A rejection of the Non-Aggression Priniciple

[kenshikenji]

NAP its NOT a  principle  and its not universally preferrable.

 

[PatrickC]

Yes, the NAP is merely a maxim in philosophical terms and I would agree that it really isn't rigorously consistent enough of a concept. This is why we have UPB, which trumps the NAP in both rigour and consistency.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

You get the concept wrong. The NAP says aggression cannot be morally justified. It's not a "primary objective". It's not an objective at all. It's a principle. A principle. That means it's either valid or not. Your evaluation of it as "poor" is philosophically irrelevant. 

You also spend most of the time going on about how it's not as good as "ego utilitarianism" / "self-interest". It's obvious you wish to promote this view and see the NAP as competition. 

Yes, the NAP is merely a maxim in philosophical terms and I would agree that it really isn't rigorously consistent enough of a concept. This is why we have UPB, which trumps the NAP in both rigour and consistency.

Do have a reason that it is "merely a maxim"? 

[PatrickC]

Do have a reason that it is "merely a maxim"? 

 

Sure, a maxim is defined as an expression of a general truth or principle, especially an aphoristic or sententious one.

 

Philosophically the NAP is only a guide (a good one of course) in terms of UPB.

 

EDIT - That said, it's one thing to say it's a maxim and quite another to reject it wholesale as Kenshi is attempting to do. The NAP still has it's uses as a broad based principle. But it's useful to understand its limitations too.

[Guest Gee]

Might we not say the N.A.P. is valid but incomplete description? 

 

ie.

 

All N.A.P. compliant is U.P.B. compliant but not all U.P.B. compliant is N.A.P. compliant (basically just restating what you said earlier PatrickC).

 

With regard to OP, as mentioned in another post, life boat scenarios do not invalidate N.A.P. because they do not invalidate the axiom of N.A.P. which is the illegitimacy of force initiated upon another.

 

(so invalidating N.A.P. requires an ethical theory where rape is moral)

 

And as also stated in another post, N.A.P. and U.P.B., if described mathematically, are not continuous functions. They are discontinuous functions with a step discontinuity in the function at the point at which force is initiated so the intermittent value theory does not apply.

 

With regard to N.A.P. not telling you what to choose, this is because value is subjective.

 

With regard to "passive options", not feeding a child is child abuse and child abuse is not passive and fails N.A.P.

 

With regard to N.A.P. not explicitly talking about proportionate force or punishment, it has no need to as an ethical system and not a judicial system (it defines direction not magnitude).

 

With regard to N.A.P. being a religion by virtue of being a morality by decree with may only be enforced by the state, as another FDR user has pointed out it is a chosen obligation and requires no enforcement.

 

With regard to people contracting to N.A.P. if profitable I agree, people respond to incentives.

 

N.A.P. not applying to animals? Yeah, all universal ethical systems apply to human action.

 

The math function (see top of post)

 

and the Churchill comment is an equivocation. 

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Sure, a maxim is defined as an expression of a general truth or principle, especially an aphoristic or sententious one.

 

Philosophically the NAP is only a guide (a good one of course) in terms of UPB.

 

EDIT - That said, it's one thing to say it's a maxim and quite another to reject it wholesale as Kenshi is attempting to do. The NAP still has it's uses as a broad based principle. But it's useful to understand its limitations too.

Hang on, what? Are you saying the NAP is not a principle because an expressed principle is a maxim and as the NAP is an expressed principle it is a maxim? What do you mean "only a guide"? Aren't ALL principles guides? 

What has usefulness got to do with with whether it's a principle or not? 

[PatrickC]

Hang on, what? Are you saying the NAP is not a principle because an expressed principle is a maxim and as the NAP is an expressed principle it is a maxim? What do you mean "only a guide"? Aren't ALL principles guides?

What has usefulness got to do with with whether it's a principle or not?

 

Sure, a maxim is defined as an expression of a general truth or principle, especially an aphoristic or sententious one.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

 

What are you talking about?

[kenshikenji]

Yes, the NAP is merely a maxim in philosophical terms and I would agree that it really isn't rigorously consistent enough of a concept. This is why we have UPB, which trumps the NAP in both rigour and consistency.

religion is also a maxim.  UPB only tries to use false logic in proving and improving NAP.  But UPB is not rigorous, it is fallacious.  ive made my arguments on another thread.

 

You get the concept wrong. The NAP says aggression cannot be morally justified. It's not a "primary objective". It's not an objective at all. It's a principle. A principle. That means it's either valid or not. Your evaluation of it as "poor" is philosophically irrelevant. 

You also spend most of the time going on about how it's not as good as "ego utilitarianism" / "self-interest". It's obvious you wish to promote this view and see the NAP as competition. 

Do have a reason that it is "merely a maxim"? 

i did not get the concept wrong.  Nap is just declaring something without reason.  that is religion, but at least religion imposes a self interested consequence (heaven/hell).  the fact that you would violate the NAP if benefits were sufficiently high enough shows NAP is not a principle.

as far as promoting "self"-interest, of course im promoting it.  just like i do with reason over religion.

 

maxims without reason either empirical or logical are just religion.  you cant use reason in explaining anything without appealing to self interest.  its what nature ALWAYS selects for.  non-aggression works in most ways, but it doesnt work in ALL ways, which disqualifies it as a valid principle.  thats why its ONLY a RULE OF THUMB.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

religion is also a maxim.  UPB only tries to use false logic in proving and improving NAP.  But UPB is not rigorous, it is fallacious.  ive made my arguments on another thread.

 

i did not get the concept wrong.  Nap is just declaring something without reason.  that is religion, but at least religion imposes a self interested consequence (heaven/hell).  the fact that you would violate the NAP if benefits were sufficiently high enough shows NAP is not a principle.

as far as promoting "self"-interest, of course im promoting it.  just like i do with reason over religion.

 

maxims without reason either empirical or logical are just religion.  you cant use reason in explaining anything without appealing to self interest.  its what nature ALWAYS selects for.  non-aggression works in most ways, but it doesnt work in ALL ways, which disqualifies it as a valid principle.  thats why its ONLY a RULE OF THUMB.

