DCLugi Posted July 29, 2014 Posted July 29, 2014 http://www.libertarianism.org/blog/six-reasons-libertarians-should-reject-non-aggression-principle 1
labmath2 Posted July 29, 2014 Posted July 29, 2014 My understanding of each point. 1. Depends on the society and what standards they set for aggression 2. Depends on common sense as most people will not see breaking into someone's apartment to avoid falling to your death terribly bad. 3. Risk one is a bit tricky, i think it gets resolved by cultural trends 4. The fraud situation speaks to a much broader issue of affecting ones actions without actually using physical force. I have always had problem with the idea that once you have a gun to your head you cannot choose even though technically they have not physically harmed you yet. It speaks to one's perceived notion of danger, threat, or violation of property right, which is very vague. 5. Presumes everyone agrees to one set of property rights and is aware of the state of every property they interact with. 6. Children are always a pain in the butt.
Dwain Dibley Posted July 29, 2014 Posted July 29, 2014 It appears that the article pretty much nails it. Think about it: Over 7 billion nations of One, following the premise of NAP, which is based upon the threat of immediate violence, a choice left to each individual nation to determine what constitutes an act of physical aggression. Yep, that will work. Libertarianism, a totalitarian ideology, negates all notions of society, they cannot exist in a libertarian world. 3
Andrew79 Posted July 29, 2014 Posted July 29, 2014 Libertarianism, a totalitarian ideology, negates all notions of society, they cannot exist in a libertarian world.War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.
Dwain Dibley Posted July 29, 2014 Posted July 29, 2014 War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. What is that, the Libertarian moto to go along with NAP?
Andrew79 Posted July 29, 2014 Posted July 29, 2014 What is that, the Libertarian moto to go along with NAP?Just pointing out some nonsense.
Dwain Dibley Posted July 29, 2014 Posted July 29, 2014 Just pointing out some nonsense. Well with that, we can both agree...
Jer Posted July 30, 2014 Posted July 30, 2014 Author is a statist public school professor who wants to justify taking a salary funded by taxation. He doesn't say the NAP is invalid, just inconvenient. Stefan has spoken extensively about all the points mentioned in the article afaik. 1. I'm not sure about pollution 2. Small harms for large benefits? If you have a great idea what you don't need is a gun. Billionaires are already funding vaccinations in spite of taxes. 3. I don't know about the moral implications of risk, but I think insurance/DROs could deal with it. 4. Fraud is addressed in UPB 5. Author is just spouting nonsense, I don't think there's any justification for ambushing a person strolling through an empty field. 6. If you create dependent children you have a positive obligation to care for the child or find someone who will. Since a 3 year old can't feed himself it's the same as kidnapping an adult and locking them in your basement and saying "feed yourself" to the hostage 1
Dwain Dibley Posted July 30, 2014 Posted July 30, 2014 NAP will not work, it's irrational to assume that everyone in the world will interpret and hold to NAP as you want to believe they should. 2
Slashragequit Posted July 30, 2014 Posted July 30, 2014 NAP will not work, it's irrational to assume that everyone in the world will interpret and hold to NAP as you want to believe they should. Ethics will not work, it's irrational (it's underlined, so it must true) to assume everyone in the world will interpret and hold to ethical principles as you want to believe they should. This line of reasoning leads to moral relativism. Nice to meet you Mr. relativist. Anti-slavery will not work, it's irrational to assume that everyone in the world will interpret and hold to anti-slavery as you want to believe they should. Women's suffrage will not work, it's irrational to assume that everyone in the world will interpret and hold to the equal rights of women as you want to believe they should. I mean what are human rights anyways? What inalienable rights should people have? Are these rights up for interpretation? Why should people have rights at all? Ethics is not physics. I am bound by the laws of gravity whether I believe in them or not. Ethics is open to interpretation and nuance and unlike physics our belief in ethical laws actually alters reality. All we can hope for is that reasoned argument will convince people of the validity of a moral principle and change behavior accordingly. 1
