june

"Are you saying that everybody needs nourishment to survive, so eating food isn't a choice, and therefor stealing food isn't immoral?"No. The final part of your sentence i am not saying, because that jmplies that a person could steal whenever they want. Rather i am asking when is the limit of "no choice" (and thus exception to morals) reached, how is it decided? For example, you mention a person just needs a job to pay for water, but what if no jobs are available? then is it valid for this person to steal water, be ause they have "no choice" and be ause it is "simply a matter of survival" (according to cherapple)? Also, i am not saying anything , but merely offering scenarios to test cherapples logic ( "In the past, people had much less choice, and where there is no choice, actions are neither moral, nor immoral, but simply a matter of survival."). I am curious how far cherapple takes this logic, and what acts from the past s/he is willing to overlook due to it simply being "a matter of survival". Is nazi who tortured jews not deemed immoral because if they refused their survival would have been risk? Is a starving man who steals food not immoral because they simply needed to survive? I am not proposing anything myself, but merely trying to gauge to what degree cherapple is willing to apply her/his logic of morals.

Interesting. I was under the impression that most members on here believed in absolute/universal/empirical morals, largely because i have heard molyneux declare moral principles as such. Would you agree with the sentiment that your opinion is not the standard for freedomdomainradio members? This is a just a personal question i am interested in because i may have misjudged the standard moral belief system due to largely paying attention to molyneux as the go-to ancap (so to speak), and its something that i could use correcting on."There is no moral absolute; there is only increased possibility for morality. "Stating it like that sounds like there is some moral ceiling/absolute that one can reach. But that could just be a problem of semantics. Could you define what you mean by 'morality'?

i would also add to this the quote: "In the past, people had much less choice, and where there is no choice, actions are neither moral, nor immoral, but simply a matter of survival." Which again implies relativity to the scenario. For example, theft of someones property is something that is considered universally immoral (feel free to disagree on that though), yet if a person is dying of thirst he can steal someone elses water and have that action deemed not immoral, because it was "simply a matter of survival".

"If creating life is initiating harm due to downstream events, then I would argue (sarcastically) that sufficiently humane and painless murder is prevention of harm due to elimination of all future harms the murder victim would have to endure. "Interesting thought. Logically, yes, that does follow. However the important difference between these scenarios is thatin yours the rights of property are violated, be ause you are murdering another PERSON, whilst in mine propery rights remain untouched, because there is no person being violated (how can you violate childs propery rignts by not having a child?)"saving somebody from death is on the same level because, like the created life, they will be initiated to new harm that their death would have spared them from. For that reason I think it is hard to avoid some measure of totals."The caveat here is simply consent. If a person gives their voluntary consent that they want ti remain alive then saving them from death is within your right, even if your savjng of them causes harm. For example, you push someone to the ground (initiating harm) to move them out of the way of an incoming truck. This is a not a violation because you have the persons consent i such a scenario, so one form of harm can be outweighed by another, be ause of their consent that they wish to stay alive. (This scenario actually happened to someone of this forum, however they did not have consent to use force, therefore i argued that they breached the nap)The reason i am using tbe specific example of an unborn child is that, unlike your examples, consent and property rights are not applicable/cannot be determined, so the act of having a child and everything which subsequently follows in that childs life is the part responsibility of the person who purposefully conceived that child. Interesting thought test you proposed however. I enjoyed that

