Is "It is immoral to initiate a cause of harm" More Comprehensive?

[LifeIsBrief]

Recently, while goofing off on another forum, I tried to see if anyone could come up with an exception to the rule "It is immoral to initiate force".  Immediately people not just moved, but deleted the goal post suggesting I was a pacifist hippie, who wouldn't use force to prevent a rape or murder. Apparently, people don't understand the word initiate... and I blame the school system.  Eventually, however, someone gave an interesting answer.

 

It was a bit ridiculous, but there was an element of linguistic truth to the claim.  The example involved witnessing a sick child, who was not being literally abused, but whose parents were refusing to take them to a doctor even after being offered a ride, or assistance.  The only reason I could see for this, would be religious in nature, and thus you could easily argue, that the child was being forced by its parents to believe a religion they couldn't possibly understand... but, there was another possibility, crippling ignorance.  Someone who simply can't tell the difference between a cold, and something much more severe, which requires medical attention.  In that situation, I had to admit, that it might be moral for a school, or friend, to take the kid to the doctor, without permission of the parent or child.  Technically, it would be a moral initiation of force.

 

Stefan mentioned one recently as well, pushing a blind man out of the way of a speeding car, or trying to catch someone before they committed suicide.  In all of these cases however, I feel "It is immoral to initiate a cause of harm", would still work.  It's not the force that is immoral, but causing harm.  Even the darker example of the person committed to suicide would still hold up under this scrutiny.  If the person was in crippling agony, with a terminal disease, and you grabbed them, with no hope of changing their mind, you may have caused a bit of harm, and thus, you may owe that person an apology.  If, however, their girlfriend left them, or they were on a drug, or drunk, and not thinking clearly, using force to remove them from the cliff, and talking them down would not cause harm, and thus you made a moral choice.

 

Can anyone think of an exception to this rule?  It is immoral to initiate a cause of harm.  Is this a slightly more comprehensive statement?

 

Edit: This should have been in the Philosophy section.  Sorry about that.  Just to be clear, taxes, and states, always cause harm.

[june]

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?

[LifeIsBrief]

Good question... That's one I haven't quite answered for myself yet.  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.  I think two parents who live noble lives, free of vice, happily engaged with a community in which they are productive, and respected individuals do a wonderful service to themselves, the child, and the community by giving birth.  I wouldn't suggest it's the birth that causes harm, but the cruel people who surround it.  I don't know if you could make the argument it's not the initiation of force though, and 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.

[june]

"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. 

[LifeIsBrief]

I think we're just going to disagree on this.  Creating life isn't the initiation of the harm.  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.  Most parents will initiate harm, but that's when they do something immoral.  Whether or not this is a pure truism, with 0 possibility of contradictions, depends in some ways, on whether or not sadness/depression is purely genetic.  I don't think it is.  "Better" may be a poor choice of words, but it does matter.  If it is good to be alive, creating life, does not initiate harm, and in general, I'm a big fan of life.  There's a bit too much of it right now, and humanity should probably chill on the population... but creating life can only be seen as harmful, if being alive is inherently harmful, and I don't think it is.

[Pepin]

Ethics is a system based on knowledge. A doctor before the advent of antibiotics is not immoral for prescribing them for an infection, while a doctor in the modern age is immoral for not prescribing them for an infection. Someone who does surgery without any training or knowledge of the human body is knowingly doing harm to a person provided that they know that they don't know. A caregiver who parents without knowledge of parenting is like someone doing surgery without training. If a caregiver hits a child with the claim, the caregiver is immoral either for acting against their expertise in parenting care giving with concludes hitting is bad, or for conducting experiments without any sort of training on a live subject.

 

In matters outside the context of parenting, the caregiver would be informed of the reason and evidence for the correct action to take by a proper authority, and if the action is not taken it is assumed that the caregiver wishes to do harm to the child. For instance, if a child is quite ill and needs a shot otherwise they will die, a doctor would explain the reasoning and evidence as to the action that needed to be taken, and if the caregiver refused after understanding the consequences, the doctor would understand that the caregiver wants to kill the child and force can be used to provide care for the child. Though the focus is on the caregiver, it is really on the child in this circumstance.

 

Does the caregiver need to understand the pathology of the infection, or just the consequence? I'd claim just the consequence, and I can support this claim if needed. The expert of course needs to understand the pathology. There is a grey area is more controversial areas and in intelligence, which is why a rational society with authority figures that can be trusted is vital.