You DID get the concept wrong and you continue to. The NAP is NOT just declaring something without reason. It is a principle, not a commandment. There's nothing religious about it. Whether or not someone would violate the NAP if the benefits were sufficiently high enough (something you do not know about me and, much like everything else you claim, have not demonstrated) is irrlevant to whether or not it is a valid concept or just a rule of thumb. People can violate the MNAP whether it's valid or not. That's the whole damn point of a moral principle.

Self-interest is also irrelevant to whether the NAP is valid or not. 

Calling the NAP a maxim that is without empirical or logical reasoning shows your ignorance as many people have put forward the nap with reasoning. It's just an insult. 

I don't know what "works" means. "Works" is generally used (by relativists, subjectivists, consequentialists usually) to mean "produces an outcome favorable to one's subjective preferences".  There's no philosophical reason to accept the term "works" as if it's objective (unless you give a valid definition of "works"). I certainly don't know what the hell "works in all ways" means". This is just nonsense.

It's not a rule of thumb. It is a principle. Rules of thumb are just suggestions. Principles have consistent logical consequences that occur when violated. Violations of this principle result in a contradiction within one's moral justifications. If it was just a rule of thumb then this would not be the case. 

[kenshikenji]

You DID get the concept wrong and you continue to. The NAP is NOT just declaring something without reason. It is a principle, not a commandment. There's nothing religious about it. Whether or not someone would violate the NAP if the benefits were sufficiently high enough (something you do not know about me and, much like everything else you claim, have not demonstrated) is irrlevant to whether or not it is a valid concept or just a rule of thumb. People can violate the MNAP whether it's valid or not. That's the whole damn point of a moral principle.

Self-interest is also irrelevant to whether the NAP is valid or not. 

Calling the NAP a maxim that is without empirical or logical reasoning shows your ignorance as many people have put forward the nap with reasoning. It's just an insult. 

I don't know what "works" means. "Works" is generally used (by relativists, subjectivists, consequentialists usually) to mean "produces an outcome favorable to one's subjective preferences".  There's no philosophical reason to accept the term "works" as if it's objective (unless you give a valid definition of "works"). I certainly don't know what the hell "works in all ways" means". This is just nonsense.

It's not a rule of thumb. It is a principle. Rules of thumb are just suggestions. Principles have consistent logical consequences that occur when violated. Violations of this principle result in a contradiction within one's moral justifications. If it was just a rule of thumb then this would not be the case. 

all axioms and principles must have reasoning.  you dont just stop asking "why" and accept something.  even axioms in mathematics are constructed to avoid logical contradictions.  you dont know what youre talking about.

 

morality does not make sense without objectives.  i do not believe in the is/ought dichotomy. all normative propositions must be derived from positive observation of objectives.  and nature IMPOSES the objective of existence on all objects in realty.

 

would you slap a random person in the face for a million dollars? if so NAP isnt a principle you adopt. you dont seem to get this.

[Koroviev]

Doesn't ego-utilitarianism, or "self-interest" as you are proposing it just make murder moral? Especially in the life boat scenario you proposed isn't it in my self interest to murder someone if offered millions of dollars, which cannot be universalized because it would make the act of not murdering someone immoral.

 

Also, maybe I have the wrong definition but isn't a principle a basic truth, law, or assumption? i.e a general rule that can be universalized. Again "self-interest" cannot be universalized. As Stef points out in UPB it may be in my self interest to steal something from someone (stealing is moral) therefor whenever I do not steal something I am being immoral (not stealing is immoral). As opposed to the N.A.P. which says "each person has the right to make his or her own choices in life so long as they do not involve aggression, defined as the initiation of force against others." In other words, initiating force against others is immoral and not initiating force against others is moral. The key point is initiation of force, not necessarily the use of force.

[Mister Mister]

NAP is a conclusion of ethics, not a methodology.  there are various methodologies such as UPB, the axiom of self-ownership, argumentation ethics, the golden rule, Kant's categorical imperative, or the commandment of god himself which might be used to come to this conclusion.  Does this make sense?

maxims without reason either empirical or logical are just religion.  you cant use reason in explaining anything without appealing to self interest.  its what nature ALWAYS selects for.  non-aggression works in most ways, but it doesnt work in ALL ways, which disqualifies it as a valid principle.  thats why its ONLY a RULE OF THUMB.

 

Why is this important to you?  What conclusions would it have on society?  Do you consider this the most important issue in Libertarian philosophy, moreso than promoting peaceful parenting, alternative currency, free markets, entrepeneurship, equality under the law, opposing child abuse and war and national debts and inflation and hyper-regulation?  Is pointing out that many people might violate the NAP in some disaster-scenario really all that important?

[kenshikenji]

Doesn't ego-utilitarianism, or "self-interest" as you are proposing it just make murder moral? Especially in the life boat scenario you proposed isn't it in my self interest to murder someone if offered millions of dollars, which cannot be universalized because it would make the act of not murdering someone immoral.

 

Also, maybe I have the wrong definition but isn't a principle a basic truth, law, or assumption? i.e a general rule that can be universalized. Again "self-interest" cannot be universalized. As Stef points out in UPB it may be in my self interest to steal something from someone (stealing is moral) therefor whenever I do not steal something I am being immoral (not stealing is immoral). As opposed to the N.A.P. which says "each person has the right to make his or her own choices in life so long as they do not involve aggression, defined as the initiation of force against others." In other words, initiating force against others is immoral and not initiating force against others is moral. The key point is initiation of force, not necessarily the use of force.

ego-utilitarianism and "self" interest does not make ALL murder moral. only when murder MAXIMIZES "self" existence.  This is a rare occurence since murder carries a very high cost.  being offered millions of dollars to murder someone is not necessarily beneficial enough to exceed costs.  you can universalize "self" existence.  you cannot universalize NAP.  UPB makes a fallacious attempt at doing so.  i suggest you read the thread i started on this.