"What do I mean by "if life is inherently good"?.... if it is inherently better than not life, even given the inevitable trials, tribulations and harms that will become of said life."you posed the question but then did not provide answer. Again, what DO you mean by "life is inherently good?""If creating life is inherently of value, to the life being created, then I don't think it's possible to argue, that creation is a cause of harm. "Again, this all depends on you actually defining what "life is inherently good" means. "Creating a life, whose entire experience is being thirsty and starving for two days before it dies would still be causing harm, because the sum total of experiencing life, would be negative. "Wait, this is a change of argument, and verg important to note. You are now diverging from 'form of harm' (which is what i and you were arguing, because initiating harm is a violation of tbe nap and your new definition of it) to 'sum total of harm', which is totally different. You are now arguing that having a child is not an initiation of harm because at the end of that childs life the child may feel more positive than negative, by 'sum total'. You are redefining the act of harm. This is like saying if i unnesesecarily punch someone in the face and make him lose his teeth, which then leads to him going to the dentist and meeting a nice nurse, and subsequently dating and marrying that nurse and living a happy life, then my act of punching him in the face is not a breach of if the nap (or your new definition) because the sum total of what my act commenced was positive. "Sum total" is a massive altering of what it means to initiate harm, and this new defi ition could be used to brush aside many acts of harm under the guise of 'oh but it eventualy made things good!'. IN FACT, you have pretty much agreed with my argument, in a roundabout way, be ause this 'sum total' definiton conflates all forms of harm - even those not directly inflicted by the parent - unto the parent!!!!! For example, you say that it is immoral to create life which has a negative 'sum total',.. okay, but a parent doesnt have to be invovled i that negativeness. For example, a parent has a child, and then the child dies of a disease within a day, so the sum total of that childs life is negative, and thus the parent has acted immorally, by creating a life with a sum total of negative.And as a final point, i think his 'sum total' definiton may be the crux of our discussion here, and it actually clears up some of your previous points which i was c onfused about at the time. See, we both agree that life occurs inevitable harm, so i argue that creating life is an initiation of harm - because harm is harm - whilst you argue that it is not harm, because the positives outweigh the harm. BUT the argument is not about whether one outweihs the other (as partly demonstrated in my above punching example), harm is still harm, is it not, and it is thus a violation of the nap (and your new defi ition of it).

Thats like saying the act of a punch to the face causing harm is not a choice because pain receptors are autonomus biology. This conversation is obviously about the act/choice of having a child. Rather pedantic argument you have made here

i cannot respond to your second paragraph because to do so relies on clearing our differences of opinio in regards to your first paragragh/sentence, so that is where i will focus."Morality requires choice. Birth is an autonomic biological process."So having children is not a choice, in your opinion. Okay. I have a couple of queries with that. Firstly, what is your explaination for peopele who do not have children? Secondly, if children (or the attempt of having children, as some people are biologically unable) is an absolute human need without choice, what if a man or woman cannot find a voluntary partner to pair with, is it subsequently not a choice (and therefore not a moral issue) if that person rapes another person in the hope of producing children?

it may or may not be. you have silently refused to explained some of your terms, so i cannot further this conversation until you do so. for instance, what does life being 'inherently good' actually mean? does this mean it is always morally acceptable to give life, regardless of situation (e.g. literally not being able to provide anything to the child and thus having the child likely die soon after birth... is that 'inherently good'?.. i don't know, you haven't explained this term at all)?

"can we view the creation of life, as a cause of harm, if the parents don't initiate harm on the child during life, and life is inherently good?"firstly, my answer is yes. just because the parents don't directly harm the child themselves they have still initiated the a form of harm, which is in the form inevitable harm (and even this example i would disagree with, because the form of mental harm is equally as inevitable in my opinion, if the parent actually spends time with the child in any substantial way, which i am assuming so).secondly, your "life is inherently good" statement, i'm not exactly sure what this statement entails in regards to our conversation. how is life inherently good? explain that to me. and let's say your explanation is held true, and life is explained to be inherently good.. okay, so what? just because life is inherently good that does not mean that any being would inevitably choose life. it's like saying (and please intervene if this is inaccurate, as it depends on my prior request for your definition of 'inherently good') "water is inherently good, therefore everyone will always choose to drink water"... of course this statement is completely false as it could be someones voluntary choice to only drink orange juice, lemonade, or just not drink anything at all."if you accepted that premise, could you call the initiation of life, a cause of harm, just because people eventually will get bullied or have their heart broken? I would say, no. We can disagree on this fairly though, for very real, but probabilistic, not causal reasons."you say this, but in your previous post you also say this: "You can not be held responsible for harm that you have not caused."Definition of cause: The producer of an effect, result, or consequence.Definition of consequence: Something that logically or naturally follows from an action or condition (the inevitable harm logically follows form giving life, as you have stated yourself)this is a contradiction in logic. so i ask again: is the parent a total non-responsible entity in the process of birth giving?

