jayarbar Posted November 8, 2014 Posted November 8, 2014 Religion teaches it's followers to follow God without question. So whatever God says must be obeyed. I am wondering if there is a parallel here with the NAP. Is the NAP subject to debate? In other words, is the NAP derived from rational arguments or is it followed based on faith. 1 2
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted November 8, 2014 Posted November 8, 2014 Well the nap is a principle, not a commandment. I think what you are asking is whether it's a rational principle or an arbitrary one.
WasatchMan Posted November 8, 2014 Posted November 8, 2014 The NAP can be directly derived from one of the most foundational axioms: the law of non-contradiction.
dsayers Posted November 8, 2014 Posted November 8, 2014 is the NAP derived from rational arguments or is it followed based on faith. Is agoobwah derived from rational arguments or is it followed based on faith? I suspect you're not going to be able to answer that question even for yourself until you know what agoobwah is, eh? Sorry, this is a pet peeve of mine (use of the acronym NAP without understanding what it is). You're talking about shorthand for a conclusion as if it doesn't come from anywhere. It's like asking what color a forest is while exhibiting no knowledge of what a tree is. In order to answer this question for yourself, unpack what NAP is. The non-aggression principle. It's shorthand for the conclusion that "the initiation of the use of force (theft, assault, rape, and murder) is immoral" How do we arrive at this conclusion (which appears to be what you were trying to ask)? These behaviors are a demonstration of a simultaneous acceptance of one's own property rights and rejection of the property rights of others. X and the opposite of X cannot be true simultaneously. This is an accurate description of the real world, not faith. 1
Josh F Posted November 8, 2014 Posted November 8, 2014 Is there a parrellel between a fictional abstract being and a rational ethical code? No. There is a parallel with the ten commandments and the NAP. Both are different types of ethics, the difference is that one of them is based on superstition and the other one is based on a correspondence to reality. Its like the difference between life and a movie, one of them is fictional.
Kevin Beal Posted November 8, 2014 Posted November 8, 2014 Is the NAP subject to debate? It would be strange if it were up for debate. Why aren't we resolving this disagreement using violence? 3
MrCapitalism Posted November 8, 2014 Posted November 8, 2014 In other words, is the NAP derived from rational arguments or is it followed based on faith. There are entire books written on deriving the NAP from rational arguments. Stef wrote one himself.
Pepin Posted November 9, 2014 Posted November 9, 2014 Have you not done any research on the subject? I am not being critical, I just find it a strange question for someone to ask who hasn't just been introduced to the NAP. If the NAP is something you've just started hearing about, I can recommend a number of books and videos on the subject, with Stefan's "UPB: The Book" being a great one. You could have asked what the arguments were rather than attacking people's integrity. Are you interested in the actual arguments or are you here to sling mud at people to see what sticks? Perhaps this is an idea they recently heard about and are trying to figure out if there is a theory behind it, or if it is just a commandment. It can be a little confusing with the common use of the NAP term as it sounds like a commandment. There is also a strong Christian bent in libertarianism which believes in actual commandments, which also might create some confusion.
dsayers Posted November 9, 2014 Posted November 9, 2014 Perhaps this is an idea they recently heard about and are trying to figure out if there is a theory behind it, or if it is just a commandment. This is another reason why I dislike the use of the acronym. If this confusion is in fact what we're seeing, then that's our (those who understand) fault for being imprecise when precision is not tedious. I mean, look at how many people see "initiation of the use of force" and interpret it as "the use of force" despite it potentially changing the moral identity of a behavior. Or how many people see non-aggression and mistake it for pacifism. Those things are not our fault, but I think we can help those who can be helped more by avoiding abbreviations that we see lead to confusion.
jayarbar Posted November 9, 2014 Author Posted November 9, 2014 Thanks for the responses. I will definitely take up the suggestions on reading the UPB book. But for the moment, assuming that I find the NAP to be logically/rationally proven in the book, I am curious if there is a rational answer to the following question: Why should we follow and/or apply a logically proven principle?
powder Posted November 9, 2014 Posted November 9, 2014 Why should we follow and/or apply a logically proven principle? because that is what makes us virtuous, and that leads to happiness.
