WasatchMan Posted August 9, 2015 Posted August 9, 2015 The Goal: Anarcho-Capitalism is the goal to move the moral compass of society to accept the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) universally as part of its moral canon - to create a society which rejects any and all digressions from the NAP. The Implications: This goal would remove all pragmatic “what if” scenarios from our radar and no longer distract anarcho-capitalists from our essential philosophic truth - the evil involved in the initiation of force. Our goal is to abolish the acceptable practice of initiating force against others from the tool box of human action for moral individuals. Just like the goal of abolitionists was to convince society that slavery was not acceptable moral behavior, and any “what if” scenario about a future big business enacting slavery would be irrelevant to this goal (since it would be - and now is - established that this would be unacceptable behavior), our goal would allow us to focus on the essentials. Convincing others they don't have the right to, or enable, the initiation of force against others is the battle - all the rest are details. Details are for later - morality is for for the present. Let us not focus on the ends of how an anarchist society would function, but first convince others of the universal morality of the NAP. The resultant society will impose the details, necessarily.
Nathan Metric Posted August 20, 2015 Posted August 20, 2015 Disagree. The NAP can't be a goal for governance for the simple reason that the Non-Aggression principle is not axiomatically true. It can only be conditionally true in relation to a goal. That final goal has to be axiomatic. What is an axiom you say? It is a proposition that is coherent, concise, and impervious to critique. Also, those dreaded "what if" scenarios are only threatening if your moral theory is incomplete or arbitrary. Here is a simple deductive form of UPB. A therefore B therefore C therefore D, etc. 1)Truth is morally superior to falsehood. (I like to call this the Truth Axiom). 2)Accumulating knowledge is virtuous, directly or indirectly helping the pursuit of knowledge is virtuous, and being honest with rational beings is good. 3)Living and interacting with rational beings then is virtuous. 4)Actions and policies that aid interaction between rational beings are virtuous. 5)There are no conflicts of interest between rational beings unless there are conflicting moral rules. 6)Thus, universal morality is preferable to non-universal morality. 7)The NAP the only universal moral principle and thus it is the final principle of governance. 8)Therefore, the only effect of any particular violent action that is to be consider is the effect that action has on the level of aggression in the world. Violence that increases aggression is evil and violence that reduces aggression is virtuous. All other actions are judged based on how consistent they are with the Truth Axiom. Although I agree that the NAP is the final principle of governance it is not the first principle of governance. Simply reducing aggression can't be the final goal. There has to be some overarching higher good that justifies the NAP. If you have more questions I can send you a private PM of an improved version of UPB that I have been working for the past 2 months.
shirgall Posted August 20, 2015 Posted August 20, 2015 5)There are no conflicts of interest between rational beings unless there are conflicting moral rules. Rational beings can differ in circumstance and have different interests as a result, thus those interests can conflict. For example: allocation of scarce resources. Another example: the interests of rational children versus the interests of rational parents.
Nathan Metric Posted August 20, 2015 Posted August 20, 2015 A rational being is someone who acts consistent with the truth axiom. It is not merely someone with high intelligence. Yes, you can have two intelligent people who have a conflict of interest, but you cannot have two rational people with a conflict of interest. Even if it is between children and parents. I will even go as far to say that a person who isn't rational is not as intelligent as they could possibly be. For example, let's say you have two people going in for a job interview. Obviously only one of them can actually get the job. It doesn't matter though for as long as both of the people are rational there is no conflict of interest for both of them are concerned with acting consistent with the Truth Axiom. A rational person does not desire the unearned for awarding a job to the lessar candidate is not economically efficient. That which is not economic efficient cannot serve the cause of truth as well as that which is economically efficient. The pursuit of truth is limited without economy. There is only so much truth an individual or collective can grasp without functioning industry, agricultural, etc. A rational person also understands his/her limitations. The truth doesn't merely come from individuals. It comes from competition and meaningful interaction between rational beings. There are only two unnatural causes for chaos in the word: stupidity and conflicting moral rules. Stupidity can be negated by applied rationality, but conflicting moral rules will always be a threat regardless if people are intelligent.
Guest Gee Posted August 21, 2015 Posted August 21, 2015 UPB can not be used to create posative moral obligations.
Nathan Metric Posted August 22, 2015 Posted August 22, 2015 Correct. Can you show me where I created automatic positive duties? "Good" means that which you are morally required to do at all times. For example, refraining from murder is good. "Virtue" means that which you ought to do but are not morally required to do at all times. For example, reading books is virtuous. "Vice" means that which you ought not to do but is not always evil. For example, lust is a vice. "Evil" is that which you are morally prohibited from doing. For example, stealing is evil. Obviously you can't make positive action (actions that require the manipulation of the body and/or the extra consumption of energy) a moral requirement because a)Any higher principle that justifies any positive duty will probably justify other positive duties. An individual can't fulfill two positive duties at the same time. or b)A physical condition may prevent a person from fulfilling such positive duties and thus would be put into the status of evil. A valid universal moral rule doesn't force anyone to be evil.