"The difference between inevitable harm, and "a cause of harm", is responsibility. You can not be held responsible for harm that you have not caused." Definition of responsibility: Being a source or cause; Able to make moral or rational decisions on one's own and therefore answerable for one's behavior. Definition of cause: The producer of an effect, result, or consequence. Definition of effect, and consequence: Something brought about by a cause or agent; Something that logically or naturally follows from an action or condition so i have to restate, how can you wash away responsibility from the life giver in this scenario when the life giver is perfectly aware that they are initiating inevitable of harm? do they hold no responsibility?

how is it faulty, how is it inconsistent, and how is it pedantic? please make an argument instead of just throwing out labels.i am making an argument against the nap by it's very definition. if you treat the nap as something to follow even though it can be poked with holes left and right (you seem to imply as such when you said "This is why discussing the NAP as a philosophical term is useless compared to UPB. Which doesn't allow for conflated premises like the NAP is prone too) then that is your prerogative, and maybe it is best for you to not partake in a discussion which is aimed at exploring the fundamental premise of the nap and how it withstands to the application of rigorous logic.

i want to firstly say i appriciate this direct response to my argument as it feels that quite a few of my last posts have been me having to simply restate my position instead of having to actually back it up because of counter-arguments. so thank you for this head-on acknowledgement of my position along with your rebuttal of it. now onto my counter"The problem with that argument, is that the singular act of creating life, which does lead to inevitable harm, also leads to inevitable joy. So, to call the creation of life, which creates inevitable joy, an initiation of harm, is quite a stretch.... To call the creation of life, an initiation of harm, is to look at the inevitable harm that everyone experiences, in a vacuum."it is not "quite a stretch". it is actually a dead-on fact. just because life brings joy along with harm does not mean you can brush one of those elements aside or describe it as "in a vaccum". it's not the a vacuum, it is the very point of this argument. life brings envitable harm - stone cold fact. within the defintion of the nap -- and your redefined defintion of it -- this is what matters, by definition. nothing else can side-step this fact, and thus i have to restate my argument that the act of creating life is a violation of the nap and also your new defintion of it."The act of creation, is an initiation of life. Other individuals, and parents, may cause harm, but that harm is not the moral responsibility of the creators, unless they cause it personally."this goes back to the argument (which has already been discussed in this thread; refer to post #13, #14 & #15 for a specific example) of: what is the moral difference between initiating envitable harm and initiating direct harm? i proposed this question earlier but nobody answered. i am keen to hear responses to this question as i think (and have argued) that it is important to clarify for the sake of this conversation/argument. yes. either that, or realise that the nap (and lifeisbrief's new defintion of it) is not valid

@xelent, i wasnt aware that this was how the nap was viewed, and regardless, i was merely arguing against it's defintition, so the arguments remain valid i feel, until it's definition is altered to include such context. (also, my arguments are still relevant towards Lifeisbrief's new refined definition of the nap, from which this thread is about)

"Inevitable harm, is a consequence of being alive. Direct harm, is harm caused by the individual."And an individual can give life unto another individual, thus initiating inevitable harm. Which is my original argument...

I have described at length what i am talking about. You can define it which ever way you like - the information/argument still stays the same

how is the nap supposed to be discussed in your opinion, as opposed to as a philosophical term? "Well the lack of "needs" as you say doesn't factor over everything either, at least I'm not convinced by it-"i did not say that nor mean to imply that. there will almost always be exceptions. my point is that deprivation is a cause for the vast amount of the world's social problems -- not all of them."I've had the misfortune to meet and know a couple people who were raised in well-intentioned, non-violent homes, and turned out as thieves, liars, cheaters, and ones who were prone to violence, with no honor, values, or virtue at all."the 'home' is not the only influencing factor. everything in which a person is exposed to is a factor, the home is just one of them, a large factor yes, but the influence of the society -- which is another variation of the 'home' really, but in a larger sense -- is also a large factor also.

