masonman Posted June 28, 2013 Posted June 28, 2013 http://speaklibertynow.com/2013/06/01/subjective_nap/ The entire basis of the non-aggression principle, especially as characterized by the Stefan Molyneux “anarchist” crowd of natural rights advocates is to make the claim that in situations of interpersonal conflict, that one’s subjective scale of value is commensurable with another’s and in every case where ‘self defense’ is ‘justified’, the individual has ranked their own scale of value above that of all who disagree. Alternatively, arguments are presented that there exists an objective scale of value which can define rights from wrongs regardless of the scale of value of individuals. Lately I have been debating with many people who consider property rights to be the result of simple utilitarian reasoning. I really don't know where the truth is on this topic anymore.
SimonF Posted June 28, 2013 Posted June 28, 2013 Relativist mish mash. I think Sam Harris has a pretty good handle on some kind of objective scale of immorality. Our knowledge of medicine and physchology is such that we can get a reasonable view of what damages people and relatively and absolutely how much.As for what the right thing to do in any situation is I think we can only say based on reasonable assumptions about what might happen in the moment to the persons involved. I think ideas about "common good" are nebulous when large numbers of people are involved. The non-aggression principle could also be divorced from pure intellectualism and rooted objectively in the instinct to survive.
Lowe D Posted June 28, 2013 Posted June 28, 2013 Stealing is super utilitarian. Utilitarians who don't steal, just don't have enough sack.
SimonF Posted June 29, 2013 Posted June 29, 2013 Stealing is super utilitarian. Utilitarians who don't steal, just don't have enough sack. I don't think they will agree with this, they might say if you have less stuff you can steal from someone with more.
TheRobin Posted June 29, 2013 Posted June 29, 2013 accepting reason above irrationality is surely a subjective preference and not an objective absolute. But what comes out of reason is valid regardless of one's preferences.the NAP is objectively a valid universal moral principle, while anything that goes against it is logically invalid. People are free to not accept universal logical principles, but then they can't say you're wrong either, as it would then just be their preference, which has no say in how you should or shouldn't life your life (including correcting your argument). They might as well say, that they don't like you eating apples and should therefore stop eating them or something like that.Not sure how the link and quote has anything to do with property rights though
RestoringGuy Posted June 29, 2013 Posted June 29, 2013 the NAP is objectively a valid universal moral principle, while anything that goes against it is logically invalid. "Anything that goes against" seems too broad in order to be fully correct. It is possible a principle and its negation can each be individually consistent so long as they are not both taken at the same time. A system that claims the negation of NAP does not seem provable as logically invalid. A system that claims the inconsistency of NAP is stronger and you can probably show it is logically invalid, because the same inconsistency exists in system that lacks NAP. The arguments I have read on NAP seem to argue it does not lead to logical contradiction, not that it can be derived purely from logic. I could be wrong. I even hope I am wrong. But I have seen the term "universally valid" used interchangeably between a proof of consistency and a proof of logical truth. With consistency we only have a proof that an idea is viable, and not necessarily that things negating it are all proven to be nonviable. It's a weaker concept than universal truth, so rules like the excluded middle (x is true or else not x is true) do not get much traction when you only have a consistency proof in hand.
TheRobin Posted June 29, 2013 Posted June 29, 2013 the NAP is objectively a valid universal moral principle, while anything that goes against it is logically invalid. It is possible a principle and its negation can each be individually consistent so long as they are not both taken at the same time. That's what's meant with "universal" (all times and places, or if you prefer, all intances where the principle can be logically applied).I'm not sure what the rest means. Are you meanig to say that the NAP is consistent, but not derived from undisputable axioms and therefore can't really be proven correct by showing that the negation of the principle would lead to contradictions?
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted June 29, 2013 Posted June 29, 2013 I guess the scientific method or logic or accepting the truth that the NAP is a subjective preference are subjective preferences too. Is there such a thing as an objective preference?
masonman Posted June 29, 2013 Author Posted June 29, 2013 I would say there are preferences, and there is objectivity, and you can prefer NOT to follow objectivity if you like. I can prefer to think gravity does not exist when I walk off a cliff, that doesn't invalidate the law.
Dave Bockman Posted June 30, 2013 Posted June 30, 2013 He spelled Stef's name correctly. http://speaklibertynow.com/2013/06/01/subjective_nap/ The entire basis of the non-aggression principle, especially as characterized by the Stefan Molyneux “anarchist” crowd of natural rights advocates is to make the claim that in situations of interpersonal conflict, that one’s subjective scale of value is commensurable with another’s and in every case where ‘self defense’ is ‘justified’, the individual has ranked their own scale of value above that of all who disagree. Alternatively, arguments are presented that there exists an objective scale of value which can define rights from wrongs regardless of the scale of value of individuals. Lately I have been debating with many people who consider property rights to be the result of simple utilitarian reasoning. I really don't know where the truth is on this topic anymore.
masonman Posted July 1, 2013 Author Posted July 1, 2013 The author is quite prominent in the voluntaryist community on facebook, he considers UPB a destroyed theory. On a related note, have Danny Shahar and Stef ever had a debate/discussion?
PatrickC Posted July 2, 2013 Posted July 2, 2013 Yes, I believe he was active on the boards some years back. Not sure whether they actually debated verbally together or not, it seems like they didn't. This was a recent post about his criticisms of UPB that another listerner brought up. http://board.freedomainradio.com/forums/t/35139.aspx
RestoringGuy Posted July 3, 2013 Posted July 3, 2013 It is possible a principle and its negation can each be individually consistent so long as they are not both taken at the same time.That's what's meant with "universal" (all times and places, or if you prefer, all intances where the principle can be logically applied).I'm not sure what the rest means. Are you meanig to say that the NAP is consistent, but not derived from undisputable axioms and therefore can't really be proven correct by showing that the negation of the principle would lead to contradictions? Yes that's basically it. Although I think any axiom can be disputed (otherwise why not just derive it when needed), nobody seems to suggest there is any plausible set of purely logical axioms from which NAP is inescapably a conclusion. So if NAP is consistent and that seems to be the basis for its acceptance and universality, then it is done for convenience and speedy estimation of moral value, not necessarily airtight logic and a maximum avoidance of error. That is perhaps why things that go against NAP cannot be, in advance of evaluating them, known to be logically invalid. If somebody denies the consistency of NAP, not just its truth value, then it seems clearer to me that they are logically flawed.
Recommended Posts