[RestoringGuy]

Ethics is a system based on knowledge. A doctor before the advent of antibiotics is not immoral for prescribing them for an infection, while a doctor in the modern age is immoral for not prescribing them for an infection. Someone who does surgery without any training or knowledge of the human body is knowingly doing harm to a person provided that they know that they don't know. A caregiver who parents without knowledge of parenting is like someone doing surgery without training. If a caregiver hits a child with the claim, the caregiver is immoral either for acting against their expertise in parenting care giving with concludes hitting is bad, or for conducting experiments without any sort of training on a live subject.

I take a more absolutist position.  If ethics is relative to knowledge, a person could just take a pill that makes them stupid or fail  to learn some fact that now gets them off the hook ethically.  You can say that act of ignorance is yet another choice they make based on knowledge, but the chain is now potentially infinite because ethical responsibility for that lack of knowledge comes from prior knowledge, and where does it all start exactly?  People will make errors, however small, correct them in the wrong way (because ethical wrongness is related to their knowledge of what is wrong), and without some absolute truth as the ethical correction they are free to leverage their lack of knowledge to make a slightly larger error until it eventually qualifies as initiating force.

 

To put this in perspective, knowledge-based ethics seems to say that to become completely right all we have to do is become stupid enough so that ethics no longer applies.  I take the opposite approach:  knowledge is a sideshow to ethics, only the optimal strategy is technically the right one, and we are imprisoned by imperfection, coping with our varying degrees of error from this ethical optimum.  Knowlege may make the error smaller, but it should not define ethics itself.

[LifeIsBrief]

That's my take as well RestoringGuy.  Doing something immoral out of ignorance, may be a more forgivable offense interpersonally, but it's still immoral.  Bloodletting, for example was immoral, even though people "didn't know better"... They at least knew it wasn't very effective, and they were still charging money for it.

[Omegahero09]

I had to admit, that it might be moral for a school, or friend, to take the kid to the doctor, without permission of the parent or child.  Technically, it would be a moral initiation of force.

Actually if the child is willing it isn't technically an initiation of force. I would hold that even if the child were an infant it still wouldn't count as the initiation of force. If you went to the parents and said "I have the ability to make this child well," and they denied your help- they would be in error. I can't imagine though an actual situation in which parents wouldn't want their child to become better... seems to go against what is natural of mothers especially. 

[Pepin]

I take a more absolutist position.  If ethics is relative to knowledge, a person could just take a pill that makes them stupid or fail  to learn some fact that now gets them off the hook ethically...

 

I'm having a difficult time responding understanding the theory in the concrete. Can you provide one or two blatant examples and the sort of appropriate action that can be taken against it? Can you also provide a more extreme/unexpected application of the argument that and the sort of action that can be taken?

 

I don't feel comfortable making an argument against your position at the moment because I feel like any example I'd make would be seen as a strawman, so seeing the extreme of the principal and an easy to digest example will likely help me to understand you position more exactly. I might even change my mind.

[RestoringGuy]

I'm having a difficult time responding understanding the theory in the concrete. Can you provide one or two blatant examples and the sort of appropriate action that can be taken against it? Can you also provide a more extreme/unexpected application of the argument that and the sort of action that can be taken?

To borrow your antibiotic example, it depends what you mean by "advent".  If there are effective antibiotics right there on the shelf, the ethical optimum may be to use them.  I doubt this because the optimum probably has not been discovered yet, but if they are essential to the outcome, it is still less erroneous than not using them.  Next, if antibiotics simply exist, but because of local shortage they are unavailable, or they are fake, or they are otherwise defective, or the guy gets run over on the way to the drugstore, prescribing them is a larger error.I suppose that is the extreme case.  I am not going so far as saying the we are personally and fully responsible for all these variables.  It's just that they cannot be excluded because you can often pick out a scenario where somebody "should have known better" (a phrase I dislike but can't avoid because "should" and "better" seem a bit redundant).  I think something like "access" to knowledge is a perhaps a bigger factor than knowledge itself, but "access" is another topic.