 

a principle is the foundation of a person's actions. it is a primary objective, or absolute rule to follow with no exceptions.  if there is an exception to the principle it is not a principle.  Stefan's philosophy is not logically rigorous. it contains numerous misuse of logic and mathematical proof.  the fact that he hasnt set rigorous definition shows his lack of experience in using rigorous logic.  i dont believe in rights. stefan claims the same but seems to rely on them, at least according to you.  rights do not exist, and if they do they have no relevance.  if youre talking about what is "right" and "wrong" you must establish an objective in order to classify an action as either or.

 

NAP is a conclusion of ethics, not a methodology.  there are various methodologies such as UPB, the axiom of self-ownership, argumentation ethics, the golden rule, Kant's categorical imperative, or the commandment of god himself which might be used to come to this conclusion.  Does this make sense?

 

Why is this important to you?  What conclusions would it have on society?  Do you consider this the most important issue in Libertarian philosophy, moreso than promoting peaceful parenting, alternative currency, free markets, entrepeneurship, equality under the law, opposing child abuse and war and national debts and inflation and hyper-regulation?  Is pointing out that many people might violate the NAP in some disaster-scenario really all that important?

all ethics must pertain to objectives and rationale. otherwise its a religion.  the axiom of self-ownership is not an axiom.  

 

it is important to me because adopting my philosophy clarifies what morality is and what should be.  instead of cheating your way to imposing ones self interest on other thru nap (dont hurt me).

[Koroviev]

ego-utilitarianism and "self" interest does not make ALL murder moral. only when murder MAXIMIZES "self" existence.  This is a rare occurence since murder carries a very high cost.  being offered millions of dollars to murder someone is not necessarily beneficial enough to exceed costs.  you can universalize "self" existence.  you cannot universalize NAP.  UPB makes a fallacious attempt at doing so.  i suggest you read the thread i started on this.

 

So, you agree then that self interest makes murder moral (at least in some circumstances) which would mean anyone who decided not to murder in those circumstances immoral. Also who decides what is in someones best self interest? If I get murdered by someone then am I being immoral? I can't imagine being murdered would ever be in someone's best interest. Couldn't I justify pretty much anything by saying it is in my best self interest? Who's to dispute that?

 

a principle is the foundation of a person's actions. it is a primary objective, or absolute rule to follow with no exceptions.  if there is an exception to the principle it is not a principle.  Stefan's philosophy is not logically rigorous. it contains numerous misuse of logic and mathematical proof.  the fact that he hasnt set rigorous definition shows his lack of experience in using rigorous logic.  i dont believe in rights. stefan claims the same but seems to rely on them, at least according to you.  rights do not exist, and if they do they have no relevance.  if youre talking about what is "right" and "wrong" you must establish an objective in order to classify an action as either or.

 

I still don't see how the non-initiation of force is not a principal. It does not say you can never use force, it does not say you are evil if you ever use force. It simply says it is immoral to initiate the use of force against another person (Murder simply for money is always immoral).

 

To be honest, I'm a little lost on what you mean by a "rigorous definition" but maybe that will make more sense when I read your other arguments, but isn't the "objective" based on the individual, i.e. if you want to be moral you'll do x, if not you won't, I don't think philosophy has anything to do with telling people what they must do.

 

Send me a link I'd love to read your arguments as to the fallacy of UPB.

[Slavik]

ego-utilitarianism and "self" interest does not make ALL murder moral. only when murder MAXIMIZES "self" existence.  This is a rare occurence since murder carries a very high cost.  being offered millions of dollars to murder someone is not necessarily beneficial enough to exceed costs.  you can universalize "self" existence.  you cannot universalize NAP.  UPB makes a fallacious attempt at doing so.  i suggest you read the thread i started on this.

 

a principle is the foundation of a person's actions. it is a primary objective, or absolute rule to follow with no exceptions.  if there is an exception to the principle it is not a principle.  Stefan's philosophy is not logically rigorous. it contains numerous misuse of logic and mathematical proof.  the fact that he hasnt set rigorous definition shows his lack of experience in using rigorous logic.  i dont believe in rights. stefan claims the same but seems to rely on them, at least according to you.  rights do not exist, and if they do they have no relevance.  if youre talking about what is "right" and "wrong" you must establish an objective in order to classify an action as either or.

 

all ethics must pertain to objectives and rationale. otherwise its a religion.  the axiom of self-ownership is not an axiom.  

 

it is important to me because adopting my philosophy clarifies what morality is and what should be.  instead of cheating your way to imposing ones self interest on other thru nap (dont hurt me).

Murder of another person is completely contrary to the "self" Existence of the person being murdered.  Nazis thought that it was paramount to their "self" Existence to murder gays, invalids, Jews, and many other people.  Who is going to be the arbitrator?  Who is going to decide what is in one's self interest?  You can argue that according to you murdering above mentioned people is not in your interest, but Nazis would have argued the opposite.  

 

When people speak of NAP, yes it does make all aggression immoral (not self defense" mind you.  And in the "stealing the apple" scenario when you are hungry, you are still wrong for doing so, and all that means according to NAP is that at some point you will have to make restitution if asked for.       

[kenshikenji]

So, you agree then that self interest makes murder moral (at least in some circumstances) which would mean anyone who decided not to murder in those circumstances immoral. Also who decides what is in someones best self interest? If I get murdered by someone then am I being immoral? I can't imagine being murdered would ever be in someone's best interest. Couldn't I justify pretty much anything by saying it is in my best self interest? Who's to dispute that?

 

 

I still don't see how the non-initiation of force is not a principal. It does not say you can never use force, it does not say you are evil if you ever use force. It simply says it is immoral to initiate the use of force against another person (Murder simply for money is always immoral).

 

To be honest, I'm a little lost on what you mean by a "rigorous definition" but maybe that will make more sense when I read your other arguments, but isn't the "objective" based on the individual, i.e. if you want to be moral you'll do x, if not you won't, I don't think philosophy has anything to do with telling people what they must do.

