Non aggression principle

[Lykourgos]

I've been reading about the non aggression principle, but a lot of sites present it as a practical guide rather than an objective moral rule. I think a lot of people hold the non aggression principle to be the latter, so I'm hoping someone can help explain it to me in that sense.

 

Does anyone here believe in the existence of objective morality, and posit the non aggression principle in that moral system? I am curious to see someone start from first principles and reason out the existence of the NAP.

 

 

Of course, I could be mistaken in my impressions, so please let me know if that's the case. Perhaps the NAP is universally seen as a practical way to create harmony, rather than an objective truth and moral rule.

[DCLugi]

I'll have a go. If I claim that aggression is preferable human behavior then I both want to aggress against others and be aggressed against by others. The contradiction is that if I want to be aggressed against then it isn't aggression.

[Guest Gee]

I've believe in objective morality. I've got a proof but I'm a few months away from releasing it.

 

Have you read UPB?

[dsayers]

I am curious to see someone start from first principles and reason out the existence of the NAP.

Thank you for your consideration. Objective morality is such a beautiful thing because it makes so many seemingly challenging things VERY simple indeed

 

My case: Humans can reason. That is they can conceptualize self, the other, formulate ideals, compare behaviors to those ideals, and calculate consequences. Therefore they own themselves. Theft, assault, rape, and murder are the four behaviors a human can engage in that are the simultaneous acceptance and rejection of property rights. NAP is shorthand for "thou shalt not steal, assault, rape, or murder."

 

The test: In order to have a moral consideration, a behavior must first be voluntary. For example, a muscle spasm is not voluntary. Then, it must be binding upon another moral actor. For example, if I sit down on my couch, this does not directly impact anybody else. Behaviors that are not binding upon others are amoral (no moral component). If a behavior has a moral component, the difference is based on consent. For example, borrowing (consent; moral) is mechanically identical to theft (no consent; immoral).

 

Does this help?

[Frosty]

The NAP satisfies the conditions for being an objective moral principle because it's internally consistent, non contradictory and it's also universal. And it's not universal by happen-stance or luck, it's much stronger than that, it's simply true in all cases by definition.

 

It's a true fact to say that nobody wants other people to initiate aggression against them. Aggression is typically defined as physical assault, coercion (threats) and lying (fraud), it's understood that aggression by definition is unwanted, if you say that you want aggression against you then it's not aggression, so for example it's not theft if I want you to take a cookie I baked. So from unwanted we go to "bad" and from there we go to "moral" and we can say that it's objectively immoral to initiate force against other people, for the simple reason that everyone logically must agree.

 

It's also worth considering the alternative principles and how that might look, can you construct a different moral principle concerning aggression that is both universal and non contradictory? You'll find that no you cannot, you always return to subjectivity.

 

From the NAP and the principle of self ownership you can get property rights and go on to construct basically most of the moral system we have today (murder, assault, rape, theft are all bad etc) Stefan sums this up in his book called Universally Preferable Behaviour (UPB) which is essentially an extrapolation of the NAP.

[Lykourgos]

I'll have a go. If I claim that aggression is preferable human behavior then I both want to aggress against others and be aggressed against by others. The contradiction is that if I want to be aggressed against then it isn't aggression.

 

I don't think I understand what you're saying. What do you mean by preferable human behaviour? Does the sentence mean the same as, "If I claim that human aggression is objectively good..."?

 

At any rate, I don't think the definition will solve the issue. You never actually say that aggression or the initiation of force is objectively evil. I thought the NAP was that the initiation of force against others is evil. I'm hoping to find the arguments that assert and affirm this particular theory.

 

I've believe in objective morality. I've got a proof but I'm a few months away from releasing it.

 

Have you read UPB?

 

Nice, I hope you'll post it when you're done!

 

I did read the UPB, and I re-read the part around page 53, but I don't recall any objective proof being given. Initially, I thought this was because the NAP is accepted by all libertarians, so perhaps the author just left it out, but maybe it's elsewhere in the text and I just can't find it.

 

 

Thank you for your consideration. Objective morality is such a beautiful thing because it makes so many seemingly challenging things VERY simple indeed

 

My case: Humans can reason. That is they can conceptualize self, the other, formulate ideals, compare behaviors to those ideals, and calculate consequences. Therefore they own themselves. Theft, assault, rape, and murder are the four behaviors a human can engage in that are the simultaneous acceptance and rejection of property rights. NAP is shorthand for "thou shalt not steal, assault, rape, or murder."

 

The test: In order to have a moral consideration, a behavior must first be voluntary. For example, a muscle spasm is not voluntary. Then, it must be binding upon another moral actor. For example, if I sit down on my couch, this does not directly impact anybody else. Behaviors that are not binding upon others are amoral (no moral component). If a behavior has a moral component, the difference is based on consent. For example, borrowing (consent; moral) is mechanically identical to theft (no consent; immoral).

 

Does this help?

 

Every little bit helps.

 

I don't understand what you mean by "own", though. Are you using it as synonymous with "directly control"?

 

I don't know how you view a human, too. Are you saying that there is a soul, and it owns/controls the physical body? I imagine that you are describing a driver and a car when you talk about something controlling something.

 

Also, the part where you say "NAP is shorthand for "thou shalt not steal, assault, rape, or murder" makes me curious. Where are you drawing your definitions from? You didn't outlaw battery if you're using common law, or the statutory law of many US states.

 

I have a lot of other questions about what you said, basically one for every sentence, but I think the definitions are an important start. Ultimately, though, I still don't see where you posit the objective rule that initiation of force against another is objectively evil. That is the NAP, right?

 

The NAP satisfies the conditions for being an objective moral principle because it's internally consistent, non contradictory and it's also universal. And it's not universal by happen-stance or luck, it's much stronger than that, it's simply true in all cases by definition.

 

It's a true fact to say that nobody wants other people to initiate aggression against them. Aggression is typically defined as physical assault, coercion (threats) and lying (fraud), it's understood that aggression by definition is unwanted, if you say that you want aggression against you then it's not aggression, so for example it's not theft if I want you to take a cookie I baked. So from unwanted we go to "bad" and from there we go to "moral" and we can say that it's objectively immoral to initiate force against other people, for the simple reason that everyone logically must agree.

 

It's also worth considering the alternative principles and how that might look, can you construct a different moral principle concerning aggression that is both universal and non contradictory? You'll find that no you cannot, you always return to subjectivity.

 

From the NAP and the principle of self ownership you can get property rights and go on to construct basically most of the moral system we have today (murder, assault, rape, theft are all bad etc) Stefan sums this up in his book called Universally Preferable Behaviour (UPB) which is essentially an extrapolation of the NAP.

 

I'm worried that I don't understand what you mean by objective. I just use the term to mean that something exists or is true independent from human opinion. When you use the terms "universal", "consistent", "non-contradictory", I'm concerned that we lack a common definition.

 

The term aggression means "force or deceit unwanted by the subject" here, right? So yes, I agree that aggression is "unwanted" by someone (as in the opposite of want, not the negation); that's in the definition of the term. You then say that (1) what is unwanted is bad; (2) bad is a moral term; (3) everyone logically agrees that aggression is bad so it's objectively immoral.

 

Is this a fair account? I feel I'm missing something, because I have a lot of problems/doubt with it. The first question I have regards the bit where you write, "So from unwanted we go to "bad"". You say that bad is a moral term, so I'm going to take it as synonymous here with evil, is that right?

 

So now, I understand the definition of evil is "unwanted", and the definition of good would be the opposite, "wanted". Help me if I've read it wrong, because if that's the case then the system falls apart. I say it falls apart because things can be wanted and unwanted at the same time. It's also not objective, because it has no independence from human opinions.

 

As for considering alternative principles, I just think about all the people who say that "the initiation of force or deceit unwanted by the subject" is not morally good or evil. They usually have moral principles elsewhere, and use this different standard to judge the morality of each instance of aggression. I haven't met many people who posit the "initiation of force or deceit unwanted by the subject" as objectively good.

 

Also, I read the UPB, but I didn't find an objective proof for the NAP around page 53. If there's another area of the text I should re-read please point me in the right direction.

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks for taking the time to present this theory, everyone  

[dsayers]

I still don't see where you posit the objective rule that initiation of force against another is objectively evil.

I don't have to posit this. The person committing theft, assault, rape, or murder is telling you their actions are evil.

[Guest Gee]

I just realised it is a contraction to say I believe in something I have a proof of. 

 

My understanding is that the NAP is not derived in UPB but that UPB, being a rational and secular framework for validating moral propositions, is satisfied only by NAP.

 

I'll be posting something for sure but it might be in the donor section 

 

Best,

 

G.

[Lykourgos]

I don't have to posit this. The person committing theft, assault, rape, or murder is telling you their actions are evil.

 

Well, true, you don't have to posit anything here. I'm not trying to force you against your will.

 

 At any rate, I'm not sure how you will present the proof of the NAP without positing the NAP. I guess you could just show all the proofs and then lop off the last sentence that runs, "and therefore, "the initiation of force is evil" is an objective moral rule". You'd still need to lay out everything to show that the NAP is an objective moral rule, though, otherwise you haven't made the case.

 

 

If you can work through the definitions and proofs with me, I'd like to do so, but obviously there's no requirement that you do so. This place seems dedicated to people who already accept the principle, so I'm aware that outsiders like me can expect something of a cold shoulder. I'll continue with my disbelief.

 

I just realised it is a contraction to say I believe in something I have a proof of. 

 

My understanding is that the NAP is not derived in UPB but that UPB, being a rational and secular framework for validating moral propositions, is satisfied only by NAP.

 

I'll be posting something for sure but it might be in the donor section 

 

Best,

 

G.

 

Not a bad idea to put it in the donor section so that it can be worked on by supportive philosophers. When it's had enough time in the oven, I hope you release it so that doubters and non-believers like myself can have a go at it.

[Will Torbald]

Behaviors don't exist objectively like a tree exists objectively. You can only judge if a behavior is preferable or not, and the crux of defining morality as universal is finding behaviors that cannot be preferred by anyone at all. If you start a rebuttal to this with "I'm not sure what you mean by" go read a dictionary.

[dsayers]

 At any rate, I'm not sure how you will present the proof of the NAP without positing the NAP. I guess you could just show all the proofs and then lop off the last sentence that runs, "and therefore, "the initiation of force is evil" is an objective moral rule". You'd still need to lay out everything to show that the NAP is an objective moral rule, though, otherwise you haven't made the case.

 

 

If you can work through the definitions and proofs with me, I'd like to do so, but obviously there's no requirement that you do so. This place seems dedicated to people who already accept the principle, so I'm aware that outsiders like me can expect something of a cold shoulder. I'll continue with my disbelief.

I'm not sure how this addresses "The person committing theft, assault, rape, or murder is telling you their actions are evil."

[Lykourgos]

I'm not sure how this addresses "The person committing theft, assault, rape, or murder is telling you their actions are evil."