regevdl Posted July 30, 2014 Posted July 30, 2014 It's not saying fair wage, roads, etc are aggressive and wrong, it's stating HOW they are obtained, funded. Roads can be built without jamming a gun in someone's back. (ever heard of toll roads? pay per use?) Private security? I mean even now, banks are buying or heavily subsidizing NYC police so the cops tend to work in interests of the banks more than the people and the people still need to pay the taxes for police force. ?? A private company could never get away with that.. Companies can pay fair wages and will attract better/more employees by doing so than their competitors who are exploiting their employees....without a gun in their back. Companies are already doing that without the gvt making a law (force/coercion) to do so. That's the NAP....it has nothing to say about which policies are right or wrong only that you shouldn't use force to apply them to society. If they are a really good idea and morally acceptable, people will willingly accept and apply them. Is anyone jamming a gun down my back right now as I right to not slander or name call? No. because I realize, w/out government coercion and aggression, that name calling and violent disagreance doesn't produce anything useful. I don't need a law to tell me that or internet police, etc. Pollution, so there is a gun to our back to pay subsidies to companies who have the worst record of pollution and yet no recourse, rarely any prevention. The EPA? ha! what a joke. It's not saying, yay! go pollute, it is suggesting that if you cause damage to person or property you are personally liable to pay for those damage. That usually is enough of a deterrent for individuals not to pollute beyond a reasonable means. of course we all pollute by merely existing. every breath is a pollutant. Even WITH aggression, it's not stopping/preventing or reducing pollution, but yes. NAP should be the culprit of pollution? NAP could be a better (not perfect) solution to environmental hazards. Just ask those shore towns in Alaska how well they are being compensated for property/health/income damages due to subsidized oil companies that pollute their water and then think if those companies were personally liable w/out the protection of gvt, if they would be able to continue to exist or carry on such negligent ethics. Do you actually think GOOD ideas need force? No one forced me to buy a smart phone, yet I did anyway because it's a really great technology and I find it useful to my needs. I have never met anyone that says fair wages are bad and immoral but see...this doesn't point out how much companies need to pay in regulation fees that could easily could be applied to higher wages so the argument is that the gvt force/intervention is wrong. Regulations are only a deterrent to competitors of that industry. I am a first hand witness as I used to own a private moving company and the housing crash in 2008 was actually felt by the moving industry in 2007 without context to what was happening or about to to happen. Most private businesses crashed (with trifecta of outrageous fuel and diesel hikes) and wouldn't you know....the subsidized, highly lobbied moving businesses wanted to pass more regulations (that they could afford but would crush mom and pop businesses) and then they came along and bought up each of those small private companies for pennies on the dollar. This was before I had ANY idea about NAP or libertarianism but the evidence was clear to me what was going on and I refused to sell to those vultures. Also, the article mentioned "Rothbard implies". that is up to the interpretation of the author of this article. Did Rothbard say children should starve or not. implication is not quotation.
Slashragequit Posted July 30, 2014 Posted July 30, 2014 All-or-Nothing Attitude Toward Risk Most people have a pretty good idea of what the use of force and the violation of property rights constitutes in the private sphere. We could start by going with a common interpretation and then iron out the inconsistencies. For example, is wrong to take peoples property with the threat of violence, and even worse to follow through with that violence if the person does not comply? If so then taxation is wrong. If this is permissible, then armed robbery and extortion are permissible.Prohibits Small Harms for Large Benefits Prevent the destruction of the whole world by lightly scratching my finger? You could always ask. I'm sure I would be okay with that. Or if you weren't able to ask beforehand you could always explain it to me afterwards, and I'm sure anyone would be okay with that. Even if they weren't okay, what would be the reparations for a light scratch on the finger. It's like those prisoner dilemmas in game theory where the participants are unable to communicate with one another. Just allow for some fucking conversation in your hypotheticals and maybe you would reach a more ethical outcome. I suppose he must be talking about scenarios where consent is not given or communication is impossible. Scenario 1:"Hey can I scratch your finger to save the world?""Nup." "Well fuck, I guess we're doomed then."Scenario 2:"Shit the world is about to end if I don't scratch this guy's finger!" "Then scratch it already!""I need his consent.""Then ask him.""I can't, he is blind, deaf and retarded. Fuck you NAP you've failed me once again!" The NAP sure does fall apart at the far edges of stupidity, we should all probably abandon it and go back to keeping slaves and beating women.These greater good sorts of argumentation remind me of this shitty movie Clash of the Titans. Hades gave this city an ultimatum - either sacrifice the king's virgin daughter or he would destroy the whole city. Before I had even studied libertarian philosophy I concluded that those calling for her sacrifice were spineless assholes. Any person that would force a person to sacrifice themselves isn't worth saving anyhow. The choice was up to her whether she was willing to sacrifice herself to save others. Of course in this example you could think of the state as Hades, and we are all caught up arguing about the virgin daughter and the townspeople all the while ignoring who the real