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

[june]

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.

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.

[PatrickC]

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 partake because I'm pointing out an error in your premises. Apply UPB and then come back to this thread with a better argument. This debate is as circular as all your others I'm afraid. This has more to do with own conclusions than it does with genuine philosophical inquiry. If you don't like that, then fine. This is a public board for which you can and will be criticised.

[LifeIsBrief]

I apologize for not directly answering.  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.  I don't agree that the human race should cease to exist, it should simply live responsibly.  That's why "a cause of harm" is an important part of the statement.  Giving life is not inherently a cause of harm, unless you believe that the human race should cease to exist.  That is an arguable point, but prove it without relying on the continuum fallacy.  We could get better.  We probably won't, I can grant you that, I'm probably not going to have children for that specific reason, but it's possible.

[june]

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.  I don't agree that the human race should cease to exist, it should simply live responsibly.  That's why "a cause of harm" is an important part of the statement.  Giving life is not inherently a cause of harm, unless you believe that the human race should cease to exist.  That is an arguable point, but prove it without relying on the continuum fallacy.  We could get better.  We probably won't, I can grant you that, I'm probably not going to have children for that specific reason, but it's possible.

"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?

[LifeIsBrief]

Again... 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?  We obviously disagree on the whole "life is inherently good" thing... but 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.

[june]

Again... 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?  We obviously disagree on the whole "life is inherently good" thing... but 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.

"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?

[LifeIsBrief]

I've gone as deep into this as I am capable of going.  If life is inherently good, then creating life, is not the cause of harm.  That's entirely consistent in my mind.  We simply disagree.  The cause of harm, is not being born, it's the person or action that harmed you.  You want to take it a step further back, and say, "Because I was harmed, being born is the cause".  I don't see that as logically consistent.  It is what it is, a fundamental disagreement.

[june]

  It is what it is, a fundamental disagreement.

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)?

[LifeIsBrief]

The problem is, that it was an enormous hypothetical "if", that I probably wouldn't agree with, used to make the conversation simpler.  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.  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.  You could still say it's forced... but it relates to your water argument.  Not water, but liquid, is inherently good, if being alive is of value.

 

You come out of the womb craving liquid, and sustenance.  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.  If you create life, it is your responsibility to provide it with nutrition, love, and the ability to provide for itself eventually, so creating a life without the tools or desire to do those things, would be immoral.  If life is inherently of value however, as an experience, and you are prepared to provide said life with the tools needed to create that value, I don't think it can be argued that the creation of life, is the initiation of harm.

[june]

The problem is, that it was an enormous hypothetical "if", that I probably wouldn't agree with, used to make the conversation simpler.  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.  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.  You could still say it's forced... but it relates to your water argument.  Not water, but liquid, is inherently good, if being alive is of value. You come out of the womb craving liquid, and sustenance.  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.  If you create life, it is your responsibility to provide it with nutrition, love, and the ability to provide for itself eventually, so creating a life without the tools or desire to do those things, would be immoral.  If life is inherently of value however, as an experience, and you are prepared to provide said life with the tools needed to create that value, I don't think it can be argued that the creation of life, is the initiation of harm.

"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).

[RestoringGuy]

This seems interesting.  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.  At least it should be factored in since the discussion includes misery, etc. on newly created life. A problem seems whether we are allowed to include all inevitable future events and tie in every single event responsibilitywise.

 

If they can all be tied in piecemeal (not sum total), there is a sense creating life is wrong.  But then suffering as a result of not being murdered seems to be an inevitable piece that seems admissible.  Or if you don't like the murder analogy, 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.

[june]

This seems interesting.  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.  At least it should be factored in since the discussion includes misery, etc. on newly created life. A problem seems whether we are allowed to include all inevitable future events and tie in every single event responsibilitywise. If they can all be tied in piecemeal (not sum total), there is a sense creating life is wrong.  But then suffering as a result of not being murdered seems to be an inevitable piece that seems admissible.  Or if you don't like the murder analogy, 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.

"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

[RestoringGuy]

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.

Yes there are those differences, but I mean to put them aside for argument sake.  Imagine if there is an unconscious person inside a burning building, a person floating face down in a lake, or lying on a railroad track, etc.  Do you automatically violate NAP by rescuing them, either conveying them from the danger (or calling for others to act), knowing everything that subsequently follows will include bad stuff in their newly-extended lifespan?

