NAP and the Socratic Method

[Misesian]

I've been listening to Stefan for quite some time and fairly recently he hosted the Peter Schiff show and was talking to Paul Boghossian about the Socratic method which caused me to remember a previous video from Stefan where he was defending NAP from those obscure scenarios (man on the flagpole, man abandoned in the woods) where the NAP didn't hold. Isn't this an example of the Socratic method in work? Does this show limitations to NAP as an absolute or the Socratic method?

[dsayers]

The Socratic method as I understand it is simply considering applications of a claim to test its validity and consistency. This is for the purpose of assessing its truth value.

 

People who come up with man on the flagpole scenarios are not interested in whether or not what they're examining (NAP here) is valid. They are interested in seeing if they can either assimilate it with their preferred view and if not, can they outwardly disregard it wholesale to avoid having to admit their prioritization of personal preference (culture) over reality. Otherwise known as confirmation bias.

[alexqr1]

NAP is not the base of the ethical argument but a result of an objective ethical theory (I don't mean UPB). One should not argue whether or not a situation is ethical because the NAP is present in the interaction but instead whether self-ownership is respected or not.

[xSocrates]

The Socratic method as I understand it is simply considering applications of a claim to test its validity and consistency. This is for the purpose of assessing its truth value.

 

People who come up with man on the flagpole scenarios are not interested in whether or not what they're examining (NAP here) is valid. They are interested in seeing if they can either assimilate it with their preferred view and if not, can they outwardly disregard it wholesale to avoid having to admit their prioritization of personal preference (culture) over reality. Otherwise known as confirmation bias.

 So you're defining the Socratic method by supposed intention that you have decided a person has? Ironically, it seems like you have a case of confirmation bias here. Maybe you should actually respond to these rebuttals and rationally argue against them if they are false.

 

Even under your definition, have you applied the Socratic method to the NAP, UPB, etc. ?

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

I've been listening to Stefan for quite some time and fairly recently he hosted the Peter Schiff show and was talking to Paul Boghossian about the Socratic method which caused me to remember a previous video from Stefan where he was defending NAP from those obscure scenarios (man on the flagpole, man abandoned in the woods) where the NAP didn't hold. Isn't this an example of the Socratic method in work? Does this show limitations to NAP as an absolute or the Socratic method?

The NAP did hold as far as I remember. I've never heard a single scenario that broke the NAP.

[dsayers]

 So you're defining the Socratic method by supposed intention that you have decided a person has?

 

Take out the "supposed" and "you have decided" and my answer is: Of course!

 

We don't call a dog that catches a frisbee a physics student. We don't say that a man that measures a piece of wood he's cutting to conform with municipal refuse regulations is studying carpentry. Even if people who were truly exploring these disciplines would engage in these behaviors. If I guess a coin you flip in the air, it doesn't make me psychic or telekinetic, even if I chanced my way into mimicking what behaviors of those people might look like.

[xSocrates]

Take out the "supposed" and "you have decided" and my answer is: Of course!

 

We don't call a dog that catches a frisbee a physics student. We don't say that a man that measures a piece of wood he's cutting to conform with municipal refuse regulations is studying carpentry. Even if people who were truly exploring these disciplines would engage in these behaviors. If I guess a coin you flip in the air, it doesn't make me psychic or telekinetic, even if I chanced my way into mimicking what behaviors of those people might look like.

 

Right, so how do you know their intentions and why do you use it to get around applying the Socratic method to the NAP?

[dsayers]

Right, so how do you know their intentions

 

Because we live in a world where assaulting children is widely accepted when you call it discipline. Despite the fact that it is the root cause of psychopathy. Despite the fact that every immoral act literally requires abuse early in childhood. Yet rather than looking at assaulting children, they're talking about people stuck on a flagpole breaking a window to survive, which never happens.

 

why do you use it to get around applying the Socratic method to the NAP?

 

This is an assumption and an erroneous one. You can feel free to comb my post history. You'll find that I never talk about the NAP unless others already are and then, only to speak to them in terms they've established they understand/accept.

 

In my mind, NAP is a generality. An effect. It comes from the universalization of self-ownership, which is predicated on both self-ownership and the axiom that people are fundamentally not different. As such, I prefer to look at things such as self-ownership because if we can sort that out, NAP is a given. You can see here and here that most of my time in this community has been an examination of self-ownership. I don't know if I've applied the Socratic method per se as it's a concept I wasn't introduced to until Stef's recent interview of Peter Boghossian on the Peter Schiff Show. I'd like to think I've been consistent in exploring a rational, consistent case for self-ownership's validity.

