hurting or killing themselves, or in a less drastic example is someone who wants to do meth (which, arguably, unlike other drugs is clearly very harmful) or suffers from Pica and drinks Pin Sol or eats excrement. Rare as it is (Pica not meth), according to NAP, I would have no right to forcefully prevent someone from hurting themselves, be it acute or not.
It sounds to me like you've adopted a much "softer" version of NAP, but given the ambiguity of more complex situations, it sounds like you appeal to your own intuition rather than the moral and ethical prescription of NAP.
If you can't look to the principles given without appealing to your own intuition, it seems that it's not very helpful as a moral and ethical guideline....
You should read the following book. It short so it shouldn't take you long. The answer is however in the first paragraph.
VicesAreNotCrimes
In short, if someone is only harming themselves there is no justification to use legal force against them.
No. The promise of the NAP does not depend on universal adherence to it, nor does any other moral code. Should you kill people because others do it? Steal because others do it? Just because there are people that don't follow your moral code does not mean it is not worth following.
You've gone way off-track, hun. The principles of non-action have not even been brought up in this discussion yet. We have not yet discussed the ethical implications of preventing someone from doing drugs, so I'm not sure why you're assuming my answer here or bringing it up like it's been discussed.
Find me a moral code that can be followed 100% without any context or individual situational judgement. If you do, which you won't, then and only then can you condemn the NAP for not being able to do the same thing. But until then, I stand by my conclusion that the NAP does require situational context as it is more of a guiding principle than anything else. As is every moral code.
Why bring in a third party and then ignore that third party? If there's some third party then there's the ethical relationships between me and that third party and you and that third party. It clutters things.In other words if I had to take, occupy, destroy, move or use your property without your permission to save 1 or many lives, would that be considered using force against you and would you be justified in using force against me to prevent me from taking, occupying, destroying, moving or using your property without your permission? If I asked and you said no, would that make any difference?
Let me get this straight. Upholding a moral philosophy that condemns the initiation of force will lead to war?
We have had the Just War Theory since the 13th Century. Look at all the wars and upheaval to the "social order" since then.And a general break down of social order. That is quite certain. All society depends on implied force.
It's not a statement of expectation--there's no dreaming.It's a utopian pipe dream
If you're faced with a decision to A.) Do nothing and let 5 people die or B.) pull a lever and save 5 people while letting one die, where is the aggression in that? That's not aggressive or violent at all, I think.
Vices have consequences. Once made aware of those consequences and the suffering they cause not only the person taking the harmful action, but other people that are affected by and care for the person in question how much responsibility does a person have? When does a harmful action taken in error not corrected have an element of malice?
Malice? Well, if the intent is to enjoy yourself then never.
Why bring in a third party and then ignore that third party? If there's some third party then there's the ethical relationships between me and that third party and you and that third party. It clutters things.
Why not let's say that your life is in danger? And that you "had" to "take, occupy, destroy, move or use" my property to save yourself from that danger?
Off the bat we can see that there's already some sort of a "coercive" relationship going on in that I or my "agents" are threatening you.
If the threat is intentional (or the result of negligence), then the ethical decision seems to be relatively straightforward.
Should we say that the threat is instead "unintended" and not the result of negligence to keep it interesting?
As a result of forces beyond human anticipation or control,
Are you justified in using force to save your own hide?
- you are unable to relocate in time,
- my un-manned thresher is bearing down on you full steam,
- and you have a rocket launcher at the ready...
Really? Pulling the lever and directly causing the death of someone that wouldn't have died otherwise isn't aggression? I mean, you can argue it was justified aggression, but it's still aggression. The conundrum in the question is that doing nothing causes more harm than taking aggressive action. NAP ethically says that you shouldn't aggress against anyone, ever unless they have done so against you.
Now, some in this thread are saying context matters (which I don't disagree with), but the NAP says NOTHING about context. NAP as an ethical prescription is useless imo because the hardest ethical and moral questions are rarely easy.
I guess I was mistaken about what "aggression" means. I think you're right, the NAP would argue that you shouldn't pull that lever. So yes, it's not a perfect concept. But in fairness, there are scenarios where utilitarianism and Kantianism also allow for things that are obviously immoral:A.) Do nothing and let 5 people die or B.) pull a lever which will kill one person
You are taking a positive action which will result in the death of another human.
The five people are already going to die as a result of causes you had nothing to do with.
People are dying all over the world and my donations could be saving them with food, medicine, mosquito netting, w/e.
Am I morally responsible for the deaths of these people?
If not, why would physical proximity and/or imminence make me more morally responsible?
If I choose to pull a lever which results in the death of a person, how am I not responsible for that?
What if it was a million people? Is there any number that's so high it actually becomes unethical to not save them in spite of the consequence?If I do nothing, some asshole tying people to train tracks has killed five people.
If I switch the trolley to kill the one, I have killed the one. The switch should remain untouched.
The only one I am allowed to sacrifice to save many is myself.
If I do nothing, some asshole tying people to train tracks has killed five people.
If I switch the trolley to kill the one, I have killed the one. The switch should remain untouched.
The only one I am allowed to sacrifice to save many is myself.
I am not so sure that this is always true.It may be fine for those who are committed to it moreso than any other principal or concern, but any number of moral codes fall by the wayside if someone is in dire straits. The human will to survive and prosper tends to win out for most people. So unless this moral code can provide for enough of the majority that people will believe in it in a practical way, that moral code will erode.
There are stories and there are probably a majority of people who would try to stay good. This we see in third countries today. But we also see widespread corruption, gang activity, cults, and other causes of increases in violence and misery caused by the stresses of poverty. Enough of the population turns that morality in general fallsI am not so sure that this is always true.
We've been a cooperative species for quite some time.
It's easy to come by stories of people risking a lot to help others in times of disaster etc.
But, to the point, if something is only your moral code when things are going your way, then it's not really your moral code. It's just lip-service.
I guess I was mistaken about what "aggression" means. I think you're right, the NAP would argue that you shouldn't pull that lever. So yes, it's not a perfect concept. But in fairness, there are scenarios where utilitarianism and Kantianism also allow for things that are obviously immoral:
- If 100 people get enough pleasure from throwing a baby into a volcano that it supercedes the pain & suffering caused to the baby, and nobody else ever knows about it, utilitarianism says that's ok.
- If you live in Nazi Germany and you're hiding Jews in your attic, Kantianism says it's immoral to lie to the SS troops when they knock on your door asking about Jews in the house.
So I guess they're all flawed in one way or another. But other than examples like these, I think they're useful tools and I've not often found them to be blatantly wrong like this.
I guess I was mistaken about what "aggression" means. I think you're right, the NAP would argue that you shouldn't pull that lever. So yes, it's not a perfect concept. But in fairness, there are scenarios where utilitarianism and Kantianism also allow for things that are obviously immoral:
- If 100 people get enough pleasure from throwing a baby into a volcano that it supercedes the pain & suffering caused to the baby, and nobody else ever knows about it, utilitarianism says that's ok.
- If you live in Nazi Germany and you're hiding Jews in your attic, Kantianism says it's immoral to lie to the SS troops when they knock on your door asking about Jews in the house.
So I guess they're all flawed in one way or another. But other than examples like these, I think they're useful tools and I've not often found them to be blatantly wrong like this.
If I do nothing, some asshole tying people to train tracks has killed five people.
If I switch the trolley to kill the one, I have killed the one. The switch should remain untouched.
The only one I am allowed to sacrifice to save many is myself.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?