 

Philosophically, I do not think the approach has to be "or", it can be "and" and consider totals and initiation all at once.  I am thinking like this: if x is how much violence is directly initiated (by way of property, consent,etc. as you mention), y is the intervening violence without regard for initial cause or final effect, and z is the resulting long-term life condition, then you can take how wrong (call it W) something is by a linear combination  W=Ax+By+Cz,  where A, B, and C are coefficients that are how much you weigh each issue.

 

A person that only considers initial events (a NAP purist) would say ABC is 100, each digit representing a weight.  If a person says "the end justifies the means", that's ABC=001, because initiation violence and momentary suffering don't matter.  Nihilism is 000, and so on.  I agree that B should be nonzero, but I think C is nonzero, so that shorter lifespan is worse than longer lifespan by some measure anyway.  It should count for something.  In terms of these ratios, I am probably ABC=321.  This is how I think creation of life is not always the greater wrong, while at the same time the sum total can't uniformly steamroll over ideas such as NAP..

[june]

Yes there are those differences, but I mean to put them aside for argument sake.  Imagine if there is an unconscious person inside a burning building, a person floating face down in a lake, or lying on a railroad track, etc.  Do you automatically violate NAP by rescuing them, either conveying them from the danger (or calling for others to act), knowing everything that subsequently follows will include bad stuff in their newly-extended lifespan? Philosophically, I do not think the approach has to be "or", it can be "and" and consider totals and initiation all at once.  I am thinking like this: if x is how much violence is directly initiated (by way of property, consent,etc. as you mention), y is the intervening violence without regard for initial cause or final effect, and z is the resulting long-term life condition, then you can take how wrong (call it W) something is by a linear combination  W=Ax+By+Cz,  where A, B, and C are coefficients that are how much you weigh each issue. A person that only considers initial events (a NAP purist) would say ABC is 100, each digit representing a weight.  If a person says "the end justifies the means", that's ABC=001, because initiation violence and momentary suffering don't matter.  Nihilism is 000, and so on.  I agree that B should be nonzero, but I think C is nonzero, so that shorter lifespan is worse than longer lifespan by some measure anyway.  It should count for something.  In terms of these ratios, I am probably ABC=321.  This is how I think creation of life is not always the greater wrong, while at the same time the sum total can't uniformly steamroll over ideas such as NAP..

"Yes there are those differences, but I mean to put them aside for argument sake. "They cannot be put aside as they are the fundamental differentiators of the argument. "Imagine if there is an unconscious person inside a burning building, a person floating face down in a lake, or lying on a railroad track, etc.  Do you automatically violate NAP by rescuing them, either conveying them from the danger (or calling for others to act), knowing everything that subsequently follows will include bad stuff in their newly-extended lifespan?"It depends on what your definition if the nap is. As i said, if consent is required for any possible violation, and you have such consent, then resecuing the person from your scenarios would be in-line with the nap. However, if you do not have consent then you are making decisions for them. for example, what if this person CHOSE or WOULD LIKE TO REMAIN in the positions of your scenarios? If you act to intervene then it is YOU making a decision FOR THEM, which is the total oppoisite of voluntarism / allowing people to make their own decisions, i.e you are using force -- and i wont even go into the topic of consent because when taken into consideration it makes the nap even more convoluted than it is already is, in the sense of logic.as for the rest of your post, it really is a matter of definitions. If you want to define the nap by your equation then thats okay, but i am generally addressing the standard definition of the nap:("Aggression, for the purposes of NAP, is defined as the initiation or threatening of violence against a person or legitimately owned property of another. Specifically, any unsolicited actions of others that physically affect an individual's property or person, no matter if the result of those actions is damaging, beneficial, or neutral to the owner, are considered violent or aggressive when they are against the owner's free will and interfere with his right to self-determination and the principle of self-ownership.")So your equation, going by tbe standard definition, is not actually following tbe nap. Because sum totals are not recongised. Violating a persons property rights by going against their free wikl = breaking the nap. With your definition/equation you account for sum totals, and so many things, such as spanking, could be brushed aside as not violating tbe nap, because the sum total of the child is positive (i have read many accounts of people who appriciate that they were spanked, or dont view it that negatively in retrospect, for example).