evil is.As for the billionaires funding vaccinations, this is ridiculous because it assumes this is the only possible solution to the problem. How about talking to people and making the case for the need to donate to this cause? How's about asking billionaires to help fund this endeavor rather than forcing them at gunpoint to give over a small fraction of their income. It also assumes the rich of today, whose wealth is largely stolen from others through the state, will be the same sorts of people as the rich in a society where the NAP is consistently and universally applied. Either the billionaires pay this tax or the kids die. How fucking imaginative. Force or it won't happen. The implication is that people are so shitty that they won't help others out who are in dire need. Oh, except those people who are willing to use force to help others, they are the only ones who are willing to help. People are not willing to help others. People are willing to help others using force.Therefore, force is the only way to help others.But wait, doesn't the first premise contradict the second?If people are too selfish and greedy to help others willingly and therefore must be forced to do so, then how is it that there are some people willing to use force in order to help others? Yes, it is wrong to steal to help others, but if you truly believe it is the only way of helping, then have some conviction in your beliefs and do it yourself. But first, at least make a decent case and try asking permission. If you truly believe that the only way to save these children is to tax billionaires, then ask them first and if they don't oblige pull out your gun and rob them. If you truly believe the ends justifies the means then at least have the decency to be the one who pulls the trigger. People will voluntarily fund things that they believe in. Not everyone, and not in equal amounts. Some billionaires might be willing to give a lot more than a small tax would demand of them, if you would just ask. And maybe if politicians were willing to enforce the NAP when it came to the rich and powerful we wouldn't have so much of our wealth concentrated in the hands of a few sociopaths. Maybe it wouldn't be mostly greedy assholes who were rich if we stopped letting assholes bribe the state to gain unfair advantage over everyone else. Of course how could we possibly expect that to happen when we can count so many politicians among those sociopaths. If only we could stop believing that those who insist on using force against others are not the same people as those who care about others and actually want to do some good is this world. Prohibits All Pollution I wouldn't consider pollution as a use of force, unless the pollution was intentionally dumped onto another person's property and caused demonstrable harm. If pollution from a single private source could be demonstrated to be causing others harm then I would also consider this worthy of dispute and possible reparations. It comes down to demonstrating direct cause and effect from a source of harm, and investigating whether the harm was due to malicious intent, negligence or an unavoidable happenstance. This article acts like discussions of the NAP can not possibly have any nuance and that the NAP is the only ethical principle libertarians believe in.
Dwain Dibley Posted July 30, 2014 Posted July 30, 2014 Ethics will not work, it's irrational (it's underlined, so it must true) to assume everyone in the world will interpret and hold to ethical principles as you want to believe they should. This line of reasoning leads to moral relativism. Nice to meet you Mr. relativist. Anti-slavery will not work, it's irrational to assume that everyone in the world will interpret and hold to anti-slavery as you want to believe they should. Women's suffrage will not work, it's irrational to assume that everyone in the world will interpret and hold to the equal rights of women as you want to believe they should. I mean what are human rights anyways? What inalienable rights should people have? Are these rights up for interpretation? Why should people have rights at all? Ethics is not physics. I am bound by the laws of gravity whether I believe in them or not. Ethics is open to interpretation and nuance and unlike physics our belief in ethical laws actually alters reality. All we can hope for is that reasoned argument will convince people of the validity of a moral principle and change behavior accordingly. First off comrade, imposing a set of dictums that you believe everyone should follow because you believe they're universal is not ethics, it's political force and coercion, totalitarianism. See: Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, etc. Women's suffrage was not the imposition of a set of dictums upon society, it was a fight for inclusion into a political process and for equal standing. The abolition of slavery was not the imposition of a set of dictums upon society, it was for inclusion into the society, the political process and for equal standing. Can you see the difference? "Ethics is not physics. I am bound by the laws of gravity whether I believe in them or not. Ethics is open to interpretation and nuance" Out of your own reason, you demolish the basis of NAP, yet you continue to believe... 4
Jer Posted July 30, 2014 Posted July 30, 2014 is it imposing totalitarianism if I insist that 2+2=4? Logic and universality don't care about your beliefs.