 

It's a request for you to present the proof for the NAP. Are you saying that the quote, "The person committing theft, assault, rape, or murder is telling you their actions are evil" is the proof that "the initiation of force is evil" is an objective moral rule? If so, I misunderstood your intentions in writing that sentence.

 

People can tell you many things, but that doesn't make something objective or moral. The mere act of a person committing a crime against you and then telling you "my actions are evil" isn't any more effective than them telling you "my actions are good". It certainly doesn't tell you why the action is wrong, either; maybe he's Christian and thinks god disapproves.

Behaviors don't exist objectively like a tree exists objectively. You can only judge if a behavior is preferable or not, and the crux of defining morality as universal is finding behaviors that cannot be preferred by anyone at all. If you start a rebuttal to this with "I'm not sure what you mean by" go read a dictionary.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by objective when it comes to objective morality, but clearly you have some knowledge about this subject. I hope you can take the time to present the proof for the NAP so that people like myself can give the theory proper consideration.

 

As for reading a dictionary, hah, you'll forgive me if I laugh. Definitions are important in philosophy, and I can think of at least one text that falls flat on its face because it fails to properly account for definitions. Maybe you can point me in the direction of the standardised dictionary that all philosophers use on internet forums, though; I'm sure philosophers always reference it and indicate which definition they are using in each particular instance of a word.

[Will Torbald]

It's a request for you to present the proof for the NAP. Are you saying that the quote, "The person committing theft, assault, rape, or murder is telling you their actions are evil" is the proof that "the initiation of force is evil" is an objective moral rule? If so, I misunderstood your intentions in writing that sentence.

 

People can tell you many things, but that doesn't make something objective or moral. The mere act of a person committing a crime against you and then telling you "my actions are evil" isn't any more effective than them telling you "my actions are good". It certainly doesn't tell you why the action is wrong, either; maybe he's Christian and thinks god disapproves.

 

 

I'm not sure what you mean by objective when it comes to objective morality, but clearly you have some knowledge about this subject. I hope you can take the time to present the proof for the NAP so that people like myself can give the theory proper consideration.

 

As for reading a dictionary, hah, you'll forgive me if I laugh. Definitions are important in philosophy, and I can think of at least one text that falls flat on its face because it fails to properly account for definitions. Maybe you can point me in the direction of the standardised dictionary that all philosophers use on internet forums, though; I'm sure philosophers always reference it and indicate which definition they are using in each particular instance of a word.

Well, what kind of proof do you want? Since you are asking for proof, I must ask you what your standard of evidence is. What would it take for you to recognize a moral principle as valid? Do you want experiments? Charts? Mathematical equations? First of all, I would only be paraphrasing UPB. Read that first. If you disagree, you have to say which of your necessary requirements for proof hasn't been met.

[Lykourgos]

Well, what kind of proof do you want? Since you are asking for proof, I must ask you what your standard of evidence is. What would it take for you to recognize a moral principle as valid? Do you want experiments? Charts? Mathematical equations? First of all, I would only be paraphrasing UPB. Read that first. If you disagree, you have to say which of your necessary requirements for proof hasn't been met.

 

I don't come off as that unreasonable, do I? I know my request for an explanation will annoy people, just like Socrates annoyed people who thought they knew more than they did, but I'm not doing this to be cruel. I'm just not able to blindly accept libertarian opinions, and I don't think libertarians want me to do that, either.

 

I would like a proof that starts from first principles, and consists of a series of factual statements that logically follow. The proof should end at the point where the author concludes that there is an objective moral rule that reads, "the initiation of force is evil". Then, I'll review the proof, and I'll no doubt be overwhelmed by the truth of it all. If I run into difficulties, I'll ask follow-up questions so that the author can clarify.

 

If I've misrepresented the NAP and people want to change that objective moral rule to something else, let me know. Hell, maybe I've totally misunderstood what people have said, and libertarians don't actually think their philosophy has roots in objective morality. Maybe libertarians are moral relativists who simply dislike the government, let me know!

 

As I pointed out in this thread and others, I've read the UPB, and I reread the area around page 53 that mentions the NAP. I even responded to the author of the UPB and agreed to appear on his call-in show to ask some questions about a different part of that text. While I wait for his response to my email, I'm sure I'll learn about the NAP here from you guys. I wasn't able to find an attempt at proof around page 53, but maybe I'm looking in the wrong spot. If there's another page, or a particular section that you think responds to my concerns, then please let me know. I would certainly reread that section and report back, I don't pretend to have memorised the whole text.

[Will Torbald]

I don't come off as that unreasonable, do I? I know my request for an explanation will annoy people, just like Socrates annoyed people who thought they knew more than they did, but I'm not doing this to be cruel. I'm just not able to blindly accept libertarian opinions, and I don't think libertarians want me to do that, either.

 

I would like a proof that starts from first principles, and consists of a series of factual statements that logically follow. The proof should end at the point where the author concludes that there is an objective moral rule that reads, "the initiation of force is evil". Then, I'll review the proof, and I'll no doubt be overwhelmed by the truth of it all. If I run into difficulties, I'll ask follow-up questions so that the author can clarify.

 

If I've misrepresented the NAP and people want to change that objective moral rule to something else, let me know. Hell, maybe I've totally misunderstood what people have said, and libertarians don't actually think their philosophy has roots in objective morality. Maybe libertarians are moral relativists who simply dislike the government, let me know!

 

As I pointed out in this thread and others, I've read the UPB, and I reread the area around page 53 that mentions the NAP. I even responded to the author of the UPB and agreed to appear on his call-in show to ask some questions about a different part of that text. While I wait for his response to my email, I'm sure I'll learn about the NAP here from you guys. I wasn't able to find an attempt at proof around page 53, but maybe I'm looking in the wrong spot. If there's another page, or a particular section that you think responds to my concerns, then please let me know. I would certainly reread that section and report back, I don't pretend to have memorised the whole text.

 

Alright, first lets just clarify what the NAP is, and what it is not. Aggression is not simply violence, it's the initiation of violence from a state of non violence. It's very easy to confuse aggression with violence and think that the NAP is some sort of pacifist statement about never using force at all. It's not, since the use of force is necessary for self defense against initiations of force. Is that clear? It simply says "don't start a fight with me, but if you do, you'll get it". Why is it important? Because it's a rule that can be respected universally. Everyone can agree that they don't want to have force used against their will. But force in accordance to their will is ok, and we call that wrestling or boxing, or whatever.

 

Since you also ask about evil, well, what is evil? Evil by itself is nothing. It's a tag, a label, a spook. Evil by itself is not a useful word that conveys information. The information is what matters. If you say that breaking the NAP is evil, what you really mean is that it is a universally unwanted behavior. You can't want to have "evil" done onto you, otherwise it wouldn't be evil. If I said that you couldn't want to be stolen from it would be true because stealing is, by definition, an unwanted removal of property from you. If I said you could want to be stolen from, two things would happen. A) the resulting action would not be a theft, and B) I would have made an error because of A. Since no one can prefer to be stolen from, that action is "evil", but again that's just a label for immorality in relation to consent.

 

If you want a string of statements it would be like this:

 

1- Self ownership is a valid description of human behavior

2- Consent is a valid exercise of self ownership of your body and property

3- Behaviors against consent can't be universally prefered

4- Morality to be valid must consist of universally preferable principles

5- Rules that can't be universal can't also be morally valid

6- The NAP is universally preferable meaning it is a rule that respects consent and the requirements for morality

7- The opposite of the NAP, or the AP "The initiation of aggression IS universally preferable" is impossible and illogical

8- Thus the NAP is possible, logical, and universally preferable.

 

I'm sure you will have a ton of objections and doubts and questions about definitions, and that I can be wrong as well, but this is the synthesis of what I personally understand to be the ethics of the NAP and the framework of UPB.

[Lykourgos]

Alright, first lets just clarify what the NAP is, and what it is not. Aggression is not simply violence, it's the initiation of violence from a state of non violence. It's very easy to confuse aggression with violence and think that the NAP is some sort of pacifist statement about never using force at all. It's not, since the use of force is necessary for self defense against initiations of force. Is that clear? It simply says "don't start a fight with me, but if you do, you'll get it". Why is it important? Because it's a rule that can be respected universally. Everyone can agree that they don't want to have force used against their will. But force in accordance to their will is ok, and we call that wrestling or boxing, or whatever.

 

Since you also ask about evil, well, what is evil? Evil by itself is nothing. It's a tag, a label, a spook. Evil by itself is not a useful word that conveys information. The information is what matters. If you say that breaking the NAP is evil, what you really mean is that it is a universally unwanted behavior. You can't want to have "evil" done onto you, otherwise it wouldn't be evil. If I said that you couldn't want to be stolen from it would be true because stealing is, by definition, an unwanted removal of property from you. If I said you could want to be stolen from, two things would happen. A) the resulting action would not be a theft, and B) I would have made an error because of A. Since no one can prefer to be stolen from, that action is "evil", but again that's just a label for immorality in relation to consent.

 

If you want a string of statements it would be like this:

 

1- Self ownership is a valid description of human behavior

2- Consent is a valid exercise of self ownership of your body and property

3- Behaviors against consent can't be universally prefered

4- Morality to be valid must consist of universally preferable principles

5- Rules that can't be universal can't also be morally valid

6- The NAP is universally preferable meaning it is a rule that respects consent and the requirements for morality

7- The opposite of the NAP, or the AP "The initiation of aggression IS universally preferable" is impossible and illogical

8- Thus the NAP is possible, logical, and universally preferable.

 

I'm sure you will have a ton of objections and doubts and questions about definitions, and that I can be wrong as well, but this is the synthesis of what I personally understand to be the ethics of the NAP and the framework of UPB.

 

 

I have a lot of trouble understanding your meaning; please help me out a here. Part of the problem is that you don't start from first principles, so I'm not sure how you conceive of a human or what you think reality consists of. One has to start somewhere, though, so let's get going. I'll take things in order so it's simpler.

 

In the first paragraph, you deal with what the objective moral rule is in the NAP. Am I correct in understanding that it is, "the initiation of force unwanted by at least one party to the action is evil"? Where "unwanted" is the opposite of "wanted", rather than the mere absence of desire?

 

In the second paragraph, are you saying that evil is just a term that describes what a person doesn't want? Also, what does the term "universally unwanted behaviour" mean? 

 

Moving on to the string of statements:

 

1 - What is selfownership? Is that synonymous with control? Let's take a step back: how are you envisioning a human? As a soul and a body, with the soul kind of like a driver in a car?

 

I'm also puzzled by the term "human behaviour" being used to describe ownership. Is ownership a property or an activity? Does "valid" mean "true" here, or something else?

 

Should I be reading this point to say, "an incorporeal human soul controlling a physical human body is a true description how humans operate in this world"?

 

2 - I don't really understand this without the definitions requested above, but I'll avoid repeating myself. After reading "self ownership of your body and property" I'm curious why you have two categories.