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

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).

There's nothing morally wrong with harm. The only harms that are immoral are those that cannot be morally justified. Having a child in and of itself can be morally justified and the burden is on the person claiming it isn't to show that it isn't. Just pointing out that the child will experience existential harm which it would otherwise not have experienced does not show that that harm is in the same category as rape, murder, robbery or theft.

To say the parents have initiated a from of harm is to subtly conflate two different concepts of harm and blur the valid distinction between immoral harm and existential harm.

[june]

There's nothing morally wrong with harm. The only harms that are immoral are those that cannot be morally justified. Having a child in and of itself can be morally justified and the burden is on the person claiming it isn't to show that it isn't. Just pointing out that the child will experience existential harm which it would otherwise not have experienced does not show that that harm is in the same category as rape, murder, robbery or theft. To say the parents have initiated a from of harm is to subtly conflate two different concepts of harm and blur the valid distinction between immoral harm and existential harm.

As a general note i want to point out that its tiring to see responses, in which there is possibility of a lot of worthy content for discussion, be guarded by undefined terms and thus basically impossible to respond to properly."There's nothing morally wrong with harm. The only harms that are immoral are those that cannot be morally justified. "Please define "morally jusifiable", as specificably as possible.

[RestoringGuy]

"Yes there are those differences, but I mean to put them aside for argument sake. "They cannot be put aside as they are the fundamental differentiators of the argument.

 

So your equation, going by tbe standard definition, is not actually following tbe nap. Because sum totals are not recongised. Violating a persons property rights by going against their free wikl = breaking the nap. With your definition/equation you account for sum totals, and so many things, such as spanking, could be brushed aside as not violating tbe nap, because the sum total of the child is positive (i have read many accounts of people who appriciate that they were spanked, or dont view it that negatively in retrospect, for example).

 

I know they are differentiators, but you can always find a scenario where they do not matter, using it as a thought experiment.  Property and consent are irrelevant if a person is unconscious, has stated no prior wishes, and your ability to save them from death does not demand shoving them or their property around in any way.  I suppose it is questionable how prior wishes even exist, given that people change their mind and unconsciousness prevents any sort of test whether that has happened.

 

I think Ax+By+Cz still follows NAP strictly by allowing some of them to be zero, but I believe that doing so produces contradictions.  NAP as a principle can never work in an absolute sense without sum totals, because effects themselves are totals.  You affect an owner's property a microscopic amount by breathing nearby, so we are really talking about significant aggregate actions, and it is best-guess how far you can connect the dots.  Now I am totally against taking the sum uniformly, as you seem to be against, but I can say NAP applies (just as natural selection applies to species).  It applies in a strong sense but not absolutely.

 

The main reason I argue for coefficient C being a (small) nonzero number is this:  If you include the downstream effects during creation of life, there is also downstream secondary effects and so on, and NAP does not rule out such secondary effects.  In fact, how does it distinguish between primary and secondary effects, because even bullet impact is like a secondary effect?  So if there is a book written, or bridge being built/maintained, etc, then these secondary things will not exist without life, and there is impact to property however indirect.  So like if Einstein's parents were like "let's not violate NAP by creating life", then for a few more years people would have continued to incorrectly understand space and gravity.  I do not see this like spanking, where there is simply no real tangible upshot.  Even if spanking had upshot, I think coefficient C (relative to A) can never legitimately be large enough to make it right.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Please define "morally jusifiable", as specificably as possible.

It means not in violation of any valid moral rule. For example, rape cannot be morally justified because any justification breaks down into contradiction. Justifications for having a child do not violate any such moral rule. There's no coercion involved and no violation of universality. If you can show a valid moral rule that childbirth violates then you've shown it cannot be morally justified.

[dsayers]

What value would the NAP have if it were not absolute?

 

If a blind man is about to cross the street in the path of a runaway bus and you grab his shoulder to save his life, I'm sure he'll be thankful. I'm sure nobody would dare suggest or support that you be punished for your action. This does not change the fact that you initiated the use of force against him.

 

This doesn't mean don't do it, but first principles start with a = a.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

What value would the NAP have if it were not absolute?

 

If a blind man is about to cross the street in the path of a runaway bus and you grab his shoulder to save his life, I'm sure he'll be thankful. I'm sure nobody would dare suggest or support that you be punished for your action. This does not change the fact that you initiated the use of force against him.