Dwain Dibley Posted July 30, 2014 Posted July 30, 2014 is it imposing totalitarianism if I insist that 2+2=4? Logic and universality don't care about your beliefs. You are not arguing the logic of 2+2=4, you are not arguing logic at all. You are rationalizing your beliefs by attaching a nonexistent universality to them. 2
Slashragequit Posted July 30, 2014 Posted July 30, 2014 First off comrade, imposing a set of dictums that you believe everyone should follow because you believe they're universal is not ethics, it's political force and coercion, totalitarianism. See: Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, etc. Women's suffrage was not the imposition of a set of dictums upon society, it was a fight for inclusion into a political process and for equal standing. The abolition of slavery was not the imposition of a set of dictums upon society, it was for inclusion into the society, the political process and for equal standing. Can you see the difference? "Ethics is not physics. I am bound by the laws of gravity whether I believe in them or not. Ethics is open to interpretation and nuance" Out of your own reason, you demolish the basis of NAP, yet you continue to believe... This is semantics, not argumentation. Just stating that the NAP is an imposition and that abolitionism or suffrage were not does not an argument make. Abolitionists imposed the dictum that owning people is unethical onto those who wanted to own slaves.The abolition of slavery was not the imposition of a set of dictums upon society, it was a fight against those that were preventing black people from living a life according to their conscience, a life that they desired. A fight for inclusion is a fight against those that seek to exclude, however the fact that part of their desire was to be included into a political process and for equal standing is irrelevant. You do not have to be a part of a political process to not be a slave. Abolitionist and civil rights activists fought against state sanctioned violence against blacks. Libertarians fight against state sanctioned violence against people - the state.The NAP is not the imposition of a set of dictums upon society, it is a fight against those that prevent peaceful, non-violent citizens from living a life according to their conscience, a life that they desire. Fuck the political process, I want no part of it.What you are saying is that blacks and women fought for inclusion into the society, the political process and for equal standing, but had no ethical basis for doing so. I guess philosophical arguments are simply irrelevant and what we are doing is not making moral progress as a society but simply fighting for arbitrary preferences.Okay cool, that's fine. Screw the NAP then. Libertarians are simply fighting to be left alone. They would prefer not to have to bend to the arbitrary whims of amoral relativists like yourself. Americans said fuck off Brits, leave me alone, stop forcing me to do things I don't want to do and preventing me from doing what I desire. Blacks said the same to whites and women said the same to men. I'm glad to continue on in this tradition of telling stupid assholes to fuck off and stop forcing us to live under the oppressive rule of their retarded opinions. You are not arguing the logic of 2+2=4, you are not arguing logic at all. You are rationalizing your beliefs by attaching a nonexistent universality to them. Is it wrong to own slaves? If so why? Use logic please. "Ethics is not physics. I am bound by the laws of gravity whether I believe in them or not. Ethics is open to interpretation and nuance" Out of your own reason, you demolish the basis of NAP, yet you continue to believe... Yep, because I admit ethical principles do not have to be followed and can be nuanced I have thus demonstrated that ethics has no basis for belief.I guess I don't believe women should have the vote anymore because what differentiates women from girls is nuanced and open to interpretation.I guess I don't believe drink driving should be illegal anymore, because what differentiates drunk from sober is nuanced and open to interpretation.Damn, I thought I lived in a world of black and white, turns out it is actually composed of many subtle shades of grey. I guess I'll have to become a nihilist now. 1
Jer Posted July 30, 2014 Posted July 30, 2014 Drunk driving is an interesting question that speaks to risk and could probably be solved with insurance rates. Destruction of property and causing harm are clearly prohibited. What about driving and talking to a passenger? Driving while angry, sleepy, or texting? You are not arguing the logic of 2+2=4, you are not arguing logic at all. You are rationalizing your beliefs by attaching a nonexistent universality to them. false, the NAP in logically verifiable.