 

3 - Behaviour here refers to a particular physical act, right? What do you mean by universally preferred; are you just saying that if a physical act is not consented to by everyone involved, it's not consented to by everyone involved? Consent means wanted?

 

4 - What do you mean by  "universally preferable principle"? Are you saying that for a moral rule to be objective, humans must all want it? What do you think objective means, if not independent from opinion?

 

5 - In what sense are you saying that an objective moral rule needs to be universal?

 

6 - This is another case of me being unable to understand for the time being. I'm sure the definitions will clear stuff up!

 

7 - I'm still stuck in the pre-definition stage, so I'll have to wait to understand this one.

 

8 - This is an odd conclusion; I thought it might end with the claim that we have an objective moral rule. Instead I'm reading the phrase, "possible, logical, and universally preferable". I can guess what you mean by the first two, but I'd love to hear your description of the last one.

 

9 - I know you stopped at 9, but I'm hoping you can add a line that says the NAP is an objective moral rule. Failing that, then something else is an objective moral rule. Otherwise it doesn't seem like libertarians have an objective morality at hand to apply. There are plenty of other relativists out there, so it's not the end of the world, but I was hoping to find something more here.

 

Some of these terms that you're using were mentioned in the UPB, I know, but I don't think the UPB succeeds in defining its terms. I'm hoping that a human can create the clarity and consistency that is missing from that text, so forgive me for asking all these questions.

[Will Torbald]

 

 

I have a lot of trouble understanding your meaning; please help me out a here. Part of the problem is that you don't start from first principles, so I'm not sure how you conceive of a human or what you think reality consists of. One has to start somewhere, though, so let's get going. I'll take things in order so it's simpler.

 

In the first paragraph, you deal with what the objective moral rule is in the NAP. Am I correct in understanding that it is, "the initiation of force unwanted by at least one party to the action is evil"? Where "unwanted" is the opposite of "wanted", rather than the mere absence of desire?

 

In the second paragraph, are you saying that evil is just a term that describes what a person doesn't want? Also, what does the term "universally unwanted behaviour" mean? 

 

Moving on to the string of statements:

 

1 - What is selfownership? Is that synonymous with control? Let's take a step back: how are you envisioning a human? As a soul and a body, with the soul kind of like a driver in a car?

 

I'm also puzzled by the term "human behaviour" being used to describe ownership. Is ownership a property or an activity? Does "valid" mean "true" here, or something else?

 

Should I be reading this point to say, "an incorporeal human soul controlling a physical human body is a true description how humans operate in this world"?

 

2 - I don't really understand this without the definitions requested above, but I'll avoid repeating myself. After reading "self ownership of your body and property" I'm curious why you have two categories.

 

3 - Behaviour here refers to a particular physical act, right? What do you mean by universally preferred; are you just saying that if a physical act is not consented to by everyone involved, it's not consented to by everyone involved? Consent means wanted?

 

4 - What do you mean by  "universally preferable principle"? Are you saying that for a moral rule to be objective, humans must all want it? What do you think objective means, if not independent from opinion?

 

5 - In what sense are you saying that an objective moral rule needs to be universal?

 

6 - This is another case of me being unable to understand for the time being. I'm sure the definitions will clear stuff up!

 

7 - I'm still stuck in the pre-definition stage, so I'll have to wait to understand this one.

 

8 - This is an odd conclusion; I thought it might end with the claim that we have an objective moral rule. Instead I'm reading the phrase, "possible, logical, and universally preferable". I can guess what you mean by the first two, but I'd love to hear your description of the last one.

 

9 - I know you stopped at 9, but I'm hoping you can add a line that says the NAP is an objective moral rule. Failing that, then something else is an objective moral rule. Otherwise it doesn't seem like libertarians have an objective morality at hand to apply. There are plenty of other relativists out there, so it's not the end of the world, but I was hoping to find something more here.

 

Some of these terms that you're using were mentioned in the UPB, I know, but I don't think the UPB succeeds in defining its terms. I'm hoping that a human can create the clarity and consistency that is missing from that text, so forgive me for asking all these questions.

 

There's a distinction between "independent of opinion" and "incapable of having an opinion about it". You can have any opinion you want about UPB or the NAP, but that doesn't mean that UPB or the NAP are opinions. "My car is slow" is an opinion, but my car still works despite that opinion. What you want is to say that the NAP is not an opinion itself. Well, how can it even be an opinion? It's not describing anything else in the way "slow", "ugly" or "idiot" are opinions. If you want to say is that "The NAP doesn't depend on opinions to be true" then you have to point out where the opinion is. Now, if you want to say "consent" is an opinion, then you are wrong. It is not an opinion, it is a decision. The NAP requires a decision from the person receiving the threat of aggression to either accept it or reject it. That does not mean that it is an opinion about flowers or the weather. It is not an opinion to say that rape can only happen if the receiver of the offense does not consent since consenting would make it love making, not rape. It is not relativistic in the way moral relativism would say "honor killings are bad in america, but good in Saudi Arabia because they are different cultures". It's not like that either.  

[DCLugi]

 

 

I have a lot of trouble understanding your meaning; please help me out a here. Part of the problem is that you don't start from first principles, so I'm not sure how you conceive of a human or what you think reality consists of. One has to start somewhere, though, so let's get going. I'll take things in order so it's simpler.

 

In the first paragraph, you deal with what the objective moral rule is in the NAP. Am I correct in understanding that it is, "the initiation of force unwanted by at least one party to the action is evil"? Where "unwanted" is the opposite of "wanted", rather than the mere absence of desire?

 

In the second paragraph, are you saying that evil is just a term that describes what a person doesn't want? Also, what does the term "universally unwanted behaviour" mean? 

 

Moving on to the string of statements:

 

1 - What is selfownership? Is that synonymous with control? Let's take a step back: how are you envisioning a human? As a soul and a body, with the soul kind of like a driver in a car?

 

I'm also puzzled by the term "human behaviour" being used to describe ownership. Is ownership a property or an activity? Does "valid" mean "true" here, or something else?

 

Should I be reading this point to say, "an incorporeal human soul controlling a physical human body is a true description how humans operate in this world"?

 

2 - I don't really understand this without the definitions requested above, but I'll avoid repeating myself. After reading "self ownership of your body and property" I'm curious why you have two categories.

 

3 - Behaviour here refers to a particular physical act, right? What do you mean by universally preferred; are you just saying that if a physical act is not consented to by everyone involved, it's not consented to by everyone involved? Consent means wanted?

 

4 - What do you mean by  "universally preferable principle"? Are you saying that for a moral rule to be objective, humans must all want it? What do you think objective means, if not independent from opinion?

 

5 - In what sense are you saying that an objective moral rule needs to be universal?

 

6 - This is another case of me being unable to understand for the time being. I'm sure the definitions will clear stuff up!

 

7 - I'm still stuck in the pre-definition stage, so I'll have to wait to understand this one.

 

8 - This is an odd conclusion; I thought it might end with the claim that we have an objective moral rule. Instead I'm reading the phrase, "possible, logical, and universally preferable". I can guess what you mean by the first two, but I'd love to hear your description of the last one.

 

9 - I know you stopped at 9, but I'm hoping you can add a line that says the NAP is an objective moral rule. Failing that, then something else is an objective moral rule. Otherwise it doesn't seem like libertarians have an objective morality at hand to apply. There are plenty of other relativists out there, so it's not the end of the world, but I was hoping to find something more here.

 

Some of these terms that you're using were mentioned in the UPB, I know, but I don't think the UPB succeeds in defining its terms. I'm hoping that a human can create the clarity and consistency that is missing from that text, so forgive me for asking all these questions.

If I make an objective claim about human morality then logically I have to be able to apply it to all humans at all times because fundamentally humans are the same. My claim might not be preferred by all humans but it has to have the possibility of being preferred by all humans. So I claim that murder is moral. Can all humans prefer murder? No because as soon as I prefer murder that includes me being murdered and if I prefer it then it's no longer murder. 

[Frosty]

I'm worried that I don't understand what you mean by objective. I just use the term to mean that something exists or is true independent from human opinion. When you use the terms "universal", "consistent", "non-contradictory", I'm concerned that we lack a common definition.

 

The term aggression means "force or deceit unwanted by the subject" here, right? So yes, I agree that aggression is "unwanted" by someone (as in the opposite of want, not the negation); that's in the definition of the term. You then say that (1) what is unwanted is bad; (2) bad is a moral term; (3) everyone logically agrees that aggression is bad so it's objectively immoral.

 

Is this a fair account? I feel I'm missing something, because I have a lot of problems/doubt with it. The first question I have regards the bit where you write, "So from unwanted we go to "bad"". You say that bad is a moral term, so I'm going to take it as synonymous here with evil, is that right?

 

So now, I understand the definition of evil is "unwanted", and the definition of good would be the opposite, "wanted". Help me if I've read it wrong, because if that's the case then the system falls apart. I say it falls apart because things can be wanted and unwanted at the same time. It's also not objective, because it has no independence from human opinions.

 

As for considering alternative principles, I just think about all the people who say that "the initiation of force or deceit unwanted by the subject" is not morally good or evil. They usually have moral principles elsewhere, and use this different standard to judge the morality of each instance of aggression. I haven't met many people who posit the "initiation of force or deceit unwanted by the subject" as objectively good.

 

Also, I read the UPB, but I didn't find an objective proof for the NAP around page 53. If there's another area of the text I should re-read please point me in the right direction.

 

Thanks for taking the time to present this theory, everyone

 

What I mean by "objective" is simply that the truth of the proposition doesn't rely on personal subjective experience, it's true irrelevant of personal experience and hence it's true in all cases. Something that is universal simply applies to everyone or everything and so is a requirement for being objective, something cannot be objectively true if it's not universally true.

 

Take for example something more strongly defined and measured like gravity, we know it's objectively true that gravity exists and what it's properties are because it doesn't matter who measures it, we get the same answers. Gravity is universal in the sense that it's consistent everywhere and for everyone and it doesn't change value between person A and person B.

 

I think how you've phrased it is more or less how I think of it, where "bad" is just something which is unwanted or undesirable, and where morality has to do with "right and wrong" or "good and bad" behaviour. This squarely puts aggression in the "immoral" camp and it does it using definitions to which we can all agree and are consistent and non-contradictory. It doesn't change from person to person and more importantly cannot which makes it both objective and universal.

 

Bad is really just a synonym with evil.

 

Most actions can both be bad and good, but never in the same context because either an action is desirable or it's not. Remember that morality regards the interaction between moral agents and so the judgement of moral actions requires context with respect to the specific moral agents interacting and their preferences and more importantly consent, at the time.

 

Some actions are defied with the issue of preference or consent as an integral part of their definition. So for example rape is defined as sexual activity to which the victim specifically does not consent, and so rape under this system of definitions is unambiguously immoral. Same goes for theft, murder, etc.