 

This doesn't mean don't do it, but first principles start with a = a.

No that's defensive force, not the initiation of force. In fact the blind man possibly initiated the events that forced you to make a decision.

[june]

I know they are differentiators, but you can always find a scenario where they do not matter, using it as a thought experiment.  Property and consent are irrelevant if a person is unconscious, has stated no prior wishes, and your ability to save them from death does not demand shoving them or their property around in any way. I think Ax+By+Cz still works in the immoral cases you mention by allowing some of the coefficients to be zero, but I believe that doing so produces contradictions.  NAP as a principle can never work in an absolute sense without sum totals, because effects themselves are totals.  You affect an owner's property a microscopic amount by breathing nearby, so we are really talking about significant aggregate actions, and it is best-guess how far you can connect the dots.  Now I am totally against taking the sum uniformly, so NAP applies (just as natural selection applies to species).  It applies in a strong sense but not absolutely. The main reason I argue for coefficient C being a (small) nonzero number is this:  If you include the downstream effects during creation of life, there is also downstream secondary effects and so on, and NAP does not rule out such secondary effects.  In fact, how does it distinguish between primary and secondary effects, because even bullet impact is like a secondary effect?  So if there is a book written, or bridge being built/maintained, etc, then these secondary things will not exist without life, and there is impact to property however indirect.  So like if Einstein's parents were like "let's not violate NAP by creating life", then for a few more years people would have continued to incorrectly understand space and gravity.  I do not see this like spanking, where there is simply no real tangible upshot.  Even if spanking had upshot, I think coefficient C (relative to A) can never legitimately be large enough to make it right.

"I know they are differentiators, but you can always find a scenario where they do not matter, using it as a thought experiment.  Property and consent are irrelevant if a person is unconscious, has stated no prior wishes, and your ability to save them from death does not demand shoving them or their property around in any way."Firstly i do realise that this is sort of a side arguement to what we are actualy discussing, but i still have to disagree. Property rihts and consent do matter in your scenarios (within the context of actually following these concepts, of course)because youre talking about a person, and a person is said to own their body. So anything you do to interfere is effecting tbese rights of property. That is inescapable. And consent factors in because how can you gauge what a persons voluntary choice is without their consent? So again i reiterate, what 'right' do you have in these scenarios to interfere with a persons property, negatively or positively, without knowing what they approve or dont approve of?"NAP as a principle can never work in an absolute sense without sum totals, because effects themselves are totals.  You affect an owner's property a microscopic amount by breathing nearby, so we are really talking about significant aggregate actions, and it is best-guess how far you can connect the dots."Well put! I am not disagreeing with you here: The nap cant work without sum totals, yet sum totals contradict what it means to breach the nap. "So like if Einstein's parents were like "let's not violate NAP by creating life", then for a few more years people would have continued to incorrectly understand space and gravity.  I do not see this like spanking, where there is simply no real tangible upshot. "What if someone got spanked as a child and detested the experience so much that they vowed to not let bad experiences get to them anymore and went on the live a happy life ; or to put it another way: can bad experiences (such as being the victim of a nap breach) have positive downstream effects, and thus be validated by sum total?

It means not in violation of any valid moral rule. For example, rape cannot be morally justified because any justification breaks down into contradiction. Justifications for having a child do not violate any such moral rule. There's no coercion involved and no violation of universality. If you can show a valid moral rule that childbirth violates then you've shown it cannot be morally justified.

okay, thanks for the clarification"rape cannot be morally justified because any justification breaks down into contradiction."What if someone held a gun to your head and said "rape a stranger or die", is rape then morally justifiable?"If you can show a valid moral rule that childbirth violates then you've shown it cannot be morally justified."Consent. A child does not consent to being born, the parent forces that decision unto it. What is your response to this argument?" Justifications for having a child do not violate any such moral rule. There's no coercion involved and no violation of universality. "Okay, lets skip the process of having a child (for now) and examine the process of raising a child. Definition of coerce: "To bring about by force or threat"Definition of force: "make (someone) do something against their will.(Please comment if you have a problem with these definitions)I ask you: do you believe it is possible to raise a child without a single use of coercion?