"what you're saying is that most violations of the NAP come from what I call "Aladdin Thieves,""no. that was just one example, so don't draw a specific conclusion from it because it also applies to other instances. for example, a bully who punches another student is not an "Aladdin's Thief" (at least it doesn't sound as so from your definition. this is the first time i've heard the term) because he not acting for any real 'benefit' to anything. BUT, what if this bully was raised in severely deprived home (again, be it physical or mental) which inflicted these abborant behaviours onto him? the 'chain' then goes back to what caused his parents to raise him so poorly? which again, would be due to their physical and mental deprivation."however I disagree whole-heartedly that the solution is as simple as you say "addressed and altered beneficially.""that is not a solution. that is the process to arrive at solutions."I sincerely hope you aren't suggesting some kind of altruistic scheme lol"well my argument is basically that physical and mental deprivation causes 'abborant' behaviour (as we perceive it, at least), so my actual suggestion would be to have proper physical and mental nourishment provided to fulfill these needs. that's basically it. people may agree or disgaree on how these needs are best gone about being met, but the underlying logic remains the same.

-- "The NAP doesn't care about people's past unless it is directly relevant to the moral judgment in question."-- "If it were- you might as well trace back human evil- to what?"to what you ask? to find answers! solutions to the problems! to figure out why 'nap' violations actually occur in the first place! what real solution is it to put a thief (a nap violator) in jail who stole to feed his family? this act of thievery is a subsequent link in a long chain of events (such as mental and physical deprivation), and to truly stop this violation from occuring the chain needs to be retraced backwards, then assessed, then altered for the better, if possible. and in my opinion, the overwhelming majority of abborant behaviours spawn from people living in deprivation, whether it be physical depreviation such as food, water and shelter (or the security of such things) or mental deprevitation (e.g. not having a loving family to meet emotional needs -- something stefan is accurately passionate about).so yes, absolutely, these factors need to be re-traced! i also see you used the word "evil", but i don't see it as that at all per say. i see it as expected behaviour when such factors like physical and mental deprivation are taken into account (and i also include lack of knowledge as a form of mental deprivation) -- if you put people in a world where there literally is only enough food to feed 5% of the population i believe mass violence is pretty much an envitability, and so for that violence to truly to stopped there needs to be enough food for 100% of the people (and also the proper knowledge of such from the people, but lets stick with just food here). the question then becomes is it possible to provide food for everyone? well in todays world i believe that is an overwhelming yes -- and that isn't even taking into account the potential % if technolog was focused on this task in which enough food could be provided for say 1000%, 10,000% of the people.my point here is that violations of the nap will always occur unless the 'factors' (e.g lack of food, water, shelter, knowledge, handle of emotions, security etc. -- basically, humans needs) are addressed and altered benefically. otherwise violations will keep occuring. i guess it's like an equation in that sense, if humans needs are being met at a scale of 1/10 (very poorly), then abborant behaviour is much more likely, whilst if human needs are being met at a scale of 10/10 then abborant behaviours will occur signifcantly less (obviously this scale is just used to highlight my point, don't take it literally)

a new hypothetical has crossed my mind and i would be very interested to hear peoples' takes on it ( also posted here: http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/38135-is-it-is-immoral-to-initiate-a-cause-of-harm-more-comprehensive/ ):seeing as a child owns full property of itself, if a parent gives birth to a child and then simply does not interact with the child at all, causing the child to starve and die, hasn't this parent NOT violated the nap (no initiation of force), and thus is totally morally permissable? i.e, can a person stand-by and have their baby starve to death and still be acting within the nap?