[Lykourgos]

There's a distinction between "independent of opinion" and "incapable of having an opinion about it". You can have any opinion you want about UPB or the NAP, but that doesn't mean that UPB or the NAP are opinions. "My car is slow" is an opinion, but my car still works despite that opinion. What you want is to say that the NAP is not an opinion itself. Well, how can it even be an opinion? It's not describing anything else in the way "slow", "ugly" or "idiot" are opinions. If you want to say is that "The NAP doesn't depend on opinions to be true" then you have to point out where the opinion is. Now, if you want to say "consent" is an opinion, then you are wrong. It is not an opinion, it is a decision. The NAP requires a decision from the person receiving the threat of aggression to either accept it or reject it. That does not mean that it is an opinion about flowers or the weather. It is not an opinion to say that rape can only happen if the receiver of the offense does not consent since consenting would make it love making, not rape. It is not relativistic in the way moral relativism would say "honor killings are bad in america, but good in Saudi Arabia because they are different cultures". It's not like that either.  

 

Who or what are you responding to here? You quoted my whole post, but the only time I mention opinion is in the definition of objective. I don't need someone to say that a definition is not an opinion, or even that 1 + 1 = 2 is not an opinion, or anything like that. I want someone to explain why the claim "NAP is an objective rule of morality" is true. As I said in response to your post, I'd like someone to start from first principles, and present a series of factual claims that logically progress to the point where the author concludes that the rule stated in the NAP (which you helpfully updated) is an objective rule of morality.

 

I'm still waiting, but at this rate I'm not holding my breath. If you can't answer my questions, that's not the end of the world or source of great shame, but this bit about opinion lacks context. If you're trying to say that libertarians don't believe in objective morality, then so be it; I'll leave the discussion of the NAP to people who raise practical arguments.

 

If I make an objective claim about human morality then logically I have to be able to apply it to all humans at all times because fundamentally humans are the same. My claim might not be preferred by all humans but it has to have the possibility of being preferred by all humans. So I claim that murder is moral. Can all humans prefer murder? No because as soon as I prefer murder that includes me being murdered and if I prefer it then it's no longer murder. 

 

Why do you think an objective moral claim must be applied at all times to all people? Something is objective because it has independent existence or truth, right? If someone claims that a divine entity created reality and instated a moral rule that "foxes killing bunnies when the planets align is evil", that person is positing an objective moral rule. Yet, it doesn't apply at all times to all humans. It doesn't even apply to humans at all.

 

You also keep using the term preferred. Why are you doing that? It sounds like you are positing something that is inherently subjective. Why does a moral rule need the possibility of being preferred by all humans? I'm really curious about the foundation here for a lot of your statements; you may well be right, but there's a lot of background information that's missing.

 

What I mean by "objective" is simply that the truth of the proposition doesn't rely on personal subjective experience, it's true irrelevant of personal experience and hence it's true in all cases. Something that is universal simply applies to everyone or everything and so is a requirement for being objective, something cannot be objectively true if it's not universally true.

 

Take for example something more strongly defined and measured like gravity, we know it's objectively true that gravity exists and what it's properties are because it doesn't matter who measures it, we get the same answers. Gravity is universal in the sense that it's consistent everywhere and for everyone and it doesn't change value between person A and person B.

 

I think how you've phrased it is more or less how I think of it, where "bad" is just something which is unwanted or undesirable, and where morality has to do with "right and wrong" or "good and bad" behaviour. This squarely puts aggression in the "immoral" camp and it does it using definitions to which we can all agree and are consistent and non-contradictory. It doesn't change from person to person and more importantly cannot which makes it both objective and universal.

 

Bad is really just a synonym with evil.

 

Most actions can both be bad and good, but never in the same context because either an action is desirable or it's not. Remember that morality regards the interaction between moral agents and so the judgement of moral actions requires context with respect to the specific moral agents interacting and their preferences and more importantly consent, at the time.

 

Some actions are defied with the issue of preference or consent as an integral part of their definition. So for example rape is defined as sexual activity to which the victim specifically does not consent, and so rape under this system of definitions is unambiguously immoral. Same goes for theft, murder, etc.

 

Thanks for the answers.

 

1st & 2nd paragraphs:

 

Okay, so it sounds like we're getting closer with the term objective. I take the "subjective" in "personal subjective experience" to be superfluous, right? Can I say that, strictly speaking, we agree that at least part of the definition of objective is, "existence or truth independent from opinion"?

 

My problems begin anew when you go further and say, "hence it's true in all cases"; is this superfluous text, or is there a special meaning? In what sense do you think objective things have to be universal, and why do you think they have to apply to everything?

 

You mention gravity, but then I notice that gravity doesn't apply to logical rules. Does that make gravity subjective, or are you just saying that something must be universally applicable in its own domain/category? Isn't that true by definition, as an account of gravity or any other rule or concept would carve out a specific domain of influence? Any objective rule, like the claim that there is a metaphysical law that "foxes shall not kill bunnies when planets align" would be universally applicable; this one would apply to all foxes, bunnies, and planetary alignments.

 

3rd & 6th paragraphs:

 

So if you posit want and unwant as the source of good and evil, why do you think it's an objective standard? Is there a source of want and unwant that is distinct from opinion? Also, your definitions would make things both wanted and unwanted by definition, not just unwanted; after all, the activities require more than one participant and one opinion.

 

I will show you where I am in my understanding via the following example. Imagine the scene:

 

Herakles and Theseus are standing around a campfire. Theseus can't resist pointing out that he was a king in his own right, while Herakles was just Eurystheus' little errand boy. Herakles immediately puts his dukes up and turns to face Theseus. Herakles wants to punch Theseus, and Theseus "unwants" (the opposite, not negation) Herakles to punch him. Herakles swings and successfully cracks Theseus on the jaw, because Herakles is stronger, cooler, better looking, and more interesting than Theseus. It is worth mentioning that Theseus goes down like a sack of potatoes and soils himself.

 

Objectively, we can say that the battery transpired.  We can say that Herakles and Theseus formed their respective opinions. Yet, we cannot say that the battery was objectively good or evil using your model. If human wants and unwants are the objective fount of morality, then the battery itself is both good and evil in the same sense at the same time. This is a violation of the principle of non-contradiction.

 

To avoid this contradiction, one might say that Herakles and Theseus are two different sources of the morality. The battery is good in light of Herakles, and the battery is evil in light of Theseus. This reduces the standard to individual opinions, and abandons objective morality.

 

Hence, I think the NAP is a subjective moral rule. Please let me know if I have misunderstood the NAP, though, because I might well be missing some important point.

[DCLugi]

Who or what are you responding to here? You quoted my whole post, but the only time I mention opinion is in the definition of objective. I don't need someone to say that a definition is not an opinion, or even that 1 + 1 = 2 is not an opinion, or anything like that. I want someone to explain why the claim "NAP is an objective rule of morality" is true. As I said in response to your post, I'd like someone to start from first principles, and present a series of factual claims that logically progress to the point where the author concludes that the rule stated in the NAP (which you helpfully updated) is an objective rule of morality.

 

I'm still waiting, but at this rate I'm not holding my breath. If you can't answer my questions, that's not the end of the world or source of great shame, but this bit about opinion lacks context. If you're trying to say that libertarians don't believe in objective morality, then so be it; I'll leave the discussion of the NAP to people who raise practical arguments.

 

 

Why do you think an objective moral claim must be applied at all times to all people? Something is objective because it has independent existence or truth, right? If someone claims that a divine entity created reality and instated a moral rule that "foxes killing bunnies when the planets align is evil", that person is positing an objective moral rule. Yet, it doesn't apply at all times to all humans. It doesn't even apply to humans at all.

 

You also keep using the term preferred. Why are you doing that? It sounds like you are positing something that is inherently subjective. Why does a moral rule need the possibility of being preferred by all humans? I'm really curious about the foundation here for a lot of your statements; you may well be right, but there's a lot of background information that's missing.

 

 

Thanks for the answers.

 

1st & 2nd paragraphs:

 

Okay, so it sounds like we're getting closer with the term objective. I take the "subjective" in "personal subjective experience" to be superfluous, right? Can I say that, strictly speaking, we agree that at least part of the definition of objective is, "existence or truth independent from opinion"?

 

My problems begin anew when you go further and say, "hence it's true in all cases"; is this superfluous text, or is there a special meaning? In what sense do you think objective things have to be universal, and why do you think they have to apply to everything?

 

You mention gravity, but then I notice that gravity doesn't apply to logical rules. Does that make gravity subjective, or are you just saying that something must be universally applicable in its own domain/category? Isn't that true by definition, as an account of gravity or any other rule or concept would carve out a specific domain of influence? Any objective rule, like the claim that there is a metaphysical law that "foxes shall not kill bunnies when planets align" would be universally applicable; this one would apply to all foxes, bunnies, and planetary alignments.

 

3rd & 6th paragraphs:

 

So if you posit want and unwant as the source of good and evil, why do you think it's an objective standard? Is there a source of want and unwant that is distinct from opinion? Also, your definitions would make things both wanted and unwanted by definition, not just unwanted; after all, the activities require more than one participant and one opinion.

 

I will show you where I am in my understanding via the following example. Imagine the scene:

 

Herakles and Theseus are standing around a campfire. Theseus can't resist pointing out that he was a king in his own right, while Herakles was just Eurystheus' little errand boy. Herakles immediately puts his dukes up and turns to face Theseus. Herakles wants to punch Theseus, and Theseus "unwants" (the opposite, not negation) Herakles to punch him. Herakles swings and successfully cracks Theseus on the jaw, because Herakles is stronger, cooler, better looking, and more interesting than Theseus. It is worth mentioning that Theseus goes down like a sack of potatoes and soils himself.

 

Objectively, we can say that the battery transpired.  We can say that Herakles and Theseus formed their respective opinions. Yet, we cannot say that the battery was objectively good or evil using your model. If human wants and unwants are the objective fount of morality, then the battery itself is both good and evil in the same sense at the same time. This is a violation of the principle of non-contradiction.

 

To avoid this contradiction, one might say that Herakles and Theseus are two different sources of the morality. The battery is good in light of Herakles, and the battery is evil in light of Theseus. This reduces the standard to individual opinions, and abandons objective morality.

 

Hence, I think the NAP is a subjective moral rule. Please let me know if I have misunderstood the NAP, though, because I might well be missing some important point.

Sorry I'm not being clear and I'm probably not answering quite what you asked and I'm also working it out myself as I type:) I'm using "objective" as a truth statement outside of subjective opinion. If I'm going to talk about human morality then it logically has to apply to all humans at all times simply because I'm talking about humans as a whole. Therefore if any moral claim isn't capable of fitting that criteria then it can't be moral. I can't advocate and oppose aggression at the same time. If I advocate that all humans can use aggression then I am supporting aggression against myself which by definition is no longer aggression because I want it to happen. If this shows that aggression is universally immoral the non aggression is universally moral as it is possible for all humans at all times to not use aggression.

[Will Torbald]

As I said in response to your post, I'd like someone to start from first principles, and present a series of factual claims that logically progress to the point where the author concludes that the rule stated in the NAP (which you helpfully updated) is an objective rule of morality.

