Search the Community

Dear Freedomain Radio Community, I am a 17 year old from Massachusetts (as an anarchist I tend to stand out like sore thumb, particularly in the free market discussions). Personally, I agree morally with The Non-Aggression Principle, but one specific point in this philosophy on morality in my critical thinking still escapes me. Many of my opposers when I point out the moral stance of Anarchy, weave their way past my moral rebuttals until I reach this one stone wall which I can't seem to look past. I'm hopeful you'll help me to better understand. So, what is this stone wall? Well...let me try to explain best I can with the wonderfully inconsistent education public schooling has brought me and the few books I have been able to read on the off chance I have a few bucks (You have no idea how much information the internet has opened up to me). I have come to the conclusion that morality can be defined by consensuality. If everyone agrees an action to be moral than by consensuality it is. Comparatively if everyone were to consider something immoral then, similarly, by consensuality it is. But if something is considered both immoral by some and moral by others (note I am not using the word "justified" in any of this) than it is neither immoral or moral but simply a personal discretion. I would say then that it is immoral for someone to force someone else to do or not do something they find moral or immoral. So simplistically saying people can do whatever they want. Yet this could constitute definitely immoral acts such as murder. This is the main problem I've been dealing with. If everyone can agree that murder is wrong, those who commit it have violated moral consensus and retaliation against that person is justified. But also if everyone can say that to force someone to do somthing is wrong, then, doing so would constitute retaliation against the person forcing someone else to do or not do something. So by definition this would constitute that by forcing someone NOT to commit murder, you have violated this principle. I may have complexed this a little too far, but then again this subject has been confusing me thoroughly, so I'll try and simplify my question. If some things are definitely immoral and constitute retaliation, including coercing someone to do or not to do a particular action, then couldn't forcing someone not to do something immoral, such as murder, be considered immoral? A response would be extremely helpful to me, morality seems to be a subject that keeps me up most nights. Von Mises liked to quote in his writings that economics was the most complexed art forms, misunderstood tremendously by the masses. Von Mises obviously never dived deep enough into moral theory, economics seems a cake walk to this massive mess. Thank you very much for any response. With considerations, A Secret Identity