 

Which I totally admit comes from confirmation bias. The concept of self-ownership clicked with me from the moment I saw it put into words. It has been the source of all of my intellectual awakening. I've heard many strong cases for it. You could say that I need for it to be valid or that I feel that it is valid. However, I cannot consistently make the case for it, which could just as easily be the confirmation bias of others refusing to accept it.

 

Either way, it is clear that I am not eligible for the accusation of "why do you use it to get around applying the Socratic method to the NAP?"

[Xeeg]

I touched on this in another topic but it was actually really the wrong thread, this is the right spot for my argument AGAINST the NAP.

 

It's not that I don't like the NAP or practice it myself. I simply recognize that this stance is fundamentally flawed when we look at the laws of physics and the life forms that have spawned from it. Part of the problem that most people have when talking about the NAP is that they forget (or don't accept the evidence) that we are evolved apes that climbed out of trees hundreds of thousands of years ago and have been doing our best at figuring out what is going on in this world.

 

First of all, Force (in Newtons) is a physical entity that is fundamental to the nature of our universe. There is no way to avoid "Force" in our lives as there will always be things like hurricanes, the need to eat, the need to regulate body temperature, the need to avoid getting our limbs chewed off etc.The "use of Force" is such an important aspect of living creatures that it basically defines whether or not they can survive long enough to produce offspring. Violent coercion is and always will be the ultimate "use of Force" because it has the power to end the lives that mother nature created. She doesn't care who's lives end, only that those who are better at controlling the "use of Force" are rewarded in the evolutionary chain.To say that this is "immoral" is to ignore it as a fact of nature and to somehow convince ourselves that humanity is "above" nature. I feel that the NAP simply an extension of old religious thinking that puts humanity outside of nature. No one would claim that a cheetah's right to kill a zebra is immoral. Or that they do not have that right because of the zebras right to self ownership. Yet we seem to think humanity is except from this law. I'm sorry, but if you are convinced by the evidence of evolution then you will have to agree that we are just animals, that we are as natural as the zebra or the cheetah, and that we follow the same rules.Just look at the history of humanity, you may not like it, but it is obvious that we are not exempt from the rules of nature and that "use of Force" is the single most powerful method that nature has provided us.Once you admit that we have to deal with this, then we can decide on how to create rules regarding the "use of Force". This is what a government is for in the first place. Rules are meaningless unless enforced, and you can't enforce a rule unless you have more power than the rule breaker. Hence the creation of the state, laws and modern democracy aimed at TRYING to ensure that governments have their own check on the "use of Force". If the government abuses their responsibility too badly, the people rise up and replace it. We see this all throughout history. Either that or their populations suffer and die while their government crumbles in defeat by another civilization that is better at the "use of Force".Do yourselves a favour and study a bit more science, start with the fundamentals and it is much easier to explain how and why things are the way they are. Philosophy is meaningless unless it is based on the real world.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

I touched on this in another topic but it was actually really the wrong thread, this is the right spot for my argument AGAINST the NAP.

 

It's not that I don't like the NAP or practice it myself. I simply recognize that this stance is fundamentally flawed when we look at the laws of physics and the life forms that have spawned from it. Part of the problem that most people have when talking about the NAP is that they forget (or don't accept the evidence) that we are evolved apes that climbed out of trees hundreds of thousands of years ago and have been doing our best at figuring out what is going on in this world.

 

First of all, Force (in Newtons) is a physical entity that is fundamental to the nature of our universe. There is no way to avoid "Force" in our lives as there will always be things like hurricanes, the need to eat, the need to regulate body temperature, the need to avoid getting our limbs chewed off etc.The "use of Force" is such an important aspect of living creatures that it basically defines whether or not they can survive long enough to produce offspring. Violent coercion is and always will be the ultimate "use of Force" because it has the power to end the lives that mother nature created. She doesn't care who's lives end, only that those who are better at controlling the "use of Force" are rewarded in the evolutionary chain.To say that this is "immoral" is to ignore it as a fact of nature and to somehow convince ourselves that humanity is "above" nature. I feel that the NAP simply an extension of old religious thinking that puts humanity outside of nature. No one would claim that a cheetah's right to kill a zebra is immoral. Or that they do not have that right because of the zebras right to self ownership. Yet we seem to think humanity is except from this law. I'm sorry, but if you are convinced by the evidence of evolution then you will have to agree that we are just animals, that we are as natural as the zebra or the cheetah, and that we follow the same rules.Just look at the history of humanity, you may not like it, but it is obvious that we are not exempt from the rules of nature and that "use of Force" is the single most powerful method that nature has provided us.Once you admit that we have to deal with this, then we can decide on how to create rules regarding the "use of Force". This is what a government is for in the first place. Rules are meaningless unless enforced, and you can't enforce a rule unless you have more power than the rule breaker. Hence the creation of the state, laws and modern democracy aimed at TRYING to ensure that governments have their own check on the "use of Force". If the government abuses their responsibility too badly, the people rise up and replace it. We see this all throughout history. Either that or their populations suffer and die while their government crumbles in defeat by another civilization that is better at the "use of Force".Do yourselves a favour and study a bit more science, start with the fundamentals and it is much easier to explain how and why things are the way they are. Philosophy is meaningless unless it is based on the real world.