 

I know this is what you want, but I also know that it is dishonest. You can't come into a forum and ask about morality by demanding a validation of ontological principles. Make a separate thread about metaphysics if you want to debate whether reality exists or some "first principles" like that, but ethics is way after that and it requires an objective reality outside subjective consciousness, self ownership, and so on. Even a debate at all has to start on the premise that the other person you are talking to exists and isn't an unconscious robot incapable of changing his own mind. So no, your request to start from principles is not granted here at least from me.

[Mister Mister]

Hi Lykourgos, nice topic and rousing debate you've started.  Just to clarify some things, I wanted to point out that NAP is a central conclusion of ethics, UPB is an argument for a methodology of ethics.  It is similar to the Heliocentric Solar System, a conclusion about the natural world, and the Scientific Method, a methodology for understanding the natural world.  Many libertarians accept the NAP, but reject or aren't familiar with UPB.  In the same way, many people may accept the heliocentric solar model, but don't consistently apply the scientific method to questions in the natural world.  I hope that helps clarify the discussion for you.

[Frosty]

Thanks for the answers.

 

1st & 2nd paragraphs:

 

Okay, so it sounds like we're getting closer with the term objective. I take the "subjective" in "personal subjective experience" to be superfluous, right? Can I say that, strictly speaking, we agree that at least part of the definition of objective is, "existence or truth independent from opinion"?

 

My problems begin anew when you go further and say, "hence it's true in all cases"; is this superfluous text, or is there a special meaning? In what sense do you think objective things have to be universal, and why do you think they have to apply to everything?

 

You mention gravity, but then I notice that gravity doesn't apply to logical rules. Does that make gravity subjective, or are you just saying that something must be universally applicable in its own domain/category? Isn't that true by definition, as an account of gravity or any other rule or concept would carve out a specific domain of influence? Any objective rule, like the claim that there is a metaphysical law that "foxes shall not kill bunnies when planets align" would be universally applicable; this one would apply to all foxes, bunnies, and planetary alignments.

 

3rd & 6th paragraphs:

 

So if you posit want and unwant as the source of good and evil, why do you think it's an objective standard? Is there a source of want and unwant that is distinct from opinion? Also, your definitions would make things both wanted and unwanted by definition, not just unwanted; after all, the activities require more than one participant and one opinion.

 

I will show you where I am in my understanding via the following example. Imagine the scene:

 

Herakles and Theseus are standing around a campfire. Theseus can't resist pointing out that he was a king in his own right, while Herakles was just Eurystheus' little errand boy. Herakles immediately puts his dukes up and turns to face Theseus. Herakles wants to punch Theseus, and Theseus "unwants" (the opposite, not negation) Herakles to punch him. Herakles swings and successfully cracks Theseus on the jaw, because Herakles is stronger, cooler, better looking, and more interesting than Theseus. It is worth mentioning that Theseus goes down like a sack of potatoes and soils himself.

 

Objectively, we can say that the battery transpired.  We can say that Herakles and Theseus formed their respective opinions. Yet, we cannot say that the battery was objectively good or evil using your model. If human wants and unwants are the objective fount of morality, then the battery itself is both good and evil in the same sense at the same time. This is a violation of the principle of non-contradiction.

 

To avoid this contradiction, one might say that Herakles and Theseus are two different sources of the morality. The battery is good in light of Herakles, and the battery is evil in light of Theseus. This reduces the standard to individual opinions, and abandons objective morality.

 

Hence, I think the NAP is a subjective moral rule. Please let me know if I have misunderstood the NAP, though, because I might well be missing some important point.

 

You're welcome.

 

It's superfluous but I used it like that to give the context in which it was meant. Yes we agree that objective essentially means "truth independent from opinion". The vast majority of the uses I adopt are just the common definitions of these words that you might find in the OED or google dictionary.

 

In this case we're talking about a principle, the principle describes interactions between potentially different moral agents and so there could potentially be different scopes, for example which specific moral agents, how many are interacting, etc. I was being superfluous merely to give context in which the words are being used to it's more clear how I'm using them. In this case I was trying to differentiate between 2 different ideas, that something could be incidentally universally true because it just happened through chance that all moral agents agreed on something that they may otherwise disagree on, contrasted against something that is universally true because it has been reasoned using logic and is impossible for it to be any other way. The NAP falls into the later category, it's universal in the sense that it applies to everyone in all possible cases.

 

Objective truths are true independent of opinion or feeling, or more generally of who is observing, even if there's no observers at all. And so it logically must be true that objective things are also universal. What would it mean for example gravity to be objective fact of reality, but also not universal? If it's not universal it means someone somewhere doesn't experience it and thus it fails to be an objective fact of reality.

 

Gravity is defined as a physical interaction between objects with mass, that's contained within the definition of gravity and so the universality of gravity has scope because gravity has scope. It doesn't apply to logic because logic isn't an object with mass. But gravity is universal within its own scope, which is for all objects with mass. This is a recurring theme here, that the definition of the actions matter, the definition of rape in prior examples has a scope because the definition contains the requirement that sex occurs specifically without consent, I feel this is where a lot of confusion with the NAP comes from, because some people (not necessarily yourself) fail to coherently understand how people with subjective preferences can have universal rules, well it's because the rules themselves have some scope and specifically account for things like preference or consent.

 

You've generalised a bit too far with my 3rd and 6th paragraphs, people want all sorts of things but that's not necessarily a source of good or evil, you might want a donut but my failure to provide you with one isn't bad for example. This is within the scope of aggression that unwanted aggression is bad and therefore evil, and really the words bad and evil, as per their definitions. Most of this stuff is definitionally true. I argue that it's an objective standard because it has been reasoned logically from objective first principles.

 

As already discussed different moral agents have different preferences and consent to different things, so things can be both wanted and unwanted by different moral agents but never by the same moral agent. Again this all has scope that needs to be considered, but the principle remains coherent, non contradictory and universal.

 

Regarding you example/scene it's fairly simple.

 

Objectively we can indeed say the battery transpired. We can say that Herakles initiated aggression against Theseus because Theseus was not aggressive prior in any way that would warrant self defence. Herakles wants to punch Theseus however Theseus does not want to be punched hence he doesn't consent to this interaction, in this case we can say objectively that there's no consent for this action, providing we had the necessary tools to determine Theseus's state of mind.

 

The thing to remember is that had Theseus theoretically wanted to be punched (maybe he felt like he deserved it in some way) then this would not be an act of aggression. For it to be aggression it has to be unwanted, by definition, but unwanted with regards to whomever the action is being taken against.

 

The measure of morality is a measure of the action being taken and it depends on the target of the action as to whether they want or don't want the action (basically whether they consent or not), whether the action is wanted by the person taking the action isn't relevant to the morality of the situation otherwise you'd have a world where any action is morally permissible providing the person doing it wanted to do it.

 

You'll note in your example that if you do abandon objective morality and embrace a subjective morality then you run into moral contradictions where the same action could be both good or bad depending on who's opinion you consider.

[Frosty]

It might be easier if I backtrack and attempt to basically provide the step by step reasoning that the OP was asking for, I'm not going to get into metaphysics and nature of reality, it's beyond the scope of this argument and quite frankly if you disagree on any of these ideas then you can simply say so, I'm making basically the same metaphysical assumptions that most of us make day to day (I exist, you exist, reality exists, objective truth exists, etc)

 

First definitions, these are just common day to day definitions pulled directly from google: 

 

• NAP (Non aggression principle) - is an ethical doctrine that states that aggression is wrong, aggression being defined as the initiation of physical force or fraud against persons or property, or the threat of the same.
• Objective - (of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
• Bad - not such as to be hoped for or desired; unpleasant or unwelcome.
• Right - morally good, justified, or acceptable.
• Moral - concerned with the principles of right and wrong behaviour.
  • synonyms: virtuous, good
• Immoral - not conforming to accepted standards of morality.
  • synonyms: unethical, bad, morally wrong, wrongful, wicked, evil
• Consent - permission for something to happen or agreement to do something.

 

The basic argument is this.

 

1) Actions can only be aggressive when they're unwanted by the subject(s) of the action.

2) All initiation of aggression must logically be unwanted, therefore all initiation of aggression is bad (synonym: wrong)

3) The determination of consent is an objective truth because it doesn't depend on opinion or feelings of whoever determines it.

4) Something that is wrong is immoral since morality deals with what is right and wrong.

5) Violation of the NAP must be objectively immoral.

 

Some things to note: Consent isn't an opinion, it's a decision and something that's factual, the determination of that fact does not depend on the opinions or feelings of the person determining the truth. An action for example sexual intercourse can be either considered aggressive or not depending on the consent of the people involved, without consent it's considered rape and with consent it's just sex. Another example is taking someone's property is not theft if the owner of the property gave consent to transfer ownership.

 

That's kind of fast and messy but I think it conveys everything you need to know.

[Lykourgos]

Sorry I'm not being clear and I'm probably not answering quite what you asked and I'm also working it out myself as I type:) I'm using "objective" as a truth statement outside of subjective opinion. If I'm going to talk about human morality then it logically has to apply to all humans at all times simply because I'm talking about humans as a whole. Therefore if any moral claim isn't capable of fitting that criteria then it can't be moral. I can't advocate and oppose aggression at the same time. If I advocate that all humans can use aggression then I am supporting aggression against myself which by definition is no longer aggression because I want it to happen. If this shows that aggression is universally immoral the non aggression is universally moral as it is possible for all humans at all times to not use aggression.

 

No worries, I totally understand. Personally, if libertarians only talked about the NAP as a personal preference or a practical rule, then I probably would never even mention it. When I heard libertarians say that it is an objective moral rule, though, and therefore the practical and subjective concerns are irrelevant to the underlying point of right and wrong, then I had to come looking for answers.

 

Why are you saying "human morality" rather than morality; are you saying that morality only extends to humans and nothing else? What do you mean when you say an objective moral rule has to apply to all humans; you don't mean that as being by definition, do you? The rule, "if a man eats a rabbit it is good" looks objective to me, as it would be independent from human opinion. Yet, it doesn't apply to females; or would you say that it does apply to females, in the sense that it actually applies to all of reality but is only relevant to a sub-section? Let me know either way; I suppose a female could even change her genetic information and transform herself into a male if the technology was available.

 

Anyway, let's examine the proof that you've offered in this post. In your own way, it looks like you only posited that there is no objective moral rule that "aggression is good". I agree that aggression lacks any inherent, objective good, although for different reasons. What I would really like to see, though, is the proof for the NAP, the proof that the initiation of aggression is evil.

 

It's a bit of a tangent, but I'd still like to discuss some of the proof you gave regarding aggression here. You say you can't advocate and oppose aggression at the same time; why do you say that? It's not uncommon for people to want violence against another person and unwant it against themselves. Yet, more worryingly, the fact that something is wanted or unwanted sounds subjective. You aren't trying to build an objective moral system on a foundation of subjective wants and unwants, are you?