 

Send me a link I'd love to read your arguments as to the fallacy of UPB.

yes, some murder may be moral, and if it does optimize "self" existence than any other choice when this is true would relatively shorten "self" existence making it immoral.  nature decides, in otherwords unless you have perfect understanding of the mechanical universe including human behavior, then evaluating the consequences of your action is the best way in determining what is in your "self" interest. but again this is difficult because you cannot compare what would have happened with another choice you did not make. but in any case, you cannot just declare something in your self interest. the consequences prove you wrong or right.  i made a video on the relative theory of value, value extends to action and morality in this case. remember, the universe is a game of many actors, each of which are trying to accomplish their objectives.  personal objectives can conflict.  it is entirely possible for a person's "self" existence to come into conflict with another's "self" interest.  this is a rare event but explains the conditions to which there can be conflict or aggression.  but value is relative (objective), something is either relatively in your "self" interest or not. your mind does not determine what action optimizes your "self" interest or even if one action is more "self" interest profitable than another. 

 

here is the thread on where i just present SOME of my criticisms of UPB. i have more. i plan on making a video on it fairly soon.

https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/44129-logical-problems-with-upb/

 

what i mean when i say NAP isnt a principle is that in most cases people actually endorse "self" interest subconsciously.  would you kick a random person in the shin if i paid you a million dollars?  the adjudicator are the consequences that follow any action.

 

there is an objective that nature imposes upon us. that is the objective of existence.  ego-utilitarianism acknowledges that all other objectives are a means to this primary objective. there are no principles that SHOULD supercede the objective of existence.

 

rigorous definition is required for valid logical proofs.  in order to prove a claim you must reference very well defined definition.  and Stefan does not do this. it shows his lack of experience in actually writing proofs.

 

 

Murder of another person is completely contrary to the "self" Existence of the person being murdered.  Nazis thought that it was paramount to their "self" Existence to murder gays, invalids, Jews, and many other people.  Who is going to be the arbitrator?  Who is going to decide what is in one's self interest?  You can argue that according to you murdering above mentioned people is not in your interest, but Nazis would have argued the opposite.  

 

When people speak of NAP, yes it does make all aggression immoral (not self defense" mind you.  And in the "stealing the apple" scenario when you are hungry, you are still wrong for doing so, and all that means according to NAP is that at some point you will have to make restitution if asked for.       

you dont make an "all" claim and present an anecdote to prove your claim.  also, i claim that it is possible that SOME murder is in ones "self" interest.  its another way of saying that proving "EVERY INSTANCE OF POTENTIAL MURDER is not in ANYONE'S "self" interest" is very difficult. the fact that Nazi's are relatively extinct is a evidence that it wasnt in their self interest.

 

how can you be wrong for doing something you SHOULD do?  this is a contradiction!  you cant set normative standards and then say you SHOULD do something else.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

all axioms and principles must have reasoning.  you dont just stop asking "why" and accept something.  even axioms in mathematics are constructed to avoid logical contradictions.  you dont know what youre talking about.

 

morality does not make sense without objectives.  i do not believe in the is/ought dichotomy. all normative propositions must be derived from positive observation of objectives.  and nature IMPOSES the objective of existence on all objects in realty.

 

would you slap a random person in the face for a million dollars? if so NAP isnt a principle you adopt. you dont seem to get this.

 

Actually I DO know what I'm talking about. The NAP HAS reasoning and no one here just accepts it without asking "why?". You are simply making rude assumptions about us and insulting me and everyone else who has put forward reasoning for the NAP. Stop doing it or leave.

 

 

 

morality does not make sense without objectives.  i do not believe in the is/ought dichotomy. all normative propositions must be derived from positive observation of objectives.  and nature IMPOSES the objective of existence on all objects in realty.

Thanks for your opinion about those things. What has this got to do with whether or not the NAP is just a rule of thumb as you claim? 

 

 

 

would you slap a random person in the face for a million dollars? if so NAP isnt a principle you adopt. you dont seem to get this.

No, I get it; YOU don't. Here's how this forum works. When someone makes a valid argument against you, you respond to that argument. You DO NOT ignore that argument and then repeat your original statement as if your opponent said nothing. I just rebutted the above statement by pointing out that it's fallacious to argue that the NAP or any rational principle is not valid because someone might violate it.

Do you get it now?

[kenshikenji]

Actually I DO know what I'm talking about. The NAP HAS reasoning and no one here just accepts it without asking "why?". You are simply making rude assumptions about us and insulting me and everyone else who has put forward reasoning for the NAP. Stop doing it or leave.

 

Thanks for your opinion about those things. What has this got to do with whether or not the NAP is just a rule of thumb as you claim? 

 

No, I get it; YOU don't. Here's how this forum works. When someone makes a valid argument against you, you respond to that argument. You DO NOT ignore that argument and then repeat your original statement as if your opponent said nothing. I just rebutted the above statement by pointing out that it's fallacious to argue that the NAP or any rational principle is not valid because someone might violate it.

Do you get it now?

then "why" accept NAP? can you make an argument without appealing to "self" interest? i doubt you can because you dont see rational and reason is the same thing as "self" interest.

[Mister Mister]

ego-utilitarianism and "self" interest does not make ALL murder moral. only when murder MAXIMIZES "self" existence.  This is a rare occurence since murder carries a very high cost.  being offered millions of dollars to murder someone is not necessarily beneficial enough to exceed costs.  you can universalize "self" existence.  you cannot universalize NAP.  UPB makes a fallacious attempt at doing so.  i suggest you read the thread i started on this.

 

a principle is the foundation of a person's actions. it is a primary objective, or absolute rule to follow with no exceptions.  if there is an exception to the principle it is not a principle.  Stefan's philosophy is not logically rigorous. it contains numerous misuse of logic and mathematical proof.  the fact that he hasnt set rigorous definition shows his lack of experience in using rigorous logic.  i dont believe in rights. stefan claims the same but seems to rely on them, at least according to you.  rights do not exist, and if they do they have no relevance.  if youre talking about what is "right" and "wrong" you must establish an objective in order to classify an action as either or.

 

all ethics must pertain to objectives and rationale. otherwise its a religion.  the axiom of self-ownership is not an axiom.  

 

it is important to me because adopting my philosophy clarifies what morality is and what should be.  instead of cheating your way to imposing ones self interest on other thru nap (dont hurt me).

