NAP -- Prescriptive vs Descriptive Distinction

[David Ottinger]

Is the non-aggression principle ("NAP") prescriptive or descriptive?

 

NAP (short-hand definition):  No one has the right or right to claim a right to initiate force against another in order to cause harm to another or to another's property; to defraud another; to extort another; or, to break contract without cause*. 

 

*Cause being a moral argument.

 

 

Now, I found that the NAP was not precriptive but rather descriptive, though I might be in error and any help would be appreciated. 

 

 

My reasoning is as follows:

 

 

For it to be prescritpive, the NAP would have to derive an ought from an is.  And, I fail to see how it's telling anyone how they ought to act when the ought is derived from one's interests, i.e. in this case, what outcome people want as far as human discourse goes. In other words, if you want a voluntary society, then you ought to abide by the NAP.


To say that's prescriptive would be like saying a tuning fork tells you how you ought to tune a piano. But, that's not what it does. The tuning fork serves as a medium for deducing the harmonics of a sound as it provides a standard, i.e. a principle. Ultimately, it is the user that decides how the piano ought to be tuned.

A valid moral theory works in the same way. What you ought to do is always going to be derived from your interests. What is going to happen is derived from governing principles be it NAP (a moral principle) or theory of gravity (a physics principle). Needless to say, since no one has a working crystal ball, the best we can do is use probability to predict outcomes.

So, by understanding principles we can deduce probable outcomes, and with such understandings, one can make a more informed choice as to what he/she ought to do in order to achieve a desired consequence.

Thus, moral theories help us extrapolate plausible outcomes of human action. The NAP is such a principle, and its function is to help one determine what actions will lead a society to more voluntary exchange as opposed to acts of conquest.  Thus, to put it analogously, it is a compass (describes a direction, i.e. descriptive), not a heading (prescribes a direction, i.e. prescriptive).

[NotDarkYet]

The way I understand it:

 

Only "ought nots" are universalizable.

 

Positive actions are not universalizable, because:

 

1. At some point you'll be asleep, in a coma, sick, and can't perform the action

2. There are an infinite number of 'moral' actions you could be doing at any point. 

3. Who chooses these positive moral actions?

4. ...and many others I'm sure 

 

 

 

So any logical moral system can't include things you must do.

[dsayers]

It is a mistake to focus on "NAP" which is just shorthand. It would be like trying to analyze a forest without looking at any trees. I've actually come to despise this anagram because it helps so many good people lose sight of what even they are talking about.

 

"Theft, assault, rape, and murder is immoral" is descriptive. You mentioned getting an ought from an is and how this requires an if. Well in the context of self-preservation (IF you wish to survive), then it is also normative. It should also be noted that ought/is doesn't really matter here because in any discussion of morality, "IF you wish to live virtuously" is a given as it is the framework in which the analysis takes place.

 

Anyways, I should clarify the link between self-preservation and not initiating the use of force. When you aggress against others, you welcome aggression unto yourself. I've made the case for peaceful interaction as the default for this reason alone. There are very few things that can honestly be said about "human nature," but one is that we seek out the most resources with the least amount of risk/effort. While it may seem easier to take a car rather than to earn it, taking a car means you will forever be watching over your shoulder, unable to sleep easy, always wondering who/when/how you will be caught.

 

Theft is immoral (descriptive). If you wish to survive, you ought not to steal (normative). As we cannot escape our own biological imperative for survival, it is essentially the same thing. What distinction were you looking for?

[David Ottinger]

I hope you don't mind me breaking your post apart like this.  It's just easier for me to reference things to ask questions.

 

It is a mistake to focus on "NAP" which is just shorthand. It would be like trying to analyze a forest without looking at any trees. I've actually come to despise this anagram because it helps so many good people lose sight of what even they are talking about.

 

 

If it is a mistake, I fail to see it as such.  Maybe you can elaborate?
 

"Theft, assault, rape, and murder is immoral" is descriptive. You mentioned getting an ought from an is and how this requires an if. Well in the context of self-preservation (IF you wish to survive), then it is also normative.

 

 

 

How is that descriptive? 

 

It should also be noted that ought/is doesn't really matter here because in any discussion of morality, "IF you wish to live virtuously" is a given as it is the framework in which the analysis takes place.

 

 

 

I find NAP to be the basis for morality.  So, I hold a similar view, but I say: Morality is irrelevant to those who desire war, i.e. conquest -- which is referring to rule by might or achieving ends by force (i.e. NAP violations).
 

Anyways, I should clarify the link between self-preservation and not initiating the use of force. When you aggress against others, you welcome aggression unto yourself. I've made the case for peaceful interaction as the default for this reason alone. There are very few things that can honestly be said about "human nature," but one is that we seek out the most resources with the least amount of risk/effort. While it may seem easier to take a car rather than to earn it, taking a car means you will forever be watching over your shoulder, unable to sleep easy, always wondering who/when/how you will be caught.

 

Theft is immoral (descriptive). If you wish to survive, you ought not to steal (normative). As we cannot escape our own biological imperative for survival, it is essentially the same thing. What distinction were you looking for?

 

 

I've argued with others that the NAP is not prescriptive because I'm constantly running into people who bring up Hume's Law.  So, I point out that the NAP is not prescriptive.  It doesn't tell us what we ought to do.  What we ought to do is always derived from an 'if', not an 'is'. 

 

So, I'm looking to confirm the accuracy of my claim/logic. 

[dsayers]

If it is a mistake, I fail to see it as such.  Maybe you can elaborate?

 

1. You have consciousness.

2. You have the capacity for reason.

3. Therefore, you own yourself.

4. Everybody else has consciousness.

5. Everybody else has the capacity for reason.

6. Therefore, everybody else owns themselves. Therefore...

7. Theft is the use of the property of another person without their consent.

8. Assault is the use of the body (property) of another person without their consent.

9. Rape is the sexual use of the body (property) of another person without their consent.

10. Murder is the taking of the life (property) of another person without their consent.

 

The non-aggression principle is the summary of ALL OF THAT. Not everybody understands it as such. This is the problem. To some, non-aggression only means not getting physically violent. But consent is the key, not what we might typically describe as "aggression."

 

Do you not agree that precise is more valuable than imprecise?

 

How is that descriptive? 

 

In my outline in this post, are any of the individual points NOT an accurate description of the real world?

 

I find NAP to be the basis for morality.  So, I hold a similar view, but I say: Morality is irrelevant to those who desire war, i.e. conquest -- which is referring to rule by might or achieving ends by force (i.e. NAP violations).

 

You mean that the immoral have no interest in non-aggression. They cannot escape morality. This is why it's important to be precise with what you're talking about. Those who "rule by might" demonstrate their acceptance of property rights simply by exercising ownership over their own body. In other words, to find the ought you're looking for, you need look no further than the very actions of the people not conforming to that ought. They're demonstrating their acceptance of property rights while behaving as if they reject property rights.