 

I know this is what you want, but I also know that it is dishonest. You can't come into a forum and ask about morality by demanding a validation of ontological principles. Make a separate thread about metaphysics if you want to debate whether reality exists or some "first principles" like that, but ethics is way after that and it requires an objective reality outside subjective consciousness, self ownership, and so on. Even a debate at all has to start on the premise that the other person you are talking to exists and isn't an unconscious robot incapable of changing his own mind. So no, your request to start from principles is not granted here at least from me.

 

Easy does it, tiger, nobody is being dishonest or trying to trick you.

 

I know that philosophy can sting, but that's life. I came here to this forum because the host of this site is in the habit of saying that practical objections to NAP and libertarianism are insufficient. He claims that libertarianism is the necessary result of objective morality, and therefore we ought to follow it come what may. That is the claim that brought me here, the notion that the NAP is a rule of objective morality. I will gladly depart when I'm satisfied that the claim has received its due measure.

 

If offering proof is beyond your ability, then so be it, but don't slam the door on the way out.

 

Hi Lykourgos, nice topic and rousing debate you've started.  Just to clarify some things, I wanted to point out that NAP is a central conclusion of ethics, UPB is an argument for a methodology of ethics.  It is similar to the Heliocentric Solar System, a conclusion about the natural world, and the Scientific Method, a methodology for understanding the natural world.  Many libertarians accept the NAP, but reject or aren't familiar with UPB.  In the same way, many people may accept the heliocentric solar model, but don't consistently apply the scientific method to questions in the natural world.  I hope that helps clarify the discussion for you.

 

Hi RoseCodex, thanks for the kind observation. I have noticed that a few people describe the UPB as a test or method, and I read the part where the author tries to conduct a few tests in the text. I have a strong opinion about the UPB, but at the end of the day it's the propositions, not the test, that interest me the most.

 

I'm hoping to find the proof that the NAP is a rule of objective morality. If the person who comes to my rescue uses the UPB, that's fine. I would just read the proof and point out any questions or concerns I have along the way. If the concerns wind up showing that the UPB is flawed, well, I guess we'll be released from more than one notion that day.

 

You're welcome.

 

It's superfluous but I used it like that to give the context in which it was meant. Yes we agree that objective essentially means "truth independent from opinion". The vast majority of the uses I adopt are just the common definitions of these words that you might find in the OED or google dictionary.

 

In this case we're talking about a principle, the principle describes interactions between potentially different moral agents and so there could potentially be different scopes, for example which specific moral agents, how many are interacting, etc. I was being superfluous merely to give context in which the words are being used to it's more clear how I'm using them. In this case I was trying to differentiate between 2 different ideas, that something could be incidentally universally true because it just happened through chance that all moral agents agreed on something that they may otherwise disagree on, contrasted against something that is universally true because it has been reasoned using logic and is impossible for it to be any other way. The NAP falls into the later category, it's universal in the sense that it applies to everyone in all possible cases.

 

Objective truths are true independent of opinion or feeling, or more generally of who is observing, even if there's no observers at all. And so it logically must be true that objective things are also universal. What would it mean for example gravity to be objective fact of reality, but also not universal? If it's not universal it means someone somewhere doesn't experience it and thus it fails to be an objective fact of reality.

 

Gravity is defined as a physical interaction between objects with mass, that's contained within the definition of gravity and so the universality of gravity has scope because gravity has scope. It doesn't apply to logic because logic isn't an object with mass. But gravity is universal within its own scope, which is for all objects with mass. This is a recurring theme here, that the definition of the actions matter, the definition of rape in prior examples has a scope because the definition contains the requirement that sex occurs specifically without consent, I feel this is where a lot of confusion with the NAP comes from, because some people (not necessarily yourself) fail to coherently understand how people with subjective preferences can have universal rules, well it's because the rules themselves have some scope and specifically account for things like preference or consent.

 

You've generalised a bit too far with my 3rd and 6th paragraphs, people want all sorts of things but that's not necessarily a source of good or evil, you might want a donut but my failure to provide you with one isn't bad for example. This is within the scope of aggression that unwanted aggression is bad and therefore evil, and really the words bad and evil, as per their definitions. Most of this stuff is definitionally true. I argue that it's an objective standard because it has been reasoned logically from objective first principles.

 

As already discussed different moral agents have different preferences and consent to different things, so things can be both wanted and unwanted by different moral agents but never by the same moral agent. Again this all has scope that needs to be considered, but the principle remains coherent, non contradictory and universal.

 

Regarding you example/scene it's fairly simple.

 

Objectively we can indeed say the battery transpired. We can say that Herakles initiated aggression against Theseus because Theseus was not aggressive prior in any way that would warrant self defence. Herakles wants to punch Theseus however Theseus does not want to be punched hence he doesn't consent to this interaction, in this case we can say objectively that there's no consent for this action, providing we had the necessary tools to determine Theseus's state of mind.

 

The thing to remember is that had Theseus theoretically wanted to be punched (maybe he felt like he deserved it in some way) then this would not be an act of aggression. For it to be aggression it has to be unwanted, by definition, but unwanted with regards to whomever the action is being taken against.

 

The measure of morality is a measure of the action being taken and it depends on the target of the action as to whether they want or don't want the action (basically whether they consent or not), whether the action is wanted by the person taking the action isn't relevant to the morality of the situation otherwise you'd have a world where any action is morally permissible providing the person doing it wanted to do it.

 

You'll note in your example that if you do abandon objective morality and embrace a subjective morality then you run into moral contradictions where the same action could be both good or bad depending on who's opinion you consider.

 

----I'll take things in order, with sections marked off with hyphens. Let's start!

 

It sounds like we have a similar definition for objective. I still don't see why you are using the term universal, though. It also looks like you have two separate definitions for the one term, one normal and one special. See as follows:

 

1. Applicable or present for everything in a category. (normal definition)

Example: (a) gravity applies to all physical substances, so it is universal to physical substances.

(b) all my guests today desire ice cream, so my guests today universally desire ice cream.

 

2. Objective (independent from opinion). (special definition)

Example: 1+1=2 is true regardless of opinion, so 1+1=2 is universally true.

 

When you say NAP is universal because its truth comes from logic rather than human opinion, it sounds like you're repeating yourself. NAP is objective and objective. Or, alternatively, NAP is a rule that applies to X, so it is a rule that applies to X.

 

That gravity is not entirely universal, in the sense that it does not apply to logical formulas, is proof that the term is superfluous here. Let's go further, let's say that there is a physical rule that causes things to vibrate when they are in a certain physical location. That rule would still be universal, because by definition it applies only to that particular physical location. Even if you disagree (and please explain if you do), the rule about vibrations would still be objective because it is totally independent from opinion. You're going to vibrate there whether you like it or not, it exists independent of our desires.

 

----So much for universal; if you disagree I'd love to hear it, but at this point I think the term should be abandoned.

 

Next, let me touch on your brief description of rape. Rape in these discussions isn't just "without consent", otherwise you could just have one person sexually penetrate another by accident without consent. Rape involves at least two parties with their respective wants, and a physical act. The lack of consent is a reference to the fact that one actor wants to sexually penetrate the other, and the other actor unwants to be sexually penetrated.

 

From here on out, though, I'm going to change the offense from rape to battery. I've never understood the point of using rape, it just muddies the water because it's a more controversial topic. If you think the offense of rape is distinct from battery for purposes of proving the NAP, then please let me know why you think that, because I just don't see it. Rape is an offense within the category of battery.

 

 

 

----Moving on to the point about the meaning of good and evil

 

 

 

Maybe it will help to take a step back. I am trying to understand why you believe that "aggression is evil". To do that, I need to know whether you believe the statement "aggression is evil" is,

 

(A) A first principle (irreducible)

 

or

 

(B) A rule deduced by way of first principles.

 

I understand it to be (B). I therefore want to know how the rule "aggression is evil" was deduced. I need to know,

 

(A) What aggression is.

 

and

 

(B) What evil is.

 

Then, I will either submit the building blocks to further examination, or be able to conclude whether "aggression is evil" is an objective rule.

 

 

So, let us pick up where I understood "aggression is evil" to be a rule derived from principles:

 

1. Are "aggression" and "evil" synonymous?

No.

1. (A) What is the definition of aggression?

Aggression is an act that at least one human participant wants and one human participant unwants.

1. (B) What is the definition of evil?

Evil is everything that a human unwants.

 

Conclusion 1: "aggression" is "evil" because it consists of an action that a human participant unwants.

 

2. Does evil have an opposite?

Yes

2. (A) What is the opposite?

Good

2. (A) (i) What is the definition of good?

Good is that which is wanted.

 

Conclusion 2: "aggression" is "good" because it consists of an action that a human participant wants.

 

3. Are the two conclusions logically consistent?

No.

 

So then I stop, because if it is taken objectively it will violate the principle of non-contradiction. However, I can apply the test subjectively because then a single physical event is good to one person and evil to another.

 

When libertarians define aggression, they improperly omit the term "at least one human participant wants". You cannot have aggression with an aggressor, who by definition wants the act, so I have elucidated the full definition. If you disagree, please explain your objection, because I don't see how one would have aggression without both want and unwant. Yet, this exact issue makes it a contradictory standard unless we admit that it is subjective.

 

----- Finally, the examination of the fistfight

 

 

First, I just want to make sure we have the same facts here, because our language is different We agree that, objectively, the punch occured, and that Herakles wanted to punch Theseus. I said that Theseus "unwanted" to be punched, but you say that he "does not want" to be punched. Obviously, "unwant" is not a word that we use in common speech, but I'm saying it because it is the opposite of want; a repulsion, rather than an absence of any desire. So, objectively speaking, the physical movement occurred, Herakles formed the want, Theseus formed the unwant.

 

With that established, I now notice several problems. You say, "there's no consent for this action", yet there clearly is consent from Herakles; you can't have a battery without at least one person consenting. You acknowledge this in your next post (which I read after writing this all out, doh!) when you say consent is "permission for something to happen or agreement to do something". You also say it's the consent of people to the action, plural. That definition is the one I have, it's the common definition for the term; an expression of willingness, whether by someone proactively doing something or passively experiencing something.

 

Here, there is consent from Herakles, he agrees to this battery. If he didn't, there'd be no battery! Only Theseus shows dis-consent (opposite of consent, not negation). So, it is inaccurate to say there is no consent. You can never have aggression without want and unwant; consent to a physical event like battery is an issue on both sides.

 

I think you realise this when you say, "whether the action is wanted by the person taking the action isn't relevant to the morality of the situation otherwise you'd have a world where any action is morally permissible providing the person doing it wanted to do it". Yet, that is exactly my point, it is a subjective standard. If you have reached this conclusion, then it is time to unshackle yourself from the NAP and probably libertarianism in general.