J. D. Stembal Posted July 30, 2014 Posted July 30, 2014 Fuck I thought I lived in a world of black and white, turns out it is actually composed of many subtle shades of grey. I guess I'll have to become a nihilist now. Ah, yes, the argument that the non-aggression principle is black and white so therefore cannot possibly apply to a world filled with fifty billion shades of relativism. This is the irrational argument that ultimately led me to break up with my recent girlfriend when we were discussing how we planned to raise our children. She seriously told me that she didn't believe in anything, and emphatically believed that it was unethical to inculcate a child with any beliefs whatsoever because of the narrow mindedness of dogmatism. I was holding up the peacefulness of non-aggression principle as the lesson I wanted to teach our children, and she turned away from me to warmly embrace nihilism/relativism. (I was fighting against her inner Catholic mother and the unresolved emotional dispute between them.). She called me a brainwashed cultist when I broke off the relationship. Nihilists and relativists will see the gun in the room and point it at you without a second's hesitation when you reveal your commitment to freedom, liberty and the truth. Associate with them at your own peril.
Dwain Dibley Posted July 30, 2014 Posted July 30, 2014 Let's try this; let's suppose that government, after a long struggle, has finally died from lack of attention taking with it all forms of civil structure and the suggestions of NAP are established as the norm. I'm walking down the dirt path that manages to weave itself between all the claims of property ownership and a guy walking the opposite direction bumps me on his way past, whereupon, I promptly turn and shoot him dead. ***Oh, the question: Did I follow the suggestions of NAP? 4
Dwain Dibley Posted July 30, 2014 Posted July 30, 2014 Ah, yes, the argument that the non-aggression principle is black and white so therefore cannot possibly apply to a world filled with fifty billion shades of relativism. No, the argument is that; without the rule of law and the threat of force, NAP is nothing more than wishful suggestions, and that's why NAP is backed by the threat of immediate violence. Governments have existed since man first congregated, there will always be someone or a group of someones assuming a leadership roll, either by force or by consent. 3
J. D. Stembal Posted July 30, 2014 Posted July 30, 2014 No, the argument is that; without the rule of law and the threat of force, NAP is nothing more than wishful suggestions, and that's why NAP is backed by the threat of immediate violence. Governments have existed since man first congregated, there will always be someone or a group of someones assuming a leadership roll, either by force or by consent. Allow me to adjust your last statement a little. "The non-aggression principle only works in practice when you counter force with force. Slavery has always existed since the beginning. There will always be a group looking to enslave another group using force or by gaining consent first." Your statement is faced with three major contradictions that you should solve if you desire to avoid confusion. 1) Achieving the opposite of aggression requires a superior amount of aggression. 2) If the practice of slavery has always occurred, we have no option but to endorse its continuation. 3) If people reject the option of voluntary slavery, we must convince them by force because they are wrong. This statement flagrantly ignores the oxymoron of voluntary slavery. All three of these propositions make no shred of sense. Please clarify if I have misunderstood your argument.