 

Another extreme example I will give is natural disaster.  In my view I do not go up to an avalanche or volcano and blame it for murder.  But that's not because I hold it as ethically exempt.  To me it is technically right to say a tornado is "evil", but it is also useless to say it.  The toronado and all of its causes are not susceptable to words, at least not in any way that correlates words to avoiding deadly outcomes.  This means, shockingly perhaps, that I am comfortable with a tornado being ethically "bad", but I believe that's a pointless (but not genuinely false) thing to say.  Feel free to highlight any gaps in my thinking. 

[june]

I think we're just going to disagree on this.  Creating life isn't the initiation of the harm.  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."Better" may be a poor choice of words, but it does matter.  If it is good to be alive, creating life, does not initiate harm, and in general, I'm a big fan of life.  There's a bit too much of it right now, and humanity should probably chill on the population... but creating life can only be seen as harmful, if being alive is inherently harmful, and I don't think it is.

"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.

[Omegahero09]

I think perhaps this may be getting a little out of place here.. If you hold the parent responsible for all the harm brought upon the child you detract from the evils which do the harm initially to the child. If you have a kid, and the kid gets assaulted by a bully in school- the bully is in error not you the parent. 

[Wesley]

If you have a kid, and the kid gets assaulted by a bully in school- the bully is in error not you the parent. 

Possibly, but I have some questions.

 

Why were you put in a school where there are bullies? Why were you not protected from bullying by your parents? Why is that kid a bully? What about his parents? Why was your kid able to be bullied or in a situation where he interacted with bullies?

 

I am sure there are other questions that could illustrate some of the obfuscation to the responsible party as it is not just an "A bullies B" interaction.

[june]

Possibly, but I have some questions.

 

Why were you put in a school where there are bullies? Why were you not protected from bullying by your parents? Why is that kid a bully? What about his parents? Why was your kid able to be bullied or in a situation where he interacted with bullies?

 

I am sure there are other questions that could illustrate some of the obfuscation to the responsible party as it is not just an "A bullies B" interaction.

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"

[Omegahero09]

Then is what we are talking about going outside the NAP? If the kid wanted to go to school and agreed to it (which he would we assume) then that's why he's there. 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. While there is more at work in the "A bullies B," anyone who initiates force is in error- regardless of process. EDIT 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. 

[june]

Then is what we are talking about going outside the NAP?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. While there is more at work in the "A bullies B," anyone who initiates force is in error- regardless of process. EDIT 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. 

"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?

[Omegahero09]

False. The NAP is not useless- because it holds that the initiator of the violence is in error. 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? If our parents are at fault- and murderers' and rapists' parents are at fault and so are their parents and ad infinitum to what? That's a really glum way of looking at life my friend. 

Also merry christmas

[june]

False. The NAP is not useless- because it holds that the initiator of the violence is in error. 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? If our parents are at fault- and murderers' and rapists' parents are at fault and so are their parents and ad infinitum to what? That's a really glum way of looking at life my friend. 

Also merry christmas

-- "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)

[Omegahero09]

Ah I see, what you're saying is that most violations of the NAP come from what I call "Aladdin Thieves," which are good people who violate the NAP by stealing and other means to feed themselves and their family because they are depraved. I will acknowledge that there are people out there who are in tough situations, however I disagree whole-heartedly that the solution is as simple as you say "addressed and altered beneficially." I sincerely hope you aren't suggesting some kind of altruistic scheme lol

[june]

Ah I see, what you're saying is that most violations of the NAP come from what I call "Aladdin Thieves," which are good people who violate the NAP by stealing and other means to feed themselves and their family because they are depraved. I will acknowledge that there are people out there who are in tough situations, however I disagree whole-heartedly that the solution is as simple as you say "addressed and altered beneficially." I sincerely hope you aren't suggesting some kind of altruistic scheme lol

"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.

[PatrickC]

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.

[Omegahero09]

Well the lack of "needs" as you say doesn't factor over everything either, at least I'm not convinced by it-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. Also I agree with xelent- NAP I think has more of a use as a problem solving pragmatical tool, than a philosophic lens if you will. 

[june]

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.

 

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'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. Also I agree with xelent- NAP I think has more of a use as a problem solving pragmatical tool, than a philosophic lens if you will. 

 

"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. 

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

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?

Presenting the argument would be "the initiation of harm" so if you accept the argument it would be immoral to ever present the argument and possibly also immoral not to present it as this would also lead to harm. It's gets pretty illogical. 

[Omegahero09]

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.