 

The notion that NAP is an objective rule is rotten to the core; the attempts to prove it are a minefield of ill-combined definitions. To say that a battery took place "because Theseus did not consent" is actually false; if Theseus had just stared silently at the fire thinking "I don't consent to battery!" then there would be no battery, because Herakles would never have taken a swing. For the battery to occur, someone needs to consent to the physical action taking place, whereupon that person will then accordingly move his body. Battery involves 2 people with 2 different mental states.

 

It might be easier if I backtrack and attempt to basically provide the step by step reasoning that the OP was asking for, I'm not going to get into metaphysics and nature of reality, it's beyond the scope of this argument and quite frankly if you disagree on any of these ideas then you can simply say so, I'm making basically the same metaphysical assumptions that most of us make day to day (I exist, you exist, reality exists, objective truth exists, etc)

 

First definitions, these are just common day to day definitions pulled directly from google: 

 

• NAP (Non aggression principle) - is an ethical doctrine that states that aggression is wrong, aggression being defined as the initiation of physical force or fraud against persons or property, or the threat of the same.
• Objective - (of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
• Bad - not such as to be hoped for or desired; unpleasant or unwelcome.
• Right - morally good, justified, or acceptable.
• Moral - concerned with the principles of right and wrong behaviour.
  • synonyms: virtuous, good
• Immoral - not conforming to accepted standards of morality.
  • synonyms: unethical, bad, morally wrong, wrongful, wicked, evil
• Consent - permission for something to happen or agreement to do something.

 

The basic argument is this.

 

1) Actions can only be aggressive when they're unwanted by the subject(s) of the action.

2) All initiation of aggression must logically be unwanted, therefore all initiation of aggression is bad (synonym: wrong)

3) The determination of consent is an objective truth because it doesn't depend on opinion or feelings of whoever determines it.

4) Something that is wrong is immoral since morality deals with what is right and wrong.

5) Violation of the NAP must be objectively immoral.

 

Some things to note: Consent isn't an opinion, it's a decision and something that's factual, the determination of that fact does not depend on the opinions or feelings of the person determining the truth. An action for example sexual intercourse can be either considered aggressive or not depending on the consent of the people involved, without consent it's considered rape and with consent it's just sex. Another example is taking someone's property is not theft if the owner of the property gave consent to transfer ownership.

 

That's kind of fast and messy but I think it conveys everything you need to know.

 

Doh, I wrote everything above before realising you wrote this. Maybe I could have saved time and just gone straight to this. Thank you for writing out your argument for the objective moral nature of the NAP. If you want to ditch the earlier discussion and take up this new thread, feel free to do so.

 

Your 5 steps are invalid; fundamentally speaking, you fail to give full definitions and you fail to account for opposites. You have only shown a subjective moral rule. Allow me to demonstrate:

 

1) Actions can only be aggressive when they're unwanted by the subject(s) of the action.

1)A) Actions can only be aggressive when they're wanted by the subject(s) of the action.

If you are trying to create an initiation/reaction division when you say "subjects", then take the following alternative:

1)A) Actions can only be aggressive when they're wanted by the initiator(s) of the action.

 

2) All initiation of aggression must logically be unwanted, therefore all initiation of aggression is bad (synonym: wrong)

2)(A) All initiation of aggression must logically be wanted, therefore all initiation of aggression is good.

 

3) The determination of consent is an objective truth because it doesn't depend on opinion or feelings of whoever determines it.

This is just false. The determination of consent is wholly dependent on the opinion or feelings of the participants. I think you are trying to say that although the determination of consent is subjective, once a particular act occurs then whether consent was present is retrospectively an objective question.

 

4) Something that is wrong is immoral since morality deals with what is right and wrong.

Why have we switched to right and wrong, rather than good and evil? Are these synonymous now, along with good and bad? I guess if they're all synonymous I don't really care.

 

5) Violation of the NAP must be objectively immoral.

5)A) Violation of the NAP must be objectively good.

 

The principle is just that what is unwanted is evil. Therefore, what is wanted is good. Just look at point 2. You say that if something is "logically" unwanted, then something is bad.

 

Why do you say "logically"? It's not like you deduced that aggression is always unwanted by someone; rather, it's true by definition. Aggression is a physical act that is unwanted by at least one participant and wanted by at least one participant.

 

You then posit that what is unwanted is evil. So aggression is evil.

 

The principle boils down to "unwant is evil", which is subjective and immediately results in contradiction.

 

If the principle is something else, then please state it, because this account is not objective.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

The NAP is objective. So if you violate it then your behavior will be unable to be morally justified. For example, lets say you rape someone. Any justification you give for that behavior will logically fail. It cannot be universally preferable behavior. 

Try it. All your justifications will either be arbitrary or logically contradictory. However NOT raping is perfectly justifiable and CAN be universally preferable behavior. 

It's just a fact of reality. All justifications/ moral theories that try to support violating the non-aggression principle fail. So if you commit such aggressive acts then you do so knowing that any moral justification you give for it will be wrong. You will be morally wrong.

[Will Torbald]

"The principle is just that what is unwanted is evil. Therefore, what is wanted is good. "

 

I think your straw man is on fire. Are you going to care to put it out? It's already catching up to your pants, too.

[Lykourgos]

The NAP is objective. So if you violate it then your behavior will be unable to be morally justified. For example, lets say you rape someone. Any justification you give for that behavior will logically fail. It cannot be universally preferable behavior. 

Try it. All your justifications will either be arbitrary or logically contradictory. However NOT raping is perfectly justifiable and CAN be universally preferable behavior. 

It's just a fact of reality. All justifications/ moral theories that try to support violating the non-aggression principle fail. So if you commit such aggressive acts then you do so knowing that any moral justification you give for it will be wrong. You will be morally wrong.

 

Saying "the NAP is objective" doesn't achieve anything. In your post, you don't even tell me what good and evil are, or show any of the steps you took to reach a conclusion regarding objective morality. I'm trying to get someone, anyone, to show how they validly reached the conclusion that the NAP is an objective rule of morality. That claim is the foundation for the idea that libertarianism can't solely be attacked from a practical standpoint.

 

Why is it relevant if rape is "universally preferable behaviour"; that term has multiple definitions in the UPB, and I have never seen the concept used in a helpful or valid manner. It's a totally unhelpful statement at this point; you'd need to explain what you meant by it, relate it to the other essential terms, and then properly respond to the issue in question:  why "aggression is evil" is an objective rule morality.

 

So please, speak to the issue. Show me the working out, or walk away from the principle and admit that libertarianism is nothing more than a personal preference that is subject to all the criticism that goes along with that.

 

"The principle is just that what is unwanted is evil. Therefore, what is wanted is good. "

 

I think your straw man is on fire. Are you going to care to put it out? It's already catching up to your pants, too.

 

Yet, you saw me put together this alleged strawman piece by piece, using the explanation of other posters. You obviously think I took a wrong step, so do the right thing and give us a helping hand. 

 

If we were building a car and you saw me putting the seats in backwards you'd have something to say, right? So adopt that approach and help construct your ideology. Libertarianism at this point is a broken down Datsun; is it destined for the scrapheap, or do I need further assistance following the instructions?

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

 

Saying "the NAP is objective" doesn't achieve anything. In your post, you don't even tell me what good and evil are, or show any of the steps you took to reach a conclusion regarding objective morality. I'm trying to get someone, anyone, to show how they validly reached the conclusion that the NAP is an objective rule of morality. That claim is the foundation for the idea that libertarianism can't solely be attacked from a practical standpoint.

 

Why is it relevant if rape is "universally preferable behaviour"; that term has multiple definitions in the UPB, and I have never seen the concept used in a helpful or valid manner. It's a totally unhelpful statement at this point; you'd need to explain what you meant by it, relate it to the other essential terms, and then properly respond to the issue in question:  why "aggression is evil" is an objective rule morality.

 

So please, speak to the issue. Show me the working out, or walk away from the principle and admit that libertarianism is nothing more than a personal preference that is subject to all the criticism that goes along with that.

It's not meant to achieve anything other than set up what I'm arguing. It's like if I say "the scientific method is objective" and then proceed to argue why that is so. See?

 

I didn't mention good or evil because they are not strictly necessary to make my argument, which I wanted to keep simple. I think I DID show you the steps of how you reach objective morality. I showed you how the NAP is an objective rule of morality. If you violate it then that violation can never be logically justified. It's simple. 

 

Rape = can never have a valid moral justification

Not Raping = can have a valid moral justification. 

Rape, murder, robbery and assault all fail the test of logical consistency and universality. It's objective. Again I ask you to try it. Give me a valid moral justification for rape or murder. If you can't then it follows that rape and murder cannot be morally justified. They are literally and demonstrably immoral. 

 

It is relevant if rape is not UPB because morality IS UPB. Moral theories or propositions are ones of universally preferable behavior. If you say you should not murder then that only makes logical sense if it's applied universally. So if you murder someone you do so in the knowledge that that murder, by definition, cannot possibly be justified.

 

I DID speak to the issue. I spoke directly to the issue. Let's say your first principle is that propositions / theories / justifications have to be logically consistent. If they are logically inconsistent then they will be wrong, right?

So any moral justifications / moral theories they support your behavior must also be logical consistent, right? 

Violations of the NAP cannot have morally consistent theories / justifications. Therefore those justifications are wrong. So all the justifications that might support violations of the NAP are wrong. You cannot morally justify violating the NAP. It is the only logically consistent moral principle.

 

Libertarianism IS a personal preference but so is logic and science. Just because something is a preference doesn't mean it's not objective. 

[Lykourgos]

It's not meant to achieve anything other than set up what I'm arguing. It's like if I say "the scientific method is objective" and then proceed to argue why that is so. See?

 

I didn't mention good or evil because they are not strictly necessary to make my argument, which I wanted to keep simple. I think I DID show you the steps of how you reach objective morality. I showed you how the NAP is an objective rule of morality. If you violate it then that violation can never be logically justified. It's simple. 

 

Rape = can never have a valid moral justification

Not Raping = can have a valid moral justification. 

Rape, murder, robbery and assault all fail the test of logical consistency and universality. It's objective. Again I ask you to try it. Give me a valid moral justification for rape or murder. If you can't then it follows that rape and murder cannot be morally justified. They are literally and demonstrably immoral. 

 

It is relevant if rape is not UPB because morality IS UPB. Moral theories or propositions are ones of universally preferable behavior. If you say you should not murder then that only makes logical sense if it's applied universally. So if you murder someone you do so in the knowledge that that murder, by definition, cannot possibly be justified.

 

I DID speak to the issue. I spoke directly to the issue. Let's say your first principle is that propositions / theories / justifications have to be logically consistent. If they are logically inconsistent then they will be wrong, right?

So any moral justifications / moral theories they support your behavior must also be logical consistent, right? 

Violations of the NAP cannot have morally consistent theories / justifications. Therefore those justifications are wrong. So all the justifications that might support violations of the NAP are wrong. You cannot morally justify violating the NAP. It is the only logically consistent moral principle.

 

Libertarianism IS a personal preference but so is logic and science. Just because something is a preference doesn't mean it's not objective. 