Dwain Dibley Posted July 30, 2014 Posted July 30, 2014 Allow me to adjust your last statement a little. "The non-aggression principle only works in practice when you counter force with force. Slavery has always existed since the beginning. There will always be a group looking to enslave another group using force or by gaining consent first." Your statement is faced with three major contradictions that you should solve if you desire to avoid confusion. 1) Achieving the opposite of aggression requires a superior amount of aggression. 2) If the practice of slavery has always occurred, we have no option but to endorse its continuation. 3) If people reject the option of voluntary slavery, we must convince them by force because they are wrong. This statement flagrantly ignores the oxymoron of voluntary slavery. All three of these propositions make no shred of sense. Please clarify if I have misunderstood your argument. I'm sorry but I see no correlation between what I stated and the hysterics you've presented as a response. Maybe I've got it wrong so explain to me. Does NAP (the Non-Aggression Principle) rely upon the threat of immediate violence as a means to coerce compliance? If not then, how is broad based compliance achieved? How is noncompliance handled? How are disputes in interpretations handled? Is there a possibility of many different interpretations of NAP? Keep in mind that morality and ethics are social constructs and they can very greatly across a society and over time. By the way; that's one of the reasons why they invented the rule of law, to mitigate such moral and ethical variances.
prolix Posted July 30, 2014 Posted July 30, 2014 Let's try this; let's suppose that government, after a long struggle, has finally died from lack of attention taking with it all forms of civil structure and the suggestions of NAP are established as the norm. I'm walking down the dirt path that manages to weave itself between all the claims of property ownership and a guy walking the opposite direction bumps me on his way past, whereupon, I promptly turn and shoot him dead. ***Oh, the question: Did I follow the suggestions of NAP? So,you don't even understand what the NAP is or what the NAP is used for. I site your posts, literally all of them, to support this assertion. The questions then becomes why are you trying to argue against something you do not understand and why are you doing it without any supporting evidence? Any chance you can not sophist around this question and not just restate your moral-relativist feelings in addressing my post?
J. D. Stembal Posted July 30, 2014 Posted July 30, 2014 In order: No. It isn't. You don't associate with people who demonstrate the willingness to initiate aggression. This is what we are attempting to do this very moment. No, there is only one logical interpretation of the non-aggression principle since it is founded on the logical principles of self-ownership and property rights. You also cannot invalidate the non-aggression principle by using an argument because that would be a self-detonating and illogical argument. Incorrect, morality and ethics do not change with society or time. The rule of law and the propaganda of governments - depending on who is currently in office - change over time and influence culture, which is neither morality or ethics. Would you please point out an example of any hysterics in my posts? Also, I invite you to read Universally Preferable Behavior.
prolix Posted July 30, 2014 Posted July 30, 2014 Also, I invite you to read Universally Preferable Behavior. Also I would suggest Dwain read the wiki entry for Non-Aggression- Principle ...
Dwain Dibley Posted July 30, 2014 Posted July 30, 2014 Here is your argument so far in support of NAP: Begging the Question / Circular Reasoning 3
labmath2 Posted July 30, 2014 Posted July 30, 2014 “The unborn has a right to life, therefore abortion is immoral”. Having a right to X is the same as other people having an obligation to allow you to have X, so each of these arguments begs the question, assuming exactly what it is trying to prove. This is interesting. Most of my objection to the logic in UPB is because when i simplify it, it simplifies to "it violates UPB therefore its immoral." What immoral means in any context is that it violates UPB.