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.

 

 

Hold on, Are you talking about structural violence? Is that what this is about? 

[june]

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

[LifeIsBrief]

Again, we appear to simply disagree in entirety, and on definitions... I don't want to ignore your questions however, so I can only hope that I do not sound too terse, or harsh in my response.  First... Spelling, I know it's lame to critique, but still "inevitable", not "envitable" and it's driving me nuts

 

Inevitable harm, is a consequence of being alive.  Direct harm, is harm caused by the individual.  Morality, exists in the realm of the individual.  If an individual believes that life is inherently good, and meaningful, they can choose to create life, without causing direct harm.  If they create a depressed human being, who is constantly miserable (ie genetic depression), could it be argued that they are the direct cause of harm?  Yes.  I, on the other hand, am of the opinion, that genetic depression, is nonsense word salad created by people who want to sell children drugs.  There is an objective reality in which I am either correct, or incorrect.  However, for the individual choosing to have children, their opinion matters, in terms of morality. 

 

Morality is about choices.  If it is absolutely, beyond any reasonable doubt proven that depression is genetic, rather than that miserable people raise miserable children by being cruel... you would be able to make a coherent argument that giving birth is an initiation of harm, if the parents are unhappy.  However, if this is true, than it is also true that happy people, have happy children, and thus, despite the inevitable harm that will come to the child, it will, on the whole have a good life, and thus the creation of that life, can not be seen as the initiation of harm.

[june]

Again, we appear to simply disagree in entirety, and on definitions... I don't want to ignore your questions however, so I can only hope that I do not sound too terse, or harsh in my response.  First... Spelling, I know it's lame to critique, but still "inevitable", not "envitable" and it's driving me nuts  Inevitable harm, is a consequence of being alive.  Direct harm, is harm caused by the individual.  Morality, exists in the realm of the individual.  If an individual believes that life is inherently good, and meaningful, they can choose to create life, without causing direct harm.  If they create a depressed human being, who is constantly miserable (ie genetic depression), could it be argued that they are the direct cause of harm?  Yes.  I, on the other hand, am of the opinion, that genetic depression, is nonsense word salad created by people who want to sell children drugs.  There is an objective reality in which I am either correct, or incorrect.  However, for the individual choosing to have children, their opinion matters, in terms of morality.  Morality is about choices.  If it is absolutely, beyond any reasonable doubt proven that depression is genetic, rather than that miserable people raise miserable children by being cruel... you would be able to make a coherent argument that giving birth is an initiation of harm, if the parents are unhappy.  However, if this is true, than it is also true that happy people, have happy children, and thus, despite the inevitable harm that will come to the child, it will, on the whole have a good life, and thus the creation of that life, can not be seen as the initiation of harm.

"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...

[PatrickC]

how is the nap supposed to be discussed in your opinion, as opposed to as a philosophical term?

 

As a 'maxim'... The NAP is a general term that suffices in most cases, but not philosophically.

 

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Maxim

[june]

@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)

[LifeIsBrief]

"And an individual can give life unto another individual, thus initiating inevitable harm. Which is my original argument"

 

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.  An individual creating life, in and of itself is not an initiation of harm, because it is simultaneously, and in the same act, an initiation of joy, love, experience, etc.  To call the creation of life, an initiation of harm, is to look at the inevitable harm that everyone experiences, in a vacuum.  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.

[Omegahero09]

Additionally, if it were immoral to have children, then you would have to agree that the best course of action for the human race is to cease to exist- in order to avoid harm as you stamp the originator of the immoral action to the parents. 

[june]

"And an individual can give life unto another individual, thus initiating inevitable harm. Which is my original argument"

 

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.  An individual creating life, in and of itself is not an initiation of harm, because it is simultaneously, and in the same act, an initiation of joy, love, experience, etc.  To call the creation of life, an initiation of harm, is to look at the inevitable harm that everyone experiences, in a vacuum.  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.

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. 

Additionally, if it were immoral to have children, then you would have to agree that the best course of action for the human race is to cease to exist- in order to avoid harm as you stamp the originator of the immoral action to the parents. 

yes. either that, or realise that the nap (and lifeisbrief's new defintion of it) is not valid

[PatrickC]

@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)

 

Then you'll have to concede that your premises is faulty and inconsistent and at best pedantic. It has little to do with philosophical inquiry.