Is ONLY the initiation of the use of force morally wrong?

[Mullerick]

Many times during call-in-shows, a caller asks Stefan if x is immoral. This is usually followed by Stef saying that x is immoral because it violates the non-aggression principle (NAP) or x is not immoral because it does not violate the NAP. The latter statement obviously implies that only what violates the NAP is immoral. But is this true? If so, is it not immoral to pressure a person into doing something dangerous or to lie to a person in a situation where you know that lying would lead to that person being harmed? And what about suicide, where you're not using force against anyone but at the same time are knowingly inflicting close ones with immense grief? Or are these examples still using some sort of force?

 

Now I've read Stef's book on UPB a few times and in the book he says that the initiation of force is immoral because it is unavoidable from the victim's perspective. The above examples are situations where you're not using the initiation of force but are putting people in unavoidable situations. So are they still immoral or are they simply aesthetically negative? If so why?  

[Mister Mister]

Can you give some examples?  Do you mean like fraud?

[Will Torbald]

Many times during call-in-shows, a caller asks Stefan if x is immoral. This is usually followed by Stef saying that x is immoral because it violates the non-aggression principle (NAP) or x is not immoral because it does not violate the NAP. The latter statement obviously implies that only what violates the NAP is immoral. But is this true? If so, is it not immoral to pressure a person into doing something dangerous or to lie to a person in a situation where you know that lying would lead to that person being harmed? And what about suicide, where you're not using force against anyone but at the same time are knowingly inflicting close ones with immense grief? Or are these examples still using some sort of force?

 

Now I've read Stef's book on UPB a few times and in the book he says that the initiation of force is immoral because it is unavoidable from the victim's perspective. The above examples are situations where you're not using the initiation of force but are putting people in unavoidable situations. So are they still immoral or are they simply aesthetically negative? If so why?  

 

When you want to know if X behavior is immoral, frame it as a good, and see if it's universalizable and doesn't self destruct. For example "lying is good" - if it's true, I am being bad by telling the truth that "lying is good" therefore it self destructs. So the proposition that lying is good is not valid, so the opposite must be true, that lying is bad.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

More generally immoral means those things that do not have any moral justification / not UPB. It just so happens all those things are violations of the NAP. So it would seems that violations of the NAP and immoral are synonymous. 

[Wuzzums]

Immorality is defined as the "initiation of force". What Stefan has brought to the table is that he made morality the default position of humans and only through action, i.e. the initiation of force, can one become immoral.

 

Usually when people refer to morality they think of it as something that implies action, it comes with an instruction set. From this definition of morality they derive the definition of immorality as being the opposite of morality. If x is a moral action, then the opposite of x is immoral. This gives way to a lot of interpretation and the opportunity for certain individuals to persuade people into doing what's not in their best interest. If it's moral to help the poor, then you're immoral for not helping the poor.

 

However, if you do the opposite of that, define immorality first then define morality as the opposite of an immoral action there's no more confusion or room for interpretation. This is of course true if you define immorality as the initiation of force. It's just one simple instruction on how to live a moral life yet somehow people have a very hard time following it.

 

You could define immorality however you want but it just becomes confusing. We all agree murder is immoral yet to put murder under the same category as lying seems like going overboard.

 

The scenario "putting someone in an unavoidable situation" is too vague. Did the person at some point have the choice of opting out of the set of events that led to the unavoidable situation? If so then it does not break the NAP. An example would be someone drinking a bottle of Ipecac. They will vomit, it's unavoidable, yet they did choose to drink the bottle in the first place. If the person didn't have a choice in drinking the bottle of Ipecac then it's obvious that he was forced to drink it, therefore it's the initiation of force, therefore immoral.

[Nathan Metric]

It depends on what you mean by immoral. Stefan uses "immoral" in two different ways.

 

In UPB, Stefan makes a distinction between "aesthetically negative" actions and "morally evil" actions. Aesthetically negative actions are actions that break a moral rule, but cannot be dealt with violence (examples: lying, verbal abuse, indecency, cowardice, etc) . Morally evil actions are actions that not just break a moral rule, but ought to be met with violence (examples, murder, rape, theft, etc. The big stuff)

 

So the simple answer is no. The initiation of force is not the only immorality that one can commit, but it is the only immorality that one ought to be dealt with violence. Other forms of immorality need to be dealt with by means other than violence.

 

If you want a simplier breakdown of UPB I've been working on I can send you a PM.

[Mullerick]

It depends on what you mean by immoral. Stefan uses "immoral" in two different ways.