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Consent. A child does not consent to being born, the parent forces that decision unto it. What is your response to this argument?" Justifications for having a child do not violate any such moral rule. There's no coercion involved and no violation of universality. "Okay, lets skip the process of having a child (for now) and examine the process of raising a child.Definition of coerce: "To bring about by force or threat"Definition of force: "make (someone) do something against their will.(Please comment if you have a problem with these definitions)I ask you: do you believe it is possible to raise a child without a single use of coercion?

Consent isn't a moral rule and even if it was, the child does not withhold consent either. The argument fails in other ways but that should be enough.

Stef raises his daughter completely without coercion so yes, it is possible.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

"rape cannot be morally justified because any justification breaks down into contradiction."What if someone held a gun to your head and said "rape a stranger or die", is rape then morally justifiable?

Whoops, forgot to answer this. No, rape does not become morally justifiable under those circumstances. If the person rapes a stranger then they're acting under coercion. The person "raped" may actually understand and not consider it rape.

These types of scenarios are generally specious because they don't exist in reality. There has never been or will never be a scenario were a person holds a threatens to kill another if they don't rape a stranger. There's always something else going on that would need to be known in order to try answering such questions in a coherent way. The full context is extremely truncated.

I challenge you to find one example of that scenario ever happening at any time in history.

[dsayers]

No that's defensive force, not the initiation of force. In fact the blind man possibly initiated the events that forced you to make a decision.

 

The blind man owns himself which means he can dispose of himself if he so desires. Therefore his action is not the initiation of the use of force, a requisite before counteracting force can be described as defensive.

 

What if someone held a gun to your head and said "rape a stranger or die", is rape then morally justifiable?

 

In this scenario, coercion takes choice out of the equation. Choice is a requisite for morality. Your rape is amoral, with the debt it creates accruing to the person holding the gun to your head.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

The blind man owns himself which means he can dispose of himself if he so desires. Therefore his action is not the initiation of the use of force, a requisite before counteracting force can be described as defensive.

 

The blind man is not disposing of himself. He's just walking into traffic. I assume that's why you made him blind. Grabbing him or whatever is not aggression, it's an act of defense. It's not a violation of the NAP.

[june]

Consent isn't a moral rule and even if it was, the child does not withhold consent either. The argument fails in other ways but that should be enough.Stef raises his daughter completely without coercion so yes, it is possible.

"Consent isn't a moral rule."Define "moral rule" then"and even if it was, the child does not withhold consent either."True. So at this point the parent does not know what the child-to-be's voluntary choice is, yet acts on it anyway. Its like if i saw a complete stranger in a coma and decided to pull the plug... no thouht given to what the person may actually want or not want, i just decide to make the decision for him. The difference with this scenario and having a child is that a coma person may have given some information of what to do i such a scenario, but an unborn child never has the option to do so."Stef raises his daughter completely without coercion so yes, it is possible."Maybe i should have expanded with an example. Definition of force: "make (someone) do something against their will.So how is it possible to raise a child without force? When a baby voluntaryily plays with a dangerous object and the parent takes that object away, is this not the use of force? To put it another way, would a lot of babies even make it past the age 5 without some type of force being applied in their upbringing?

Whoops, forgot to answer this. No, rape does not become morally justifiable under those circumstances. If the person rapes a stranger then they're acting under coercion. The person "raped" may actually understand and not consider it rape.These types of scenarios are generally specious because they don't exist in reality. There has never been or will never be a scenario were a person holds a threatens to kill another if they don't rape a stranger. There's always something else going on that would need to be known in order to try answering such questions in a coherent way. The full context is extremely truncated. I challenge you to find one example of that scenario ever happening at any time in history.

"Whoops, forgot to answer this. No, rape does not become morally justifiable under those circumstances."Okay. But you previously stated:"rape cannot be morally justified because any justification breaks down into contradiction."Where is the contradiction?"The person "raped" may actually understand and not consider it rape."Definition of rape: the unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress tohave sexual intercourse; any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.Sounds like rape to me, by definition."These types of scenarios are generally specious because they don't exist in reality. There has never been or will never be a scenario were a person holds a threatens to kill another if they don't rape a stranger. "This is a fallacy. Just because an event has not happened in reality does not mean its logic can be dismissed (and it woildnt surprise me at all if this scenario has happe ed in history either.) You can make an argument against the scenarios logic, but to dismiss it as "it wont happen, so we lets not take it into account" is truly anti-philosphical

The blind man is not disposing of himself. He's just walking into traffic. I assume that's why you made him blind. Grabbing him or whatever is not aggression, it's an act of defense. It's not a violation of the NAP.

you can take this scenario (of a person in what one may consider 'danger') to many degrees, but thr core argument is this: how is it morally justifiable to use force on a person or/and their property without their consent?