"Then is what we are talking about going outside the NAP?"well that is the crux of the argument in my opinion, because if 'indirect' force is outside the realm of the nap then the nap is basically useless, because indirect force can be just harmful, and more so in certain cases, than 'direct' force. so what good is the nap if it excludes indirect force?|"I agree that there could be more at work, but children aren't entirely helpless- small children yes but after about 8 or so their capacity for reason grows exponentially."okay, so apply all those questions (and anymore you can think of yourself) to a child under 8."I only used "A bullies B" to attempt to illustrate that the parents cannot hold the entirety of the blame for the evil which fall upon their children."oh absolutely. i am not arguing that the parents are the sole perpetrator, quite the contrary, it is lots of factors/people which are involved (hence my statement: "violence is a process, not a singular act"). my point is that the parents can be involved in just as much violence to the child as the bully, except they were not using 'direct' force, for example (and i am i going to post this hypothetical in my thread as i think it is a very interesting point):seeing as a child owns full property of itself, if a parent gives birth to a child and then simply does not interact with the child at all, causing the child to starve and die, hasn't this parent NOT violated the nap (no initiation of force), and thus is totally morally permissable? i.e, can a person stand-by and have their baby starve to death and still be acting within the nap?

precisely -- especially in regards to your final statement. i argue that there is more at work here than just "bully punched the kid, therefore the bully is at fault". it could be likened to a parent placing their child in the middle of a highway and then the child gets run over -- did the parent directly hit the kid with the car? no. but that does not remove the blame for initiating an almost enivetable form of harm unto that child, and thus my point about how giving birth to a child at all is a violation of the nap (along with other arguments about consent, which i have discussed in my thread)"Violence is a process, not a singular action"

"Harm will inevitably be initiated on any human being, at some point in their life, but the creation of that life is not inherently one of those harms"i do agree with this, but the difference of opinion here is that i do not differientiate between 'inherent harm' or not, because the outcome is the same. as you stated, "Harm will inevitably be initiated on any human being", so although a parent having a child isn't a direct, head-on form of harm, it is still acting as an initatior by willingly opening the floodgates to allow harm to occur.could you expand on how you morally differentiate between allowing "envitable" harm and acting in "direct" harm?"If it is good to be alive, creating life, does not initiate harm, and in general, I'm a big fan of life."i do not agree. firstly, "you" being a fan a life is irrelevant, because it is not your life whose opinion is relevant here, it is the childs, and you cannot decide for the child whether his/her life is 'good' or not, especially not before the act of having a child (because that's impossible, obviously). secondly, even if the child thought it "is good to be alive" overall, that still does not remove the fact that harm will have occured unto that child/person at some point in time -- harm is harm, just because they may enjoy life does not lessen that fact.

"Is life better than the alternative? I think so, but until I'm absolutely sure, I would suggest it would be immoral for me to bring a child into the world."the term 'better' does not come into it. this is about 'inititation of harm', and having a child initiates harm (or so i would argue). also, if so it is immoral to bring a child into the world, is it then moral to cause harm to those who have children as a means of self-defense against their inititation of harm?"... I would argue that most parents currently cause a child harm by bringing them into the world, due to the fact they are unprepared to raise it in a peaceful manner that will bring the child joy."i would agree. but parenting is only one factor (other factors would be the enivornment, ie. having children whilst in poverty). as i stated, i believe harm (whether mental or physical) is inevitable in a human life, therefore the act of having a child itself would breach your claim -- even the best parents in the world cannot stop a child/person from facing mental or physical harm at some point in their lives.

hi, i created a thread ( http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/37657-nap-property-rights-how-it-applies-to-children/ ) which contains some arguments which would put this statement to test, so hopefully that may be of interest to you (it's directed toward the nap but i believe it is also relevant to your claim)and to make a direct argument: would the act of having children violate your statement? because life itself will inevitbly face some type of 'harm' (right?), so having children is an initiation of harm. what do you think of this?

this is boring. i do not want to partake in personal jabs of this side vs that side. stop berating me for having a viewpoint and instead lets discuss the actual information at hand. if you have a problem with anything i said then don't simply label me as this or that, actually make an argument to refute it. peace