 

In UPB, Stefan makes a distinction between "aesthetically negative" actions and "morally evil" actions. Aesthetically negative actions are actions that break a moral rule, but cannot be dealt with violence (examples: lying, verbal abuse, indecency, cowardice, etc) . Morally evil actions are actions that not just break a moral rule, but ought to be met with violence (examples, murder, rape, theft, etc. The big stuff)

 

So the simple answer is no. The initiation of force is not the only immorality that one can commit, but it is the only immorality that one ought to be dealt with violence. Other forms of immorality need to be dealt with by means other than violence.

 

If you want a simplier breakdown of UPB I've been working on I can send you a PM.

 

 

 

 

 

I don't know if I agree with you. In the book Stefan clearly drew a line between morally wrong actions and aesthetically negative actions. The difference is that one can be avoided and the other can't (page 70). So if an action is aesthetically negative it can't be immoral at the same time. Aesthetically negative actions don't break moral rules, they break aesthetic rules. To further my point Stefan often says that actions that don't involve the initiation of force or property rights are not in the realm of ethics. (notice, disrespecting property rights involves a sort of force) So I still think I have the right interpretation when I say that Stefan believes that only the initiation of force is immoral. Unless he believes suicide is immoral but I've never heard him talk about this topic. 

 

I'm still interested in what you're working on. I want anything that will help me understand this better. 

[Nathan Metric]

Let's quote his book.

 

These seven categories are:

1. It is good (universally preferable and enforceable through violence, such as “don’t murder”).

2. It is aesthetically positive (universally preferable but not enforceable through violence, such as “politeness” and “being on time”).

3. It is personally positive (neither universally preferable nor enforceable, such a predilection for eating ice cream).

4. It is neutral, or has no ethical or aesthetic content, such as running for a bus.

5. It is personally negative (predilection for not eating ice cream).

6. It is aesthetically negative (“rudeness” and “being late”)

7. It is evil (universally proscribed) (“rape”).

 

Categories 1, 2, 6, and 7 have moral significance. So my interpretation of UPB was correct. The initiation of force is not the only immorality. It is merely the only form of immorality that is enforcable with violence.

[dsayers]

what about suicide, where you're not using force against anyone but at the same time are knowingly inflicting close ones with immense grief?

 

Grief, being an emotion, isn't something that can be inflicted upon others. People who are close to somebody capable of killing themselves are responsible for allowing themselves to get close to somebody who is self-destructive. I realize this is usually the result of child abuse, leading to suppressed rational thought and self-knowledge, which leads to a lack of knowing what to look for in others you let near you. So you could argue the responsibility accrues to their abusers (parents).

 

That said, suicide IS the initiation of the use of force. It is true that a person owns their own body and life. However, imagine they jump in front of the bus. They're going to damage the bus and traumatize the bus drive, its passengers, and anybody that witnesses it. Even if it's by way of hanging, the person is leaving a mess that somebody else is forced to clean up.

 

I think assisted suicide, where the assistants consent to cleaning up after the dead and are compensated for doing so in advance would be the only way to choose to end one's own life without initiating the use of force.

[AncapFTW]

When you want to know if X behavior is immoral, frame it as a good, and see if it's universalizable and doesn't self destruct. For example "lying is good" - if it's true, I am being bad by telling the truth that "lying is good" therefore it self destructs. So the proposition that lying is good is not valid, so the opposite must be true, that lying is bad.

Just because something can't be universalized doesn't make it immoral.  Having sex can't be universalized, but that doesn't make it immoral.  Eating peanut's can't be universalized because some people are alergic, but that doesn't make eating peanut's immoral.

 

All that not being able to be universalized means is that it can't be good, because by definition it can't be universaly preferable.

[fractional slacker]

It appears you are looking for a comprehensive and exhaustive list, or definition, of what constitutes force and what does not. While that might be interesting from an academic standpoint, the world is burning all around us. Instead of having a debate on what is heat what is not heat, let's first put our energy into extinguishing obvious fires like the state and corrupt parenting.
Maybe try to do something good instead of sitting around in the philosophical chair of ideal forms and ethereal realms.

[Guest Gee]

Just because something can't be universalized doesn't make it immoral.  Having sex can't be universalized, but that doesn't make it immoral.  Eating peanut's can't be universalized because some people are alergic, but that doesn't make eating peanut's immoral.

 

All that not being able to be universalized means is that it can't be good, because by definition it can't be universaly preferable.

 

UPB is a universal ban hammer, if two people in a room by definition can not do it simultaneously it gets banned and if a coma patient can't do it then it can't be considered a good.

 

2 people test: Can two people in a room make the beast with two backs? Yes, therefore it is not immoral.

(more fully, can two people simultaneously want to have sex and be sexed, sure)

 

Coma guy: Coma guy can not consent to (or have) sex so if you say sex is good then coma guy must be bad by virtue of being in a coma thus sex can not be good.

 

Conclusion:

Sex is not immoral, sex is not good thus sex is an aesthetic preference.