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

"Consent isn't a moral rule."Define "moral rule" then"and even if it was, the child does not withhold consent either."True. So at this point the parent does not know what the child-to-be's voluntary choice is, yet acts on it anyway. Its like if i saw a complete stranger in a coma and decided to pull the plug... no thouht given to what the person may actually want or not want, i just decide to make the decision for him. The difference with this scenario and having a child is that a coma person may have given some information of what to do i such a scenario, but an unborn child never has the option to do so."Stef raises his daughter completely without coercion so yes, it is possible."Maybe i should have expanded with an example.Definition of force: "make (someone) do something against their will.So how is it possible to raise a child without force? When a baby voluntaryily plays with a dangerous object and the parent takes that object away, is this not the use of force? To put it another way, would a lot of babies even make it past the age 5 without some type of force being applied in their upbringing?"Whoops, forgot to answer this. No, rape does not become morally justifiable under those circumstances."Okay. But you previously stated:"rape cannot be morally justified because any justification breaks down into contradiction."Where is the contradiction?"The person "raped" may actually understand and not consider it rape."Definition of rape:the unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress tohave sexual intercourse; any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.Sounds like rape to me, by definition."These types of scenarios are generally specious because they don't exist in reality. There has never been or will never be a scenario were a person holds a threatens to kill another if they don't rape a stranger. "This is a fallacy. Just because an event has not happened in reality does not mean its logic can be dismissed (and it woildnt surprise me at all if this scenario has happe ed in history either.) You can make an argument against the scenarios logic, but to dismiss it as "it wont happen, so we lets not take it into account" is truly anti-philosphicalyou can take this scenario (of a person in what one may consider 'danger') to many degrees, but thr core argument is this: how is it morally justifiable to use force on a person or/and their property without their consent?

A moral rule is a universal rule put forward concerning enforceable behavior. I guess "consent" could be considered a moral rule but what I mean is that it's not a valid moral rule. It's just a rule and anyone can make up any rule they want. I could say X violates the rule of happiness but what would that mean?

 

"True. So at this point the parent does not know what the child-to-be's  voluntary choice is, yet acts on it anyway."

 

They act on it even if they don't have the child. Considering some potential child's preferences and then deciding not to be a parent is as  much of an act as deciding TO be a parent. Both decisions impact the potential child. You can't just presuppose that non-existence is the  default or preferable state.

I'm not sure how your coma patient example is analogous. Are you saying people should not be brought into existence because they do not have the option to tell us what they want? 

 

 

"So how is it possible to raise a child without force? When a baby voluntarily plays with a dangerous object and the parent takes that object away, is this not the use of force? To put it another way, would a lot of babies even make it past the age 5 without some type of force being applied in their upbringing?"

 

Don't conflate force with coercion or aggression. There's no victim when you forcibly remove the dangerous object (Which you are responsible for it having most likely). You are not just raising a child, you're raising a person and you would have to justify your actions as moral when that person can comprehend them. The person would or could not later legitimately claim an act of aggression was committed by having the object removed. It would be immoral NOT to remove it. You have to fill the role of decision maker until the child is capable. The child is not able to consent to play with dangerous objects so you can't claim to be violating its consent in some way. 

As I say, Stef uses no aggression with his child. Zero.

 

With rape, the contradiction is that the rapist is claiming a right that they deny their victim so they are violating universality. Once you violate universality your justifications fail the test of logical consistency. If your justification is not logically consistent then it's logically contradictory. 

When I say person "raped" may actually understand and not consider it rape I mean they may not consider the person with the gun to their head responsible but rather the person with the gun. 

 

I'm not dismissing your rape example on the basis that it won't happen but am suggesting that it cannot logically happen. In such a scenario as the one you describe there must be more going on. The variables of just Gun, threat, stranger, rape cannot logically happen; not unless you posit three people who exist in a vacuum. 

