jpahmad

In reality, there is an offer of a monetary transaction. The thing is, asking someone to kill someone else for you, although a bad thing to do, does not violate the NAP. The action of asking someone to do harm to someone else can be universalized without contradiction under the UPB framework. Perhaps that which is "immoral" and that which violates the NAP, could be two separate, but overlapping categories. Another problem with classifying asking someone to do harm as a violation of the NAP, is that one should then be able to use force to stop it. So, if a crazy person on the street says "hey man, will you kill that person over there"? I should be morally able to use deadly force against him to stop him from saying that. That doesn't quite make sense does it?

What's the difference between "not being a moral agent" and doing something immoral but no one caring about it? It is a matter of semantics. If someone has a gun to my wife's head and orders me to steal a candy bar, I'm quite positive that no one will prosecute me for stealing a candy bar. I don't think there is one person on earth who will accuse me of doing something "immoral" in that situation. The easiest way to organize this scenario into a larger ethical theory is to simply say that I was "not a moral agent" in that moment.

I don't understand what you mean. Could you rephrase that please?

So what your saying is that if person literally has a gun pointed to their head, they are still a moral agent. Correct?

Yes, please extrapolate a little bit. Are you saying that no one has a choice and therefore no one can be a moral agent? Could you use a concrete example?

Could you give me an example of how UPB does this?

no Let's say my daughter is kidnapped and I am told to go murder someone in order for her to be released. There is clear avoidability in this scenario. I can call the police and come up with a reasonable strategy. I can negotiate. I can buy time by using stall tactics. I can plead with the guy who has my daughter. I can pretend to kill someone. There is a certain amount of avoidability in this scenario like there is in any hostage scenario. I talked about avoidability in my video. It's a big part of the equation

I can explain concepts all day in this thread. At some point you have to use your own brain and comprehend them. I've explained the banana peel. I've explained conspiracy (in the video), I'm sure I could explain negligence if I felt like it. If you really cared about it, I'm sure you could figure out all the "what ifs" on your own. Be a big boy and try to do it without me.

Great, I hope to see your model posted on the boards soon. As soon as your done with your rounds of nitpicking. Best of luck

I think you should differentiate it for me. Tell me what you get using my model

Intentionaly leaving a banana peel on the steps is like using a hammer to strike someone. As stated in my video, it is a violation of the NAP Intentions are only observable if someone vocalizes their intentions

My model explains the banana. In my video, I demonstrate how using an inanimate object as a tool to harm is an act of aggression. If someone purposely leaves a banana peel on stops to harm someone, this is like using a hammer to hit someone on the head. Yes, that person would be in violation of the NAP

We're going in circles. Intentions are not observable. The banana example involves intentions. It cannot be analyzed in the UPB framework.

Conspiracy was discussed in the video. Negligence? Like the banana? Fraud is observable

Conspiracy was addressed in the video (the mob boss/hitman relatioship). Fraud is observable; It is a form of theft. Omission and negligence are basically the same thing. Each case would be analyzed separately.

Intentions are not observable my friend. Only observable behavior is to be considered. Leaving a banana peal on the stairs is not a violation of the NAP. It doesn't matter what the intentions are because my moral framework, as stated in the video, only concerns observable behavior. You can't observe someone's intentions, only their actions. Same goes for voting by the way. You can't observe intentions. All you can do is see someone put a vote into a ballot box. There are many reasons people vote and not all of them are malicious.

Why don't you solve it using my model? Why don't you make a video? Anyone can sit around and come up with endless life-boat situations.

So voting does matter. If everyone in the country voted for less taxes, and they taxed us more. The pretense of legitimacy would be shattered. If 51% of the country voted to "close the borders" and the government let in more immigrants and refugees, then the "pretense of legitimacy" would be shattered. Politicians are not dictators, they're opportunists. They do whatever the public wants them to do. The battle is with the ideology of the people. The politicians are irrelevant.

I'm not sure what you want me to do?

Why do they care?

What does it matter if I or Stefan endorsed Donald Trump? Voting had no effect right?

What do you mean "flavor of endorsement"?

Maybe it is, maybe it is not. It's the best so far though. Yes, and I already solved those. You are just emotionally not willing to accept that under a state of coercion, person C is not a moral agent. There is nothing wrong with that. In a free society, you don't have to do business with person C. So what's the problem? First of all, NOT AN ARGUMENT. Secondly, the horrible example a gave about "pouring gasoline over kids" is to show how emotional manipulation can, but not always remove moral agency. You can hardly blame a father who undergoes that kind of horrible situation for shooting person B in a state of complete emotional meltdown. Yes, it was an extreme example, but necessary to demonstrate a point.

Yes, but there is coercion involved. Think about avoidability. Can the repercussions of ignoring an executive decision from the president be avoided? The army is one giant killer robot that is directed by the executive branch of the government

How about if A threatened to burn your child to death in front of you if you don't shoot person B? While you child is having gasoline poured all over him/her, crying and calling out for you, what do you say to them before they get lit up? "Sorry son, If I shoot person B then I will be considered immoral by our current system of ethics." I say, you are not a moral agent in that situation. No one can be considered a moral agent in that situation. Libertus, like all "life-boat" situations that have been brought up throughout the life-time of this forum, the answer has always been that in a free society, the free-market will decide the fate of someone who finds themselves in an unfortunate and highly unlikely dilemma. There is nothing else to say about it. The model is a general guide and all the nuances should be left up to the personal interpretation of millions of people. If I shoot someone for walking across my front lawn, no, I didn't violate the NAP, but I'm an ASSHOLE. Who is going to want to do business with an asshole? If I shoot a person because someone told me to and threatened to slap me if I didn't, then I'm an idiot who probably needs mental help. Who would want to deal with a person like this in a free society, or any society? The free market will handle the nuances.