june

isn't the store owner the one leveraging the force of the state? he's the one abiding by their (forced) rules and using those rules to shut down other people/competitors.

the child, as an individual, is still the one making their own decisions. just saying "i was manipulated by someone to be under their control" does not absolve them of that fact

i know you have already answered it. i said in my previous post that those who claim universality are answering all pertaining scenarios that can be, which means you have already answered every lifeboat scenario that can be proposed, before they have been asked. people who ask lifeboat scenarios to universalists dont realise this and so tend to form their lifeboat scenarios in questions, which, obviously, does not make much sense when the person has already given an answer. like, if someone states their belief that "killing a human is wrong, universally, no matter what" it would be redundant to then ask "so is killing wrong in situation X ?" yeah, thats probably because they disagree with the result of your universal answer. for instance, when you state: "You are not compelled to act to prevent the death of the innocent," some people would think it is wrong for a person to not save an innocent life when all that person needs to do is, say, lift their arm, or push a button - something of extreme minutiae. this is a fundamental disagreement though and it requires more conversing and inspection of underlying issues. i dont want to get into that though, so its good enough for me right now

that depends on how you judge typical instances of violence (physical, etc). if you judge typical violence objectively, then words - if they are also violent - must also be judged objectively.

"test" is a better word, in my opinion. they are designed to put a proposed claim to test, to see if it stands up to inspection is it realistic? arguably not. does it fit under universality (all scenarios, contexts and time)? yes, it does.

maybe they are downvoting your arguments for your disdain of lifeboat problems? for instance, where is the logic in claiming universal moral rules - which means rules that apply to all scenarios, contexts and times - and then refusing to entertain moral scenarios which fit under universality? it's actually those who claim universality that are giving an answer to all lifeboat problems, before the lifeboat problems are asked. that's what universality means - that the claim applies to all scenarios and contexts. so i find it problematic for someone to claim universality and then shirk at the idea of defending their position

you cannot answer this question without first defining "force". once you define "force" (and thus define an immoral act, because force is immoral), then you will know what constitutes just prevention.

i am operating under the principle that force/breaching someone elses property rights (Selfownership) is immoral. are you?if you are, then you need to explain how such scenarios (of "fraud" or "lying", like the example above) are in breach of selfownership. otherwise it cannot be said to be immoral.

so?this person did not use violence against me , nor act immorally; or are you suggesting that lying is an immoral act? if that is what you are saying, please specify how you quantify that.

could you explain how such acts are "crimes"? you just sort of stated that like it is presumed , but it is notif someone walks into my store and yells "you need to give me all your produce or else the world will end!" and i then hand them all my goods, then that is an action that i voluntarily choose to do. he did not hold a gun to my head or force me to hand over the produce. so if you want to classify theese acts as crimes , then you need to prove where the force and immorality is

it is pointless to ask questions that extend from the NAP without defining what the NAP actually is.in other words, define the word "force". and only then will you get your answer

if your child voluntary chose to interact with such persons, would you use force to stop them?

i mean that if an effect of your action is not "natural and predictable", does morality then not apply?if you answer "yes", then the next question must be "how do you define a "natural and predictable" effect?" but forseeing isn't a black and white scenario, there are lots of grey areas too. almost always there is a certain risk of something going wrong with any action. for example: i know there is a possibility (however slim) that the food i bought could possibly cause harm to my child; i know that me crossing the road at a red light contains the possibility of being run over; i know that me driving in a car has a possibility of being in crash.i forsee such possibilities of these actions. i forsee that i can be a in car crash just by being on the road (even if i am at no "direct" fault for the accident). so does this mean that i am morally culpable for the harm that my child faces in this scenario? i didnt "directly" cause the crash, but i forsaw that such a thing could happen by driving on the road. so does morality apply here?this all comes down to your definition of "natural and predictable".

so if the effect of an action isn't "natural and predictable", then morality is not a factor? and how do you determine what is "natural and predictable", specifically?

i partook in a recent discussion about this topic. i believe the problem at hand here is figuring out what constitutes a "direct" or "indirect" effect of an action, or if there is a true distinction between the two at all?the example i used -- which is not too dissimilar to yours, davinci, in its logic -- was what if a man lifted up a woman without her consent (and thus initiated force) and placed her in a different location, and then the women was struck by lightening (this is, say, a billion-to-1 chance) and died. is the man responsible for that death? or is the man only responsible for the unconsented lifting of another person? where and how do you draw that line? before you answer, ponder this more likely example too: what if the man lifted and placed the woman on a highway, and the woman was struck by car (which is, say, a 2-to-1 chance). again, is the man responsible for that death, or just responsible for the lifting of another person? where and how do you draw that line? i dont know about davinci, but the principle i am attempting to rely on/understand is stefan's "you own the effects of your actions" principle. as davincis hypothetical has pondered (purposefully or not*): what actually constitutes an "effect of one's actions"? how is it determined, specifically?i also want to point out that this a universal principle that has already been put forward by stefan, so it is he who has already "placed himself in an abstract, morally ambivalent situation" and made a judgement on the morality of it ("you own the effects of your actions"). hypothetical examples like davinci's are merely an attempt to examine this already put-forward principle in more detail to figure out the intricacies* davinci, would you say my interpretation of what your argument represents is accurate?