 

To be clear, I wasn't arguing for any one of the methods I mentioned.  I was just pointing out the distinction between methodology and conclusion.  NAP is a conclusion, but not everyone who accepts this conclusion uses the same methodology.  For example, someone who accepts UPB may accept NAP as a consequence, but another person may accept NAP because Jesus said "turn the other cheek".  It seems to me you are equating acceptance of the NAP with lack of reasoning from first principles, but this is a non sequitur.  One man may accept 2 + 2 = 4 because he follows the math from the ground up, another man may accept it because Nuns would hit him with rulers if he didn't properly memorize it.  But 2 + 2 = 4 is either valid or not, and the NAP is either valid or not, regardless of whether a person's method of determining it are entirely rational or not.  Does that make sense?

 

All ethics must pertain to objectives and rationale?  Can you clarify?  Why is this so?  I don't see why objectives matter.  What are ethics?

[kenshikenji]

To be clear, I wasn't arguing for any one of the methods I mentioned.  I was just pointing out the distinction between methodology and conclusion.  NAP is a conclusion, but not everyone who accepts this conclusion uses the same methodology.  For example, someone who accepts UPB may accept NAP as a consequence, but another person may accept NAP because Jesus said "turn the other cheek".  It seems to me you are equating acceptance of the NAP with lack of reasoning from first principles, but this is a non sequitur.  One man may accept 2 + 2 = 4 because he follows the math from the ground up, another man may accept it because Nuns would hit him with rulers if he didn't properly memorize it.  But 2 + 2 = 4 is either valid or not, and the NAP is either valid or not, regardless of whether a person's method of determining it are entirely rational or not.  Does that make sense?

 

All ethics must pertain to objectives and rationale?  Can you clarify?  Why is this so?  I don't see why objectives matter.  What are ethics?

i understand methodology and conclusions. you can guess the right answer, but having a faulty  methodology is not reliable in attaining conclusions in general  UPB is a faulty methodology.  proving NAP is not going to be easy. and in order to do so you MUST do it building off other sciences and "self" interest.

 

all of morality pertains to objectives.  you cannot use reason without well-defined objectives.  right and wrong labels that you apply to action ONLY make sense when you compare the consequences with the objective.  if you give me a well defined objective, the "right" course of action is determined.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

then "why" accept NAP? can you make an argument without appealing to "self" interest? i doubt you can because you dont see rational and reason is the same thing as "self" interest.

Because it's correct. It's doesn't matter if you accept it or not. If you violate it you are wrong. Objectively wrong. 

Self interest can't be right or wrong so it's meaningless. It's just subjective preference. 

[kenshikenji]

Because it's correct. It's doesn't matter if you accept it or not. If you violate it you are wrong. Objectively wrong. 

Self interest can't be right or wrong so it's meaningless. It's just subjective preference. 

thats not an argument. why is it correct? correct with respect to what objective?  Self interest can be right or wrong because existence is what Nature selects for.  again you dont know what youre talking about.  subjective preference has objective consequences.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

thats not an argument. why is it correct? correct with respect to what objective?  Self interest can be right or wrong because existence is what Nature selects for.  again you dont know what youre talking about.  subjective preference has objective consequences.

You asked me WHY accept it, not an argument for why it was valid.

The reason it's correct is because if you violate you will be unable to rational justify the action. Violating the NAP means initiating force. Be definition the initiation of force cannot be justified. Any attempt to justify it collapses into insurmountable contradiction. Therefore any violation of the NAP cannot be justified. 

When it comes to self interest YOU don't know what you're talking about, not me. Subjective preference having objective consequences is irrelevant. It's still subjective preference and as such cannot be objectively right or wrong. It's just preference. 

I don't know what the hell "Self interest can be right or wrong because existence is what Nature selects for." means. It's horseshit.

[kenshikenji]

You asked me WHY accept it, not an argument for why it was valid.

The reason it's correct is because if you violate you will be unable to rational justify the action. Violating the NAP means initiating force. Be definition the initiation of force cannot be justified. Any attempt to justify it collapses into insurmountable contradiction. Therefore any violation of the NAP cannot be justified. 

When it comes to self interest YOU don't know what you're talking about, not me. Subjective preference having objective consequences is irrelevant. It's still subjective preference and as such cannot be objectively right or wrong. It's just preference. 

I don't know what the hell "Self interest can be right or wrong because existence is what Nature selects for." means. It's horseshit.

there is nothing in the definition of aggression that prevents it from being justified. again, you have no definition for the word "justify". you must refer to self interest in order to justify something.  also, i am not making the case that ALL aggression is justifiable. i am making a claim that ALL aggression that is in one's "self"-interest is by definition justifiable.  this only pertains to some aggression.  objective consequences are absolutely not irrelevant.  they help form your future subjective preference.  what is horseshit is what doesnt have rationale behind it.  when "self" interest has natural selection behind it, thats pretty good foundation to build your reasoing off of.  by declaring aggression as "wrong" without being able to give reason why and with respect to what objective makes NAP the only thing that is horseshit.

[GuzzyBone]

I don't know what Stefan's argument on Universally Preferable Behavior is toward universal ethics, but morality at it's core (if you travel down the definitions and break it to it's roots) is simply Good = Survival, Bad = Death.

True morality, the kind we hold valid (and not from indoctrination) is constructed on behavior that is good for the survival of species (that drives us together and towards improvement of quality of life) and behavior that is bad for the species (that drives us apart and leads us towards death). We are social creatures that survive symbiotically. Through moral actions when your quality of life improves, my quality of life improves with it, regardless of how miniscule or detectable.

 

If you don't understand the core nature that Good = Survival (beneficial, improving, gaining health) and Bad = Death (destruction, despair, illness), then everything becomes muddy and confusing and somehow Government, the most murderous force on Earth (thereby the greatest EVIL man has ever known) can be justified in the mind as "necessary", "practical", "beneficial" or "realistic".

Whatever is the number one cause of unnatural death (consequence of man's behavior) will always be the greatest evil that man has ever known. Cancer can be regarded as evil as it is often (though not always detectable) a consequence of man's behavior. Of course, we all know that Cancer is "bad".