dsayers Posted November 9, 2014 Posted November 9, 2014 Why should we follow and/or apply a logically proven principle? Could you be forthcoming please? You went from asking if accepting the property rights of others is dogmatic to asking why we should bother if its not. Since your 2nd question preempts the 1st, it seems to be a more efficient approach to lead with that. Asking why we should accept the property rights of others is like asking why we should accept that apples are edible. Is the fact that it's an accurate description of the real world not sufficient? I frame it in this fashion because it's a mechanism of survival. The better you understand the world you live in, the more efficiently you can maneuver within it. If you initiate the use of force against others, you give them a reason to harm you. It takes more effort than NOT initiating the use of force and incurs greater risk. Also, when you choose to not accept the property rights of others, you're denying them that choice. It's self-contradictory to accept your property rights as you reject the property rights of others. To initiate the use of force, you're essentially rejecting reality in favor of a fantasy world, hence the impact to happiness. 2
powder Posted November 9, 2014 Posted November 9, 2014 well, my experience has informed me that most often when people ask questions, it is not out of genuine curiosity or the desire to learn but rather they simply have something that they want to tell you. are you a christian jay? how would you categorize your beliefs about life in general?
jayarbar Posted November 9, 2014 Author Posted November 9, 2014 These answers always lead me to more questions for which I would like rational answers. For example, why be virtuous? What is in it for me? I don't buy the the argument from effect such as the one below. There are a lot of people who benefit from harming others without repercussions. Take for example politicians or wall street bankers. "If you initiate the use of force against others, you give them a reason to harm you." "It takes more effort than NOT initiating the use of force and incurs greater risk." Don't buy this either. A lot of things that take more effort are good for you in the long term such as exercise. "because that is what makes us virtuous, and that leads to happiness. " This statement is not a logical argument. But I am curious whether this is even empirically true. Is there data that proves this? Are there exceptions?
Pepin Posted November 9, 2014 Posted November 9, 2014 Why should we follow and/or apply a logically proven principle? Depends on your value system. If you rape is a good thing despite any ethical argument against it, then what reason do you have to be ethical? It is one of the biggest problem with ethics, that bad people are not concerned with ethics, while good people really care about ethics and being good. This is to say that you should want to follow correct ethical theories because you value justice, goodness, and living an ethical life. Personally, I don't want to cause harm to others, nor do I want to live in a society where might makes right. I follow ethical claims such as "do not rape" because I don't believe any person should ever rape. Now of course, there is nothing stopping you from raping besides your victim or someone who intervenes. Ethical claims are not like laws of physics, they do not force you to do anything. If you don't want to be ethical, you don't have to follow ethical theories, just as if you don't want to be healthy, you don't have to follow theories of health. What may seem confusing about all this is that the concept of justice, virtue, and ethicacy might seem a bit vague. Really, when you say you value justice, all this means is that you have arguments in response to whether an interaction was just or not. If I ask you "should people ought to rape", you might respond with "well no, because it is unjust", but you are more likely to respond with "no because it causes long term damage to the victim, there are morally opposing rules for the victim and the rapist, violence is wrong, there is no reason for rape to be needed in a modern society, I find the act appalling, ect, ect", though you are more likely not to throw every possible argument out there, but rather the best one. Through doing this, you are providing a case for one instance of justice, which it to say that it only answers one question about what is just. Someone who did not care about justice would not take the time to make any argument about why particular actions were just. 1
jayarbar Posted November 9, 2014 Author Posted November 9, 2014 "I follow ethical claims such as "do not rape" because I don't believe any person should ever rape." This statement is based on faith. i.e. Faith in the right thing to do.
MrCapitalism Posted November 9, 2014 Posted November 9, 2014 Why should we follow and/or apply a logically proven principle? Kind of difficult to use logic to convince you to accept logic. 1
dsayers Posted November 9, 2014 Posted November 9, 2014 I don't buy the the argument from effect such as the one below. There are a lot of people who benefit from harming others without repercussions. Take for example politicians or wall street bankers. "If you initiate the use of force against others, you give them a reason to harm you." Politicians avoid repercussions by threatening violence against anybody that doesn't accept them as being in a different moral category. That amount of effort is evidence of my claim, not proof that it is false. "It takes more effort than NOT initiating the use of force and incurs greater risk." Don't buy this either. A lot of things that take more effort are good for you in the long term such as exercise. Maybe you missed my use of the inclusive "and". Exercise in theory leads to reduced risk, not increased. People have free will. The fact that people eat candy bars does not invalidate the claim that a salad has more nutritional value than a candy bar. I even mentioned rejecting reality in favor of fantasy in my last post.