Dwain Dibley Posted July 30, 2014 Posted July 30, 2014 Also I would suggest Dwain read the wiki entry for Non-Aggression- Principle ... Thanks for the link, interesting read on how to rationalize a untenable position. This is interesting. Most of my objection to the logic in UPB is because when i simplify it, it simplifies to "it violates UPB therefore its immoral." What immoral means in any context is that it violates UPB. I must admit that I have not read UPB, but I did run across a review of it: Universally Preferable Behavior: A Rational Proof for Secular Ethics
prolix Posted July 30, 2014 Posted July 30, 2014 Thanks for the link, interesting read on how to rationalize a untenable position. I wish you would demonstrate how NAP is an untenable position. I linked you to the criticisms for the purpose of maybe inspiring you to make an actual argument, even though the criticisms on the wiki make very weak arguments, as opposed to just stating your emotional preference for moral-relativism on a board comprised mainly of moral-objectivists. I mean, please, think what you want, but if you want to persuade someone have an actual argument based in empirical evidence like the moral-objectivists have here. You are just not very compelling because you do not support your assertions as compared to UPB and NAP which have books of supporting evidence and empirical and logical supporting evidence. So what are you trying to accomplish if you are not supporting your assertions but instead repeating your preferences and biases? 1
Dwain Dibley Posted July 31, 2014 Posted July 31, 2014 I wish you would demonstrate how NAP is an untenable position. I linked you to the criticisms for the purpose of maybe inspiring you to make an actual argument, even though the criticisms on the wiki make very weak arguments, as opposed to just stating your emotional preference for moral-relativism on a board comprised mainly of moral-objectivists. I mean, please, think what you want, but if you want to persuade someone have an actual argument based in empirical evidence like the moral-objectivists have here. You are just not very compelling because you do not support your assertions as compared to UPB and NAP which have books of supporting evidence and empirical and logical supporting evidence. So what are you trying to accomplish if you are not supporting your assertions but instead repeating your preferences and biases? Who wrote the books supporting UPB and NAP? Do a google: "objectivism logical fallacies" There is no "empirical evidence" that supports UPB or NAP, that's just wishful thinking. 1
prolix Posted July 31, 2014 Posted July 31, 2014 An error occurred You have reached your quota of negative votes for the day 1
DCLugi Posted July 31, 2014 Author Posted July 31, 2014 As the original poster I just want to be clear that the heading was only meant to be...funny. I thought about it later and it may have come off a bit condescending or sarcastic. I really wanted to explore the article and I thank everyone who did so. Sometimes this stuff gets foggy for me and it's wonderful to see such bright minds shedding light. Cheers.
J. D. Stembal Posted July 31, 2014 Posted July 31, 2014 Here is your argument so far in support of NAP: Begging the Question / Circular Reasoning How is the standard argument for the NAP begging the question? In regard to Universally Preferable Behavior, you cannot violate it. You can choose to use it, or not. It is just a framework for determining the morality of hypothetical ethical scenarios.
Dwain Dibley Posted July 31, 2014 Posted July 31, 2014 How is the standard argument for the NAP begging the question? In regard to Universally Preferable Behavior, you cannot violate it. You can choose to use it, or not. It is just a framework for determining the morality of hypothetical ethical scenarios. You use NAP to justify NAP. And it is backed by the threat of immediate violence. To say it is not is the same as saying you have no right to life or property. Sure you can because there is no such thing a UPB, it's a made up fiction. Nice idea, makes you feel all warm, fuzzy and sanctimonious inside, but it's not real.
Slashragequit Posted July 31, 2014 Posted July 31, 2014 You use NAP to justify NAP. And it is backed by the threat of immediate violence. To say it is not is the same as saying you have no right to life or property. Sure you can because there is no such thing a UPB, it's a made up fiction. Nice idea, makes you feel all warm, fuzzy and sanctimonious inside, but it's not real. Okay little boy. Ethics is a means of navigating the world and getting what we want. It is a negotiation between people. We argue for ethical principles that we think will benefit people in their pursuit of happiness. We talk to one another and discover that part of what we want in life is to not be violently assaulted or stolen from. We realize that if we use violence against others then we have no justification to argue that people should not use violence against us. We look for universals because universals are fair. If violence is permissible for some, it is permissible for all. Those who would use violence against others tend not to want violence used against themselves. If you agree to not use violence against me, then I have a reason to not use violence against you. If you insist on using violence against me and others then we have no reason not to respond in kind. Ethics will not appeal to everyone. Some people enjoy violence and/or are willing to risk using violence to get what they want, and part of what they want clearly does not include the well-being of others. Fortunately, we are a largely social and cooperative species and most of us do value the well-being of others. Most of us are therefore open to ethical arguments and adherence to ethical principles. The NAP: We will not use violence against you if you agree to not use violence against us. If you use violence against us we will respond in kind. Dwain Dibley: The NAP doesn't exist! Me: Then why the hell are we having a peaceful argument of words. Let's fist fight. The principle exists, doesn't mean adherence to it is mandatory. You want to use force to get what you want, that's fine. Just please give me an argument as to why I shouldn't use force against you. Again I am asking you for arguments. I'm still waiting on an argument as to why slavery is wrong and why people should have rights at all. Do you believe slavery is wrong? If so, why?
Recommended Posts