Like I said, I don't know what foundation Stefan uses to set up UPB, but hopefully it goes something along these lines. If it is missing this basic survival core, and fails to recognize that good for survival can be relative to environment, then I would worry it's missing the point. I look forward to reading the book.

Non-Aggression Principle is applicable toward human behavior. Violent force is always bad for both parties and I disagree with Stefan's assement that violent force is Win-Lose. I would argue that it is Lose-Lose (long term), because our benefit is also dependent on the satisfaction and improvement of all parties.

We do not tell our children not to steal because they may get arrested. We tell them not to do it because this behavior escalates, will destroy them in the long run, and is destructive to us all. Theft is not Win Lose, because the thief did not solve the original problem of "how to acquire wealth", he merely ignored the problem, went for the quick violent solution and hurts everyone in the process including himself.

Non-aggression principle is pretty absolute in regards to other humans. Even in the case of self-defense you are not solving the problem, you are only using it as a last resort for temporary life preservation, but a whole host of new problems emerge. The original problem of "Why is this person using violence in the first place" has not been addressed or solved. If we look at violence as a problem for all, including the user of violence, I think we have a better chance of solving it.

However, nothing is absolute, and the NAP cannot be applied to hunting for example. The use of violent force against animals to obtain food is not immoral but good for survival. Extremist positions cloud reason, but as far as human interaction NAP is pretty straightforward absolute as a principle.

 

[Blackout]

yes, some murder may be moral, and if it does optimize "self" existence than any other choice when this is true would relatively shorten "self" existence making it immoral.  nature decides, in otherwords unless you have perfect understanding of the mechanical universe including human behavior, then evaluating the consequences of your action is the best way in determining what is in your "self" interest. but again this is difficult because you cannot compare what would have happened with another choice you did not make. but in any case, you cannot just declare something in your self interest. the consequences prove you wrong or right. 

 

 

How does this not run into the same criticism of utilitarianism/consequentialism in that the sum of all consequences of any potential action are indeterminable at the time you take them and thus your are forever evaluating the moral content of your actions post-fact. What are the implications for your theory as a practical moral principle that is actionable?

[kenshikenji]

How does this not run into the same criticism of utilitarianism/consequentialism in that the sum of all consequences of any potential action are indeterminable at the time you take them and thus your are forever evaluating the moral content of your actions post-fact. What are the implications for your theory as a practical moral principle that is actionable?

how is this a valid criticism? so what? information and intelligence is not perfect, so subjective valuation is not perfect. but that does not invalidate the existence of true value.  but the thing is nature selects for those who can best determine the consequences.  the implications are the same implications that natural selection impose on us.  as far as practicality it helps us identify what we want to know, not only that it does not over value the mind like other theories. it also demands more precision than blunt principles like NAP.

 

I don't know what Stefan's argument on Universally Preferable Behavior is toward universal ethics, but morality at it's core (if you travel down the definitions and break it to it's roots) is simply Good = Survival, Bad = Death.

 

True morality, the kind we hold valid (and not from indoctrination) is constructed on behavior that is good for the survival of species (that drives us together and towards improvement of quality of life) and behavior that is bad for the species (that drives us apart and leads us towards death). We are social creatures that survive symbiotically. Through moral actions when your quality of life improves, my quality of life improves with it, regardless of how miniscule or detectable.

 

If you don't understand the core nature that Good = Survival (beneficial, improving, gaining health) and Bad = Death (destruction, despair, illness), then everything becomes muddy and confusing and somehow Government, the most murderous force on Earth (thereby the greatest EVIL man has ever known) can be justified in the mind as "necessary", "practical", "beneficial" or "realistic".

 

Whatever is the number one cause of unnatural death (consequence of man's behavior) will always be the greatest evil that man has ever known. Cancer can be regarded as evil as it is often (though not always detectable) a consequence of man's behavior. Of course, we all know that Cancer is "bad".

 

Like I said, I don't know what foundation Stefan uses to set up UPB, but hopefully it goes something along these lines. If it is missing this basic survival core, and fails to recognize that good for survival can be relative to environment, then I would worry it's missing the point. I look forward to reading the book.

 

Non-Aggression Principle is applicable toward human behavior. Violent force is always bad for both parties and I disagree with Stefan's assement that violent force is Win-Lose. I would argue that it is Lose-Lose (long term), because our benefit is also dependent on the satisfaction and improvement of all parties.

 

We do not tell our children not to steal because they may get arrested. We tell them not to do it because this behavior escalates, will destroy them in the long run, and is destructive to us all. Theft is not Win Lose, because the thief did not solve the original problem of "how to acquire wealth", he merely ignored the problem, went for the quick violent solution and hurts everyone in the process including himself.

 

Non-aggression principle is pretty absolute in regards to other humans. Even in the case of self-defense you are not solving the problem, you are only using it as a last resort for temporary life preservation, but a whole host of new problems emerge. The original problem of "Why is this person using violence in the first place" has not been addressed or solved. If we look at violence as a problem for all, including the user of violence, I think we have a better chance of solving it.

 

However, nothing is absolute, and the NAP cannot be applied to hunting for example. The use of violent force against animals to obtain food is not immoral but good for survival. Extremist positions cloud reason, but as far as human interaction NAP is pretty straightforward absolute as a principle.

 

 

 

i agree somewhat but survival of what?  ego-utilitarianism says its your genes and memes or anything can describe you. not merely your physical body.  my theory accounts for empathy of others and does not rule out self-sacrifice for others given the circumstances warrant it.

[Slavik]

yes, some murder may be moral, and if it does optimize "self" existence than any other choice when this is true would relatively shorten "self" existence making it immoral.  nature decides, in otherwords unless you have perfect understanding of the mechanical universe including human behavior, then evaluating the consequences of your action is the best way in determining what is in your "self" interest. but again this is difficult because you cannot compare what would have happened with another choice you did not make. but in any case, you cannot just declare something in your self interest. the consequences prove you wrong or right.  i made a video on the relative theory of value, value extends to action and morality in this case. remember, the universe is a game of many actors, each of which are trying to accomplish their objectives.  personal objectives can conflict.  it is entirely possible for a person's "self" existence to come into conflict with another's "self" interest.  this is a rare event but explains the conditions to which there can be conflict or aggression.  but value is relative (objective), something is either relatively in your "self" interest or not. your mind does not determine what action optimizes your "self" interest or even if one action is more "self" interest profitable than another. 