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted November 9, 2014 Posted November 9, 2014 These answers always lead me to more questions for which I would like rational answers. For example, why be virtuous? What is in it for me? Because you'll be correct. If that's not enough then you should stop debating and go away.
jayarbar Posted November 10, 2014 Author Posted November 10, 2014 Upon questioning the existence of God, my religious friend told me to stop debating and go away too "Kind of difficult to use logic to convince you to accept logic." Is "accept" synonymous with "have faith in"? I have been asked in the past to "accept" God.
MrCapitalism Posted November 10, 2014 Posted November 10, 2014 Is "accept" synonymous with "have faith in"? I'd say it's closer to "make use of"
Pepin Posted November 10, 2014 Posted November 10, 2014 "I follow ethical claims such as "do not rape" because I don't believe any person should ever rape." This statement is based on faith. i.e. Faith in the right thing to do. Not at all, as the sentence quoted is based on a claim I evaluate to be true, which is that people ought not commit rape. I don't believe any person should commit rape I am a person I should not commit rape My reason for following it is because I think everyone, including myself ought to follow it. As to why I believe people ought not to commit rape, well that is a question separate from why I personally choose not to commit rape as I would provide whatever arguments which back up the claim that "people ought not rape". If I was to make an argument in favor of the claim that rape is wrong, I would provide an explanation of property rights and make a case for their protection. 1
Zerubbabel Posted December 3, 2014 Posted December 3, 2014 Is there a parrellel between a fictional abstract being and a rational ethical code? No. ... Not "No." Yes. Both things are abstract constructs. Both things are ideas not reality (see the UPB ground rules #1 and #3 in UPB) And there is a connection between the two, and the connection would be stronger if the title was inverted, i.e. "God as NAP." This would follow Feuerbach's thesis that God was created as a repository for man's highest principles. In the God paradigm the principles were still man's principles but the mythical and sacred God made the principles also sacred. I think it proper that we eliminate a God as the mediator between man and his higher principles (the NAP) ... but the big problem is in how do we make the principles (NAP) sacred (and I hope that the word can be understood without a religious connotation)? .
dsayers Posted December 4, 2014 Posted December 4, 2014 how do we make the principles (NAP) sacred Not breaking our children? An empathetic person CAN'T initiate the use of force. A rational person has no reason to. Also, "forest" is a concept not reality, but it describes reality. "Theft, assault, rape, and murder is immoral" describes reality. "God" does not. Saying that they're comparable because they're both concepts is not useful.
Peaceful Parent Posted December 4, 2014 Posted December 4, 2014 Not breaking our children? An empathetic person CAN'T initiate the use of force. A rational person has no reason to. Can't initiate the use of force? I certainly hope so, but what is that based on? Is it a logical deduction, a scientific finding, a combination of the two, or neither?
dsayers Posted December 4, 2014 Posted December 4, 2014 I can't find the link now. There was an interview did with a female psychologist who studies children that said that even when a parent yells at a child, they have to suspend something in themselves to make that possible. Which is like exercising a muscle in that it will be easier for them to do in the future. I'm sorry this is a flimsy satisfaction of the scientific possibility. I will say that we have what's known as mirror neurons. Ever see somebody get injured or see somebody's injury and cringe? I once jumped down from a height I thought would be fine and it really wasn't. I can be playing a 3D video game and if I take a jump off of something, I can feel the hesitation in my legs bracing myself for landing even though that's not necessary. I could also provide anecdotal evidence (which I accept isn't evidence at all). I'll never forget the first time I was forced to pull a gun on somebody. He made me do it and yet I felt so sick to my stomach, it took me three days of surrounding myself with people I care about to begin feeling normal again.
