Question on Morality and The NAP

[Eudaimonic]

Dear Freedomain Radio Community,

 

I am a 17 year old from Massachusetts (as an anarchist I tend to stand out like sore thumb, particularly in the free market discussions). Personally, I agree morally with The Non-Aggression Principle, but one specific point in this philosophy on morality in my critical thinking still escapes me. Many of my opposers when I point out the moral stance of Anarchy, weave their way past my moral rebuttals until I reach this one stone wall which I can't seem to look past. I'm hopeful you'll help me to better understand.

 

So, what is this stone wall? Well...let me try to explain best I can with the wonderfully inconsistent education public schooling has brought me and the few books I have been able to read on the off chance I have a few bucks (You have no idea how much information the internet has opened up to me). I have come to the conclusion that morality can be defined by consensuality. If everyone agrees an action to be moral than by consensuality it is. Comparatively if everyone were to consider something immoral then, similarly, by consensuality it is. But if something is considered both immoral by some and moral by others (note I am not using the word "justified" in any of this) than it is neither immoral or moral but simply a personal discretion. I would say then that it is immoral for someone to force someone else to do or not do something they find moral or immoral. So simplistically saying people can do whatever they want. Yet this could constitute definitely immoral acts such as murder. This is the main problem I've been dealing with. If everyone can agree that murder is wrong, those who commit it have violated moral consensus and retaliation against that person is justified. But also if everyone can say that to force someone to do somthing is wrong, then, doing so would constitute retaliation against the person forcing someone else to do or not do something. So by definition this would constitute that by forcing someone NOT to commit murder, you have violated this principle.

 

I may have complexed this a little too far, but then again this subject has been confusing me thoroughly, so I'll try and simplify my question. If some things are definitely immoral and constitute retaliation, including coercing someone to do or not to do a particular action, then couldn't forcing someone not to do something immoral, such as murder, be considered immoral?

 

A response would be extremely helpful to me, morality seems to be a subject that keeps me up most nights. Von Mises liked to quote in his writings that economics was the most complexed art forms, misunderstood tremendously by the masses. Von Mises obviously never dived deep enough into moral theory, economics seems a cake walk to this massive mess. Thank you very much for any response.

 

 

 

With considerations, A Secret Identity 

[Wuzzums]

So we have the premises: 

1)Forcing someone to do something without consent is immoral.

2)Murder by definition is killing someone without their consent, thus immoral.

3)Forcing someone not to murder is immoral, this implies that leaving someone alone to freely murder is moral.

 

=>Thus murder is both moral and immoral at the same time. This does not make logical sense so it cannot be the case.

 

So we're back at the beginning. Because the conclusion is wrong then it means there's something wrong with one or more of the premises. We have:

• 1 is true => 2 is true => 3 is false.
• 1 is false => 2 is false => Forcing someone not to murder is moral => leaving someone alone to freely murder is immoral => murder is again both immoral and moral at the same time, thus 3 is also false. 

Either way you look at it 3 still falls.

Murder as a concept cannot be moral regardless. If I accept that it's moral to force someone to do something against their will, then I accept that murder is moral. If I accept murder it invalidates the whole concept of murder. I cannot want to be murdered by someone, this would just be suicide by proxy, far from murder.

 

This whole thing can be resolved by realizing that all rules are universal, meaning any rule you apply to yourself can be applied to me also. Thus if you break the rule "it is immoral to force someone to do something against their will" I can also break that rule. If someone decides to murder you, then they have given you permission to force them to not murder you, i.e. self-defense.

 

Have you read UPB? Deals with these questions and more in a way more clear manner.

[cynicist]

I have come to the conclusion that morality can be defined by consensuality. If everyone agrees an action to be moral than by consensuality it is.

 

That's not morality. That's opinion.

[greekredemption]

That's not morality. That's opinion.

Could you elaborate on this? Or will you let your statement rest on its brevity?

[cynicist]

Could you elaborate on this? Or will you let your statement rest on its brevity?

 

If it is determined by consensus than it is opinion. Morality is defined as a set of principles (fundamental truths) that distinguish between good/evil, which means it has to be objective.

[AustinJames]

 

I have come to the conclusion that morality can be defined by consensuality. If everyone agrees an action to be moral than by consensuality it is.  

 

This assertion is highly problematic, in that it is contradictory.  If morality was indeed "consensuality," then there would be no morals that directly opposed social norms.  "Consensuality" being defined by what is agreed upon a priori in society, morality is often directly opposed.  Morality is more often than not incriminating to broad "consensuality."

 

Morality has an objective measure.  Have you read UPB?

[Omegahero09]

So simplistically saying people can do whatever they want. Yet this could constitute definitely immoral acts such as murder. This is the main problem I've been dealing with. If everyone can agree that murder is wrong, those who commit it have violated moral consensus and retaliation against that person is justified. But also if everyone can say that to force someone to do somthing is wrong, then, doing so would constitute retaliation against the person forcing someone else to do or not do something. So by definition this would constitute that by forcing someone NOT to commit murder, you have violated this principle.

Ah, the wall you've come up against is the Subjective Morality trap!People can quibble and debate about whether or not murder is wrong, or frame it however they like to warp it into justification- but because morality must be objective in order to exist, murder is still immoral.