 

here is the thread on where i just present SOME of my criticisms of UPB. i have more. i plan on making a video on it fairly soon.

https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/44129-logical-problems-with-upb/

 

what i mean when i say NAP isnt a principle is that in most cases people actually endorse "self" interest subconsciously.  would you kick a random person in the shin if i paid you a million dollars?  the adjudicator are the consequences that follow any action.

 

there is an objective that nature imposes upon us. that is the objective of existence.  ego-utilitarianism acknowledges that all other objectives are a means to this primary objective. there are no principles that SHOULD supercede the objective of existence.

 

rigorous definition is required for valid logical proofs.  in order to prove a claim you must reference very well defined definition.  and Stefan does not do this. it shows his lack of experience in actually writing proofs.

 

 

you dont make an "all" claim and present an anecdote to prove your claim.  also, i claim that it is possible that SOME murder is in ones "self" interest.  its another way of saying that proving "EVERY INSTANCE OF POTENTIAL MURDER is not in ANYONE'S "self" interest" is very difficult. the fact that Nazi's are relatively extinct is a evidence that it wasnt in their self interest.

 

how can you be wrong for doing something you SHOULD do?  this is a contradiction!  you cant set normative standards and then say you SHOULD do something else.

What Anecdote have I presented?  Are you not aware of historical facts involving Nazis? The super race?

 

Can you give me an example where some murder is in self interest? 

 

Where did you get the SHOULD?  

[J. D. Stembal]

Considering the rampant childism that still exists in the world today, I would assume that a person who rejects the principle of non-aggression was likely violated as a child. I can certainly empathize with the sentiment that the NAP lacks "rigor" because it didn't protect me from abuse at the hands of my parents. The NAP didn't save my foreskin from being forcibly removed by doctors.

[Koroviev]

How does this not run into the same criticism of utilitarianism/consequentialism in that the sum of all consequences of any potential action are indeterminable at the time you take them and thus your are forever evaluating the moral content of your actions post-fact. What are the implications for your theory as a practical moral principle that is actionable?

Also, if ego-utilitarianism or "self-interest" as you are proposing it, is/should be a universal principle doesn't that make the current judicial system immoral. Although murder may not be in someone's best self interest because of the consequences they may run into in the current system, if "ego-utilitarianism" took hold then wouldn't "I thought it was in my own best self interest" then become a valid argument no matter what the situation? If it's immoral not to act in your own best self interest you can't really bepunished for trying to be moral can you? Also, doesn't this mean everything every corrupt politician has ever done is moral because it obviously was in their best self interest? Sooo, thanks George W.? Which, you can also deduce, would mean everyone who is not a corrupt politician is being immoral (assuming that legal immunity, power, and money is in everyone's best self interest). Furthermore, you kind of went over this in your video, but how is it in anyone's best self interest to take care of their children? Isn't feeding your children in their best self interest? What about helping them learn? Taking them to the park? From what I understand a lot of parenting is putting your child's interests before your own, which in ego-utilitarianism as your proposing it would be immoral. 

 

Also, natural selection has nothing to do with self interest, it has everything to do with survival of the species. i.e. one member of a species has an advantageous mutation it is the benefit of the species that that mutation get's passed down (no matter how much money they are offered not to).

 

As opposed to the N.A.P. which says simply it is wrong to initiate force....

[kenshikenji]

What Anecdote have I presented?  Are you not aware of historical facts involving Nazis? The super race?

 

Can you give me an example where some murder is in self interest? 

 

Where did you get the SHOULD?  

you just answered your own question. again, youre trying to prove ALL murder is immoral by showing an instance of one. that is not valid proof.

 

to show that some murder is moral, you just have to show one instance.  who do you think has the taller burden of proof? if murdering a useless retarded person or criminal would guarantee the safety of my genes or the human race i would do it.  happy? there is one instance that satisfies my burden of proof and disproves yours.

 

i get all my "shoulds" from well -defined objectives, as should any logical person.

 

Considering the rampant childism that still exists in the world today, I would assume that a person who rejects the principle of non-aggression was likely violated as a child. I can certainly empathize with the sentiment that the NAP lacks "rigor" because it didn't protect me from abuse at the hands of my parents. The NAP didn't save my foreskin from being forcibly removed by doctors.

rejecting the non aggression principle is just acknowledging nature,economics, and science.  i dont dismiss the value of non-aggression WHEN it is profitable.  but it is a tall claim to say it is a priniciple when it is apparently not.  

 

Also, if ego-utilitarianism or "self-interest" as you are proposing it, is/should be a universal principle doesn't that make the current judicial system immoral. Although murder may not be in someone's best self interest because of the consequences they may run into in the current system, if "ego-utilitarianism" took hold then wouldn't "I thought it was in my own best self interest" then become a valid argument no matter what the situation? If it's immoral not to act in your own best self interest you can't really bepunished for trying to be moral can you? Also, doesn't this mean everything every corrupt politician has ever done is moral because it obviously was in their best self interest? Sooo, thanks George W.? Which, you can also deduce, would mean everyone who is not a corrupt politician is being immoral (assuming that legal immunity, power, and money is in everyone's best self interest). Furthermore, you kind of went over this in your video, but how is it in anyone's best self interest to take care of their children? Isn't feeding your children in their best self interest? What about helping them learn? Taking them to the park? From what I understand a lot of parenting is putting your child's interests before your own, which in ego-utilitarianism as your proposing it would be immoral. 

 

Also, natural selection has nothing to do with self interest, it has everything to do with survival of the species. i.e. one member of a species has an advantageous mutation it is the benefit of the species that that mutation get's passed down (no matter how much money they are offered not to).