Zerubbabel Posted December 4, 2014 Posted December 4, 2014 Not breaking our children? An empathetic person CAN'T initiate the use of force. A rational person has no reason to. Also, "forest" is a concept not reality, but it describes reality. "Theft, assault, rape, and murder is immoral" describes reality. "God" does not. Saying that they're comparable because they're both concepts is not useful. D, I have read in several of your posts your championing of the extreme importance of precision in language. Kudos to that. But don't throw that away now by saying it is not useful. The OP, it seemed to me, asked if the NAP is a reality or an abstract construct. I immediately thought of Robespierre's Goddess of Reason, or perhaps the later de-deified Cult of Reason. The ensuing answers to the OP all seem to vacillate in the same manner, that yes it's abstract ... but not as abstract as "God." It is important to always make clear (as Stefan has in UPB) that principles, moral or otherwise, are abstract constructs of the human mind. [Although not a part of this thread it is equally important to keep in mind that God is abstract as well. I've read countless debates between atheists and theists where the theist of course speaks (apologetically) of God as a real thing and the atheist indulges this error and speaks (polemically) about God as a real thing.] OK, I agree that a direct moral judgment is only one-step away from reality. But for the religious adherent "God" is moral judgment (e.g. WWJD), and for them "God" is still only 1 step away from reality. It seems obvious to me that when we loose God we have to find another system of moral judgment (Enter UPB) - and - some way to make these judgment's sacred. We can raise the next generation to be free to venerate the NAP. But there are lots of people raising their children to venerate voluntary subjugation to the State, and other children are raised to uphold principles of chivalry/nationalism (these children will form our next warrior-class). Even more disturbing is that there are now billions of children being raised to venerate killing in the name of Allah. .
Pelafina Posted December 4, 2014 Posted December 4, 2014 Can't initiate the use of force? I certainly hope so, but what is that based on? Is it a logical deduction, a scientific finding, a combination of the two, or neither? It's based on personal preference, nothing else. If your choices are led by logic, reason and evidence -- it's a personal preference to do this. On the other hand, if your choices are led by emotions -- it's still a personal preference.
jayarbar Posted December 4, 2014 Author Posted December 4, 2014 " Can't do a certain action" is based on "personal choice". Can you not see the contradiction here?
Existing Alternatives Posted December 4, 2014 Posted December 4, 2014 Religion teaches it's followers to follow God without question. So whatever God says must be obeyed. I am wondering if there is a parallel here with the NAP. Is the NAP subject to debate? In other words, is the NAP derived from rational arguments or is it followed based on faith. But you don’t have to follow NAP, it’s only a principle to help one evaluate one’s decisions and actions. And of course, you can question NAP – you just did (and you are not going to hell for doing so)!
Peaceful Parent Posted December 4, 2014 Posted December 4, 2014 I can't find the link now. There was an interview did with a female psychologist who studies children that said that even when a parent yells at a child, they have to suspend something in themselves to make that possible. Which is like exercising a muscle in that it will be easier for them to do in the future. I'm sorry this is a flimsy satisfaction of the scientific possibility. I will say that we have what's known as mirror neurons. Ever see somebody get injured or see somebody's injury and cringe? I once jumped down from a height I thought would be fine and it really wasn't. I can be playing a 3D video game and if I take a jump off of something, I can feel the hesitation in my legs bracing myself for landing even though that's not necessary. I could also provide anecdotal evidence (which I accept isn't evidence at all). I'll never forget the first time I was forced to pull a gun on somebody. He made me do it and yet I felt so sick to my stomach, it took me three days of surrounding myself with people I care about to begin feeling normal again. I'm sorry about your gun altercation. I've seen you reference that before; it must have been terrible. In respect to your explanation, are you asserting that if a person is capable of "suspending" their empathy that they were never in fact empathetic? Or are you asserting that a suspension of empathy is a caveat (best term I could think of) that would allow an empathetic person to initiate the use of force.
dsayers Posted December 5, 2014 Posted December 5, 2014 Does it have to be one or the other? I'm sure there are people that lack empathy but mechanically imitate the empathetic in order to fit in. I'm sure there are empathetic people who behave in a way they regret later. I think this is why it's so important that we have the conversations that we have here: So more people can better understand what exactly the initiation of the use of force is. And why it's so important to live our values and have a support system that will challenge us on the mistakes we make.
Recommended Posts