Guest Gee Posted August 22, 2015 Posted August 22, 2015 Ah, common usage of virtuous is synonymous with morally good. Virtuous - Having or showing high moral standards.
WasatchMan Posted August 22, 2015 Author Posted August 22, 2015 Disagree. The NAP can't be a goal for governance for the simple reason that the Non-Aggression principle is not axiomatically true. It can only be conditionally true in relation to a goal. That final goal has to be axiomatic. What is an axiom you say? It is a proposition that is coherent, concise, and impervious to critique. Also, those dreaded "what if" scenarios are only threatening if your moral theory is incomplete or arbitrary. Who said anything about the NAP being a form of governance? I am saying that the goal should be to make the NAP a moral imperative for human behavior. I don't really care what happens and what you abstractly want to deduce about "over arching higher goods" after people agree they should not accept the initiation of force to back opinions. I am not saying that the goal is to reduce aggression - I am saying that the goal is to eliminate it as a form of acceptable behavior. Everything else is just details - details that are irrelevant as long as people still think that the initiation of force is a proper to human behavior. 1
powder Posted August 22, 2015 Posted August 22, 2015 The Goal: Anarcho-Capitalism is the goal to move the moral compass of society to accept the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) universally as part of its moral canon - to create a society which rejects any and all digressions from the NAP. The Implications: This goal would remove all pragmatic “what if” scenarios from our radar and no longer distract anarcho-capitalists from our essential philosophic truth - the evil involved in the initiation of force. Our goal is to abolish the acceptable practice of initiating force against others from the tool box of human action for moral individuals. Just like the goal of abolitionists was to convince society that slavery was not acceptable moral behavior, and any “what if” scenario about a future big business enacting slavery would be irrelevant to this goal (since it would be - and now is - established that this would be unacceptable behavior), our goal would allow us to focus on the essentials. Convincing others they don't have the right to, or enable, the initiation of force against others is the battle - all the rest are details. Details are for later - morality is for for the present. Let us not focus on the ends of how an anarchist society would function, but first convince others of the universal morality of the NAP. The resultant society will impose the details, necessarily. Well done Wasatchman, I agree. I find phrases like the ones highlighted in blue to be problematic. Statists are always looking for ways to create and implement ways to manage other people so words like 'creating' 'abolishing' 'establishing' and so on sound too much like impositions to me. Convincing people of the value of the NAP and letting things happen they way the will when people adopt it works for me. 8)Therefore, the only effect of any particular violent action that is to be consider is the effect that action has on the level of aggression in the world. Violence that increases aggression is evil and violence that reduces aggression is virtuous. All other actions are judged based on how consistent they are with the Truth Axiom. What the heck does that mean? that does not sound like self defense to me, sounds a lot like the justification used to start wars all over the world.
WasatchMan Posted August 22, 2015 Author Posted August 22, 2015 Well done Wasatchman, I agree. I find phrases like the ones highlighted in blue to be problematic. Statists are always looking for ways to create and implement ways to manage other people so words like 'creating' 'abolishing' 'establishing' and so on sound too much like impositions to me. Convincing people of the value of the NAP and letting things happen they way the will when people adopt it works for me. I too struggled with the language when I was writing it but I wasn't successful with finding other ways to put it. I think the sentiment is still correct, even if the words are somewhat stenched in statist platitudes that infer social engineering or force. I do want a society created where the initiation of force is abolished, however I do know this means that a lot of people of to agree with the logic of this and that is why convincing others of the moral necessity of accepting the NAP universally should be the first and foremost goal of ancaps.
Nathan Metric Posted August 24, 2015 Posted August 24, 2015 Governance. Guide for human behavior. Two ways of saying the thing. Even an anarchist society has governance. It is governed by a polycentric legal system. Okay, so you want ancapitalism to make its goal to follow the NAP. Okay, WHY? Why should anyone follow the NAP? I'm afraid you have completely missed the point of what I was saying. The NAP means nothing to those who disagree with it. You have to be able to justify it. I believe in the NAP, but I won't believe in it for no reason. What the heck does that mean? that does not sound like self defense to me, sounds a lot like the justification used to start wars all over the world. The Non-Aggression Principle saids that aggression is wrong. It doesn't say ALL violence is wrong. There are three categories of violence. Initiation, retaliation and preemptive. Initiation or aggression is that which interferes with self-ownership via the infliction of injury or death or via the threat of injury or death. Retaliation is violence that is a response to aggression that deters aggression in the future. Preemptive violence is violence that prevents aggression from taking place. I am not saying that the goal is to reduce aggression - I am saying that the goal is to eliminate it as a form of acceptable behavior. Everything else is just details - details that are irrelevant as long as people still think that the initiation of force is a proper to human behavior. A distinction without a difference. If reducing aggression is virtuous then eliminating aggression is most virtuous.
Recommended Posts