 

As opposed to the N.A.P. which says simply it is wrong to initiate force....

please watch my video on the "self". "self" isnt limited one ones physical body.  i may change the term to meta-self just to distinguish it from self.  just because i present the general form of what is moral, doesnt mean i can easily classify any action as fitting that criteria.  to determine if something is truly in one's "self" interest, you must put it through a cost/benefit analysis that i dont even know the specific form of.  or you can analyze the consequences.

 

natural selection has EVERYTHING to do with "self" interest.  it is not just survival of the species, but particular forms of the species.  META-SELVES or "SELVES".   each variation within the species is a meta-self.

 

wrong? again wrong in what respect?  right and wrong only have meaning with respect to objectives.

[Slavik]

you just answered your own question. again, youre trying to prove ALL murder is immoral by showing an instance of one. that is not valid proof.

 

to show that some murder is moral, you just have to show one instance.  who do you think has the taller burden of proof? if murdering a useless retarded person or criminal would guarantee the safety of my genes or the human race i would do it.  happy? there is one instance that satisfies my burden of proof and disproves yours.

 

i get all my "shoulds" from well -defined objectives, as should any logical person.

 

rejecting the non aggression principle is just acknowledging nature,economics, and science.  i dont dismiss the value of non-aggression WHEN it is profitable.  but it is a tall claim to say it is a priniciple when it is apparently not.  

 

please watch my video on the "self". "self" isnt limited one ones physical body.  i may change the term to meta-self just to distinguish it from self.  just because i present the general form of what is moral, doesnt mean i can easily classify any action as fitting that criteria.  to determine if something is truly in one's "self" interest, you must put it through a cost/benefit analysis that i dont even know the specific form of.  or you can analyze the consequences.

 

natural selection has EVERYTHING to do with "self" interest.  it is not just survival of the species, but particular forms of the species.  META-SELVES or "SELVES".   each variation within the species is a meta-self.

 

wrong? again wrong in what respect?  right and wrong only have meaning with respect to objectives.

That is not an instance of one its an instance of a few million.  And what happened to Nazis after the fact doesnt change what can happen in with a given ideology.  

 

Can you switch from hypothetical and give an example where murder is moral?

 

You told me I presented a should, and that is what I asked since I never have said mentioned a should.  You got an ought from an is.

[kenshikenji]

That is not an instance of one its an instance of a few million.  And what happened to Nazis after the fact doesnt change what can happen in with a given ideology.  

 

Can you switch from hypothetical and give an example where murder is moral?

 

You told me I presented a should, and that is what I asked since I never have said mentioned a should.  You got an ought from an is.

like i said, nature decides if what you did is in accordance with your self interest. "self" interest isnt subjective. its objectively relative.

 

no one can know every event in history, there may be no accounts for when it was moral.  that doesnt prove they dont exist in history.  you cant show it has never happened in history either.  but im not a historian.  also you cant use history to prove or disprove my claim because there is no control group. in other words you would have to see the consequences of all possible action to compare.  you only have an experimental group without a control group.

 

i dont believe in the is/ought dichotomy.  everything must be derived from reality. and as ive said before ALL normative claims come from positive well-defined objectives.  in other words ALL should's are derived from is's.  your dichotomy is a fallacy.  well defined objective determines the relative value of all possible strategies.

[Koroviev]

please watch my video on the "self". "self" isnt limited one ones physical body.  i may change the term to meta-self just to distinguish it from self.  just because i present the general form of what is moral, doesnt mean i can easily classify any action as fitting that criteria.  to determine if something is truly in one's "self" interest, you must put it through a cost/benefit analysis that i dont even know the specific form of.  or you can analyze the consequences.

 

natural selection has EVERYTHING to do with "self" interest.  it is not just survival of the species, but particular forms of the species.  META-SELVES or "SELVES".   each variation within the species is a meta-self.

 

wrong? again wrong in what respect?  right and wrong only have meaning with respect to objectives.

Ethic - 

a :  a set of moral principles :  a theory or system of moral values 

b : the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group<professional ethics>

c :  a guiding philosophy

d :  a consciousness of moral importance 

3 : plural :  a set of moral issues or aspects (as rightness)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ethic

 

Moral -

a :  of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior :  ethical <moral judgments>

b :  expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior <a moral poem>

c :  conforming to a standard of right behavior

d :  sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment <a moral obligation>

e :  capable of right and wrong action <a moral agent>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/moral

 

Principle - 

a :  a comprehensive and fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption

 

b (1) :  a rule or code of conduct (2) :  habitual devotion to right principles <a man of principle>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/principle

 

Right and wrong are themselves the objectives, it's the entire point of philosophy. We are discussing what is moral and what is immoral, what is right and wrong. Whether an individual has an objective of being right or wrong is irrelevant.

 

N.A.P. says initiating force against another is immoral. ego-utilitarianism says initiating force against another could be moral or it could be immoral depending on how it later effects your (an object) "definition" and how it effects "any set of criteria that describes you" and the "concept of you or ANY other object" (as stated by your definition of "self" or meta-self).

 

So, ONLY things that positively effect your (you being an object) "definition" and how it effects "any set of criteria that describes you" and the "concept of you or ANY other object" can be considered moral, and EVERYTHING else is immoral. An example would be if you are a student in a class and another student in a different class but the same grade does poorly on a test causing a third person to think students in your grade are less intelligent you are being immoral since that negatively effects a "set of criteria that describes you. I don't know how one would make any decisions or get anything done if this is the decision process they must go through with every thought or action. Also, what if I do something that is immoral say kill someone in a way that doesn't benefit me then it turns out in 50 years to benefit my "meta-self" since that person did not have the negative effect on someone he would have had wouldn't that mean that immoral act now becomes moral? Also, if "each variation within a species is a meta-self" if someone with brown hair does something immoral doesn't that mean I am being immoral? Blue eyes? I have a scar isn't that a variation?

 

Now if you want to redefine terms I think it would be a better idea to state that up front so that we don't all show up expecting to play chess when you're playing Cones of Dunshire ;P

 

and just for giggles after watching you read your numbered list on "Self":

Meme - 

:  an idea, behavior, style, or usage that spreads from person to person within a culture