 

I'm sympathetic to the practice of putting the conclusion first and then proceeding with the details of how you reached that conclusion. In my experience, there are posters here who call it "poisoning the well", but I don't have an issue with it. The problem, though, is that you didn't offer the essential details required to make sense of what you're saying.

 

All you did was declare, "the NAP is objective. So if you violate it then your behavior will be unable to be morally justified", and then immediately conclude that nobody can prove that rape is justified. Are you kidding me? How in the world does that prove that "Aggression is evil" or any other formulation of the claim that the NAP exists as an objective moral rule?

 

You won't even tell me what the term evil means, or what morality is. You use this special term "universally preferable behaviour" and won't define it or relate it to any concepts we're discussing. You even invent an action called "not-raping"; I would love you to tell us how a person performs the act of "not-rape".

 

Basically, the proof you offer is unintelligible at this point. I'll even play along and posit objective rules that say rape is good if that will help stimulate your mind and get us back on track. Anyone can posit an objective moral system that says rape is fine; crafting valid rules is not a great feat of logic. Here: "God created a divine rule above man that says, "rape is morally good", therefore there is a moral justification for rape."

 

Logically valid, but factually unsound. Are you saying that anything logically valid is true and exists objectively, without any concern whether it is sound?

 

The question is whether the objective moral system is sound; whether there really is morality and what constitutes that morality. You won't even tell me what morality is; eventually you say it's UPB, but then you won't define that term. It's enough to suggest that libertarianism is nothing more than a confused collection of criss-crossed definitions.

 

According to libertarians like the host of this site, the NAP is an objective rule of morality and it's evil to violate it. Hence, even though libertarianism is subject to practical objections, some libertarians try to shield their philosophy by claiming a foundation of moral truth.

 

Well, what is this truth? Show me the reasoning, reveal your hidden definitions, please! I hate to see libertarianism being left to die on the side of the road like this, for want of a person willing to share the details.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

All you did was declare, "the NAP is objective. So if you violate it then your behavior will be unable to be morally justified", and then immediately conclude that nobody can prove that rape is justified. 

 

That's not what I did. I made an argument so have the manners to rebut my actual argument and not present some mangled straw-man of it.

 

 I said "evil" is not necessary for the argument. If it matters to you, evil is when someone knows an action is wrong but does it anyway. I trying to show how the principle and the behavior is wrong. You don't need to bring evil into it. Maybe I don't know what you mean be "exists as an objective moral rule" but I'm sure I DID demonstrate that it is objective. 

 

 

 

Here: "God created a divine rule above man that says, "rape is morally good", therefore there is a moral justification for rape."

And that rule/justification fails. Arbitrary declarations (especially ones from non-existent magical beings) cannot be valid justifications. That's because one can also assert the opposite when it comes to arbitrary declarations. Both cancel each other out so the justification is logically self-detonating. 

Also, if rape is morally good then one must agree that being raped is good and so must accept it. But by definition rape is something you do not accept; so that another logical implosion. Not to be rude but your attempt at a moral justification for rape is a spectacular logical clusterfuck. 

So you can see that rape is not justified here so if you proceed to rape (violate non-aggression) then you do so knowing your justification is wrong. 

It's impossible to provide a valid justification for rape. Keep trying. You'll find that every justification you try will collapse into insurmountable contradiction. 

 

I'm not saying anything logically valid is sound. I'm saying a moral justification must at least pass the test of logical consistency. It must be something that can be applied consistently. 

 

Universally preferable behavior exists. When we debate we accept that it is universally preferable to accept reason over nonsense, truth over falsehood. Morality is a subset of UPB that involves enforceable behavior. 

 

 

According to libertarians like the host of this site, the NAP is an objective rule of morality and it's evil to violate it. Hence, even though libertarianism is subject to practical objections, some libertarians try to shield their philosophy by claiming a foundation of moral truth.

 

Well, what is this truth? Show me the reasoning, reveal your hidden definitions, please! I hate to see libertarianism being left to die on the side of the road like this, for want of a person willing to share the details.

 

I showed you the reasoning and I don't know what "hidden definitions" you're talking about. If you do not have valid moral justifications for your behavior then that behavior is not moral. How hard is that to get?

[Will Torbald]

Well, what is this truth? Show me the reasoning, reveal your hidden definitions, please! I hate to see libertarianism being left to die on the side of the road like this, for want of a person willing to share the details.

 

The book is called UPB. You said you read it, but you're still asking for it. This theatrical attitude is getting really absurd.

[Lykourgos]

That's not what I did. I made an argument so have the manners to rebut my actual argument and not present some mangled straw-man of it.

 

I said "evil" is not necessary for the argument. If it matters to you, evil is when someone knows an action is wrong but does it anyway. I trying to show how the principle and the behavior is wrong. You don't need to bring evil into it. Maybe I don't know what you mean be "exists as an objective moral rule" but I'm sure I DID demonstrate that it is objective.

 

And that rule/justification fails. Arbitrary declarations (especially ones from non-existent magical beings) cannot be valid justifications. That's because one can also assert the opposite when it comes to arbitrary declarations. Both cancel each other out so the justification is logically self-detonating.

Also, if rape is morally good then one must agree that being raped is good and so must accept it. But by definition rape is something you do not accept; so that another logical implosion. Not to be rude but your attempt at a moral justification for rape is a spectacular logical clusterfuck.

So you can see that rape is not justified here so if you proceed to rape (violate non-aggression) then you do so knowing your justification is wrong.

It's impossible to provide a valid justification for rape. Keep trying. You'll find that every justification you try will collapse into insurmountable contradiction.

 

I'm not saying anything logically valid is sound. I'm saying a moral justification must at least pass the test of logical consistency. It must be something that can be applied consistently.

 

Universally preferable behavior exists. When we debate we accept that it is universally preferable to accept reason over nonsense, truth over falsehood. Morality is a subset of UPB that involves enforceable behavior.

 

 

I showed you the reasoning and I don't know what "hidden definitions" you're talking about. If you do not have valid moral justifications for your behavior then that behavior is not moral. How hard is that to get?

1. You absolutely did what I described; there's no strawman. If you feel so strongly about it, then quote your initial post and tell me how it can be interpreted. Maybe the definitions are hidden between the lines, along with all the steps you took to reach the conclusion that a violation of the NAP is morally evil.

 

At any rate, it seems worth moving on because you've offered me a little substance now.

 

2. You say that defining "evil" is not necessary to make an argument that... a violation of the NAP is evil. I don't know whether to laugh or cry, but I am glad that you have taken the time to give me definition now. Thank you, but let me explain the problem with the definition:

 

If evil is the term that refers to an actor performing an action that he knows is "wrong", then what does "wrong" mean as applied to an action? Here is what I am saying:

 

"Lykourgos is wearing a hat" is a wrong statement, because I'm not wearing a hat. Yet, if someone batters someone, how is that wrong? I guess it's right, actually, because now it's a reality.

 

So I guess battering people is right... but seriously, does "evil is when someone knows an action is wrong but does it anyway" mean anything different than, "wrong is when someone knows an action is evil but does it anyway"? Please just give me the definition of this moral measure, whether you want to call it evil, bad, or wrong. Until then, you're barely at the first stage of showing why the NAP is an objective moral rule.

 

So, moving on to your handling of the divine commandment:

 

3. You give two arguments against the validity of positing a divine pronouncement as an objective moral rule.

 

(A) You say that the divinely created rule "rape is morally good" is impossible because... "someone" will declare that the opposite is true? What? Who is this powerful being that will contradict god, and why would god care about someone making a declaration? It's an objective rule, who cares if humans say things.

 

(B) You say that if rape is an objective moral good, then everyone must agree that being raped is good, and willingly be raped (which is an impossible desire). Why do you think that logically follows? It's wrong for a couple of reasons:

 

i) You are positing an unnecessary law that requires man to necessarily want the good. Here, good is what is in accordance with god's will; it's objective morality and whether people want it or agree with it is irrelevant. Humans could all be dead, or amoral, or pure evil for all it matters. Hell, let's pretend humans do necessarily want the good; their inability to achieve it in all instances doesn't invalidate the rule.

 

Even if we accept this unnecessary law of yours, and we further accept that the impossibility of 100% of humans to be 100% good would somehow invalidate the divine decree, it still wouldn't matter:

 

ii) There is rape the concept, and then there are the countless instances of it occurring. "Rape is good" is a moral rule stating that the universal is the good; it's not a direct and continuous command to commit every possible rape at every specific time and location.

 

If (a) rape is good, and (b) there's a further rule that all people must be good, then we need to discuss what rape means. Mentally, rape consists of 2 different states; wanting to commit sexual penetration, and unwanting to be sexually penetrated. So if people must always want to be good, then what they actually want is to always hold these two mental states:

 

- to want to sexually penetrate other people

- to not personally be sexually penetrated

 

Thus, if you put two people in a room together they would want to sexually penetrate the other person while not wanting their own body sexually penetrated. There's no necessity that a person want to personally fall prey to rape.

 

At any rate, it's largely besides the point. I don't need to posit your additional law; there's no logical clusterfuck. The divine rule is a valid system, but it's factually unsound. On the other hand... what does good/right mean in your system? What does evil/bad/wrong mean in your system? It's not based on god's pronouncement, so what's the measure of this objective morality?

 

Moving on to the final point, "universally preferable behaviour",

 

4. Still no explanation as to what you think this is or why you think it's an essential measure of any system of objective morality. The hidden definitions line is just as true as ever; there's a total failure to affirmatively show anything about the NAP. Please, show me the proof that the initiation of aggression is evil.

 

What's absurd here to me is that even in a world where it is impossible to posit an objective rule that rape is good, you still wouldnt have proven anything. Nothing affirmative has been shown; I could just as well throw my arms up and say there is no morality. There's just physical objects, movement, and mathematic/logical consistency. Libertarianism would live or die by practical concerns and personal desire.

 

Instead, people claim that there really are objective moral rules, and that they protect libertarianism from practical and personal objections. So someone needs to step up and affirmatively show that the foundation is real.

 

The book is called UPB. You said you read it, but you're still asking for it. This theatrical attitude is getting really absurd.

 

Yes, I've read it, but I've found no proof within its pages. So now I am here, hoping that a libertarian can offer some defence or other proof of the claim regarding the NAP. Theatrics are not as absurd as having a libertarian refuse to give proof, which is what you did; It seems you have given up on explaining, defining, or presenting anything.

[DCLugi]

"Thus, if you put two people in a room together they would want to sexually penetrate the other person while not wanting their own body sexually penetrated. There's no necessity that a person want to personally fall prey to rape."

 

If one makes the claim that rape is moral then it must also apply to the one claiming. I am making the universal claim that rape is a behavior that should be approved by all humans. I am advocating the action of sex against my own will. I can't advocate and be against the same action. Maybe it's clearer if we are judging someone else's behavior. If I am watching my sister getting raped I would be saying, "If you want to be moral you should want the rape and at the same time not want it."