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

[dsayers]

In the phrase "the initiation of the use of force," the word "force" isn't the operative word. "Initiation" is.

Do yourselves a favour and study a bit more science, start with the fundamentals and it is much easier to explain how and why things are the way they are. Philosophy is meaningless unless it is based on the real world.

Science tells us that we've developed entire systems of brain function above the "apes we evolved from." Systems that allow us to communicate efficiently, analyze outcomes, consequences, make decisions accordingly, etc. Philosophy is based on the real world, including this part that you hadn't taken into consideration. It's because of this that we're able to use philosophy for normative purposes.Or are you saying that in the real world, you've ever gotten a job, girlfriend, car, friend, house by way of force? You kind of have to get everything in your life by force to even consider that force is necessary to meet your needs.

[Xeeg]

Yeah, my argument was not very good against the NAP as the "initiation of force" as you put it. But I stick to my feeling that the initiation of force has its appropriate moments. For the large case example we are living in a world where a handful of people with the right knowledge and resources could kill millions instantly. I am very doubtful that the whole nuclear weapon scare is a cleverly fabricated lie intended to chill the public into giving more power to the governments of the world.The consequences of waiting for the smoking gun are sometimes far too drastic to simply dismiss. I'm not saying we should give up all our freedoms and just voluntarily live in prisons, but I am saying that we do need a certain amount of collective, proactive force to minimize the occurrences of these major catastrophes.The other example of childhood discipline can carry the same line. Children are learning what kind of world this is, and sometimes they are so stuck in their own heads that they do not even realize that the outside world can affect them. An appropriate use of discipline can wake them up to the fact that their actions have results and those results can be painful.

 

This can be a very powerful lesson in humility for a child. There can often be a subtle difference between discipline and abuse, and each child has their own personalities. Some people are naturally born aggressive, squashing bugs and hogging toys, etc. To completely blame these actions on the abuse or neglect of the parents is to completely ignore the role of genetic expression. Some children simply respond better to the stick than the carrot, while others will be traumatized for life.

 

Even with our big brains and intelligent conversation, I am still wary of saying that we are so evolved that the morality of the cheetah eating a zebra scenario doesn't apply to us. The initiation of the use of force can and does win the day in many respects and likely contributed largely to our domination of this planet.

 

At any rate, I feel that getting "forcefully" pulled over at a police checkpoint to check and see my intoxication levels is a good thing and that there are certain freedoms I am willing to give up to an authority in order to raise the probability of safety in society.

If I am still completely missing the point please inform me. Does NAP simply mean "NEVER initiate the use of force"? Or are we willing to have some colour and depth in this?

[ribuck]

Does NAP simply mean "NEVER initiate the use of force"? Or are we willing to have some colour and depth in this?

 

The NAP is an absolute principle, not something with fuzzy colour and depth. But it goes more like this:

 

According to the NAP, it is never moral to initiate the use of (aggressive) force. If you choose to initiate the use of force, then according to the NAP it is not immoral for others to respond with force.

 

However, others are not obliged to respond with force. They might forgive the starving man who breaks into a building to steal food, but would attack the kidnapper trying to take their child. The starving guy understands that he is taking his chances though.

 

I feel that getting "forcefully" pulled over at a police checkpoint to check and see my intoxication levels is a good thing and that there are certain freedoms I am willing to give up to an authority in order to raise the probability of safety in society.

 

That's fine. In a free society, you're welcome to stop when the police wave you down. In a free society, you're free to use a toll road whose owners require everyone to stop when their police wave them down. Equally, if there's a toll road where drivers are not stopped for intoxication checks, you're free to not use that road because you fear for your safety.

 

The providers of toll roads will aim to provide for whatever mix of convenience and safety their customer base desires. This achieves benefits that are as good as (or better than) those promised by violent measures, but without the violence.