It doesn't matter that much because it's just an emotional appeal anyway. 

 

"you can take this scenario (of a person in what one may consider 'danger') to many degrees, but the core argument is this: how is it morally justifiable to use force on a person or/and their property without their consent?"

 

It's called the non-aggression principle, not the non-force principle.

[RestoringGuy]

Firstly i do realise that this is sort of a side arguement to what we are actualy discussing, but i still have to disagree. Property rihts and consent do matter in your scenarios (within the context of actually following these concepts, of course)because youre talking about a person, and a person is said to own their body. So anything you do to interfere is effecting tbese rights of property. That is inescapable. And consent factors in because how can you gauge what a persons voluntary choice is without their consent? So again i reiterate, what 'right' do you have in these scenarios to interfere with a persons property, negatively or positively, without knowing what they approve or dont approve of?"So like if Einstein's parents were like "let's not violate NAP by creating life", then for a few more years people would have continued to incorrectly understand space and gravity.  I do not see this like spanking, where there is simply no real tangible upshot. "What if someone got spanked as a child and detested the experience so much that they vowed to not let bad experiences get to them anymore and went on the live a happy life ; or to put it another way: can bad experiences (such as being the victim of a nap breach) have positive downstream effects, and thus be validated by sum total?

Property rights and consent only seem to matter to the degree that there is rationality, because we don't grant them to inanimate objects.  In most of the discussions here, rights/consent are mainly said to exist as a result of consciousness and/or rationality.  An unconscious person can neither approve nor disapprove of anything in a literal sense.  With the unconscious, you are interfering with nothing that can be proven to exist in a strict sense of interference.  So for unconscious people, having no rational behavior as proof of their rights, we must rely on an alternate mechanism (such as asking what we think they might desire) as a stand-in for genuine rights and consent.   Now some have argued these are contractual inventions, rather than innate and natural mechanisms.  I do not agree, and adhere to a natural basis which does not shift and evaporate with all the contractual nonsense.  But then, by accepting a natural basis, it seems I also have to give some property rights and consent value to animals, future generations of people, their ability to solve these problems better than we can, etc..  All these distant things have no apparent rationality in the here-and-now, but seem to have outward impact just as an unconscious person will later judge our present actions in the context of their property.  The unconscious person's rights exist outside rational presence (it is a temporary absence of rationality), and whatever reasoning we use to explain their rights based solely on past/future rationality, that reasoning should be consistent, right?

 

For sum total, yes I think NAP breach can be superceded by positive downstream effects.  But the positive effect I think should need to be vastly larger and more than fully compensate the person breached by a generous factor.   Saving people from a fire, etc. things of that nature come to mind, but spanking does not.  Maybe if spanking would save their life, but that seems almost impossible to imagine such a scenario.  Say a child is in evil scientist's chamber with a cylinder of nerve gas on a timer, and the only thing that disables the gas timer is spanking.  I guess that's it.

[june]

Property rights and consent only seem to matter to the degree that there is rationality, because we don't grant them to inanimate objects.  In most of the discussions here, rights/consent are mainly said to exist as a result of consciousness and/or rationality.  An unconscious person can neither approve nor disapprove of anything in a literal sense.  With the unconscious, you are interfering with nothing that can be proven to exist in a strict sense of interference.  So for unconscious people, having no rational behavior as proof of their rights, we must rely on an alternate mechanism (such as asking what we think they might desire) as a stand-in for genuine rights and consent.   Now some have argued these are contractual inventions, rather than innate and natural mechanisms.  I do not agree, and adhere to a natural basis which does not shift and evaporate with all the contractual nonsense.  But then, by accepting a natural basis, it seems I also have to give some property rights and consent value to animals, future generations of people, their ability to solve these problems better than we can, etc..  All these distant things have no apparent rationality in the here-and-now, but seem to have outward impact just as an unconscious person will later judge our present actions in the context of their property.  The unconscious person's rights exist outside rational presence (it is a temporary absence of rationality), and whatever reasoning we use to explain their rights based solely on past/future rationality, that reasoning should be consistent, right? For sum total, yes I think NAP breach can be superceded by positive downstream effects.  But the positive effect I think should need to be vastly larger and more than fully compensate the person breached by a generous factor.   Saving people from a fire, etc. things of that nature come to mind, but spanking does not.  Maybe if spanking would save their life, but that seems almost impossible to imagine such a scenario.  Say a child is in evil scientist's chamber with a cylinder of nerve gas on a timer, and the only thing that disables the gas timer is spanking.  I guess that's it.

"Property rights and consent only seem to matter to the degree that there is rationality, because we don't grant them to inanimate objects."So no rationality = no property rights or consent. So i can murder a child and still be acting withinpropery rights. Or murder someone in their sleep. Or plug the on a total stranger who is in a coma."  I do not agree, and adhere to a natural basis which does not shift and evaporate with all the contractual nonsense.  "What does "natural basis" mean?"The unconscious person's rights exist outside rational presence "They do? But you started your paragraph with: "Property rights and consent only seem to matter to the degree that there is rationality, because we don't grant them to inanimate objects.""For sum total, yes I think NAP breach can be superceded by positive downstream effects.  "This is a huge statement. And it chucks the nap through such a logical twister. If sum total negates nap breaches, does it also negate 'good actions? So if someone gifts an act of kindess, which then leads to negatice consequences (inadvertant or not), is that sum toral then considered a breach of the nap? Also, with what youve just stated in mind, how does go about determining what constitutes as a nap breach? Its like anybody who violates the nap can just say "no no, this will benefit the person in the long run. Youll see." How can anyone then use counterforce on a nap breacher when there may be unaccounted benefits in the long? They couldnt. People who wish to do so would have to wait until the 'victims' life has come to an end and then tally everything up and only then cpuld a decision be made.

[RestoringGuy]

So no rationality = no property rights or consent. So i can murder a child and still be acting withinpropery rights. Or murder someone in their sleep. Or plug the on a total stranger who is in a coma.What does "natural basis" mean?But you started your paragraph with: "Property rights and consent only seem to matter to the degree that there is rationality, because we don't grant them to inanimate objects."

Sorry for my vocabulary.  I differentiate between "existent" and "present".  That which is present requires stricter proof, it can be demonstrated by observable proof.  That which exists, a proof can be postponed or called up from historical record, allowing for truth of existence to be ongoing.  The point I make is that there is something the conscious person does, or is projected to do, which gives us reason to believe their unconscious body has rights (the rights can be said to exist even while not present, in my terminology).  This is like believing sunlight exists, as valid energy with knowable and persistent properties, even at midnight while sunlight cannot be witnessed personally.Although rights can not be immediately proven, I do not claim you can murder a child.  It would seem one has to admit that sufficiently incapacitated people and inanimate objects or animals, etc., possess the same lack of whatever-it-is that you recognize as proof a person has rights under NAP.  Once that is admitted, to enable the rights to exist, or be recognized as true, or however you want to say it, requires inventing or discovering the mechanism I describe.  By natural basis, I mean to say that I believe that mechanism is a discovered thing, established by data in nature that can be reproduced, as oppose to a contract that can be written up however one pleases.

This is a huge statement. And it chucks the nap through such a logical twister. If sum total negates nap breaches, does it also negate 'good actions? So if someone gifts an act of kindess, which then leads to negatice consequences (inadvertant or not), is that sum toral then considered a breach of the nap? Also, with what youve just stated in mind, how does go about determining what constitutes as a nap breach? Its like anybody who violates the nap can just say "no no, this will benefit the person in the long run. Youll see." How can anyone then use counterforce on a nap breacher when there may be unaccounted benefits in the long? They couldnt. People who wish to do so would have to wait until the 'victims' life has come to an end and then tally everything up and only then cpuld a decision be made.

I described earlier, for initiation, misery, and final result, that the weights I give are like 3,2,1 (probably that is not as steep as I would like, but let's go with it).  So if act of kindness has negative consequences, and those negative consequences are over 3 times worse than the initiation of kindness (and suppose there is no intervening misery, so the coefficient 2 is moot), then yes it's all evil.Counterforce makes no sense with pure NAP.  That has always been my grievance with it, because absent any consideration of final results, one falls into the time paradox I describe above (how does a present owner prove they are the rightful owner).  Yet with a descending scale (321 as an example), one can include the value of the sleeping owner as a milder basis of their end result, yet it does not automatically justify initiating force as a flat sum model would.