RichardY Posted May 7, 2016 Share Posted May 7, 2016 There is no Truth in the NAP. Only the avoidance of hypocrisy and mutually assured destruction. Valid Statement? 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lars Posted May 7, 2016 Share Posted May 7, 2016 Truth is defined as any idea which conforms to both reason and evidence.You claim that all ideas associated with the NAP are neither logical nor empirical, though do not explain why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardY Posted May 7, 2016 Author Share Posted May 7, 2016 Truth is defined as any idea which conforms to both reason and evidence. I think a better definition of truth would be any result, which conforms to both reason and evidence. You claim that all ideas associated with the NAP are neither logical nor empirical, though do not explain why. No I do not. Only the avoidance from hypocrisy and quite probably of M.A.D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted May 7, 2016 Share Posted May 7, 2016 There is no Truth in the NAP Show your work. You need to define NAP (since it's shorthand) and then show how it is false. You've made a provocative statement while offering no rigor. Shame on you. I encourage others not to take the bait. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted May 7, 2016 Share Posted May 7, 2016 There is no Truth in the NAP. Only the avoidance of hypocrisy and mutually assured destruction. Valid Statement? There is no truth in the scientific method. Only a way to achieve to particular preference. Valid statement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardY Posted May 7, 2016 Author Share Posted May 7, 2016 There is no truth in the scientific method. Only a way to achieve to particular preference. Valid statement? No, preference is an emotional value judgement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Torbald Posted May 7, 2016 Share Posted May 7, 2016 There is no Truth in the NAP. Only the avoidance of hypocrisy and mutually assured destruction. Valid Statement? What kind of truth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardY Posted May 7, 2016 Author Share Posted May 7, 2016 What kind of truth? A result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Torbald Posted May 7, 2016 Share Posted May 7, 2016 A result. Well, I agree. The NAP is deontological, not teleological. It doesn't point towards a goal, it points towards a starting line. However, starting from the point of "let's not kill each other" doesn't sound too bad to me. All other goals are ok with me as long they don't break the starting line. As in, if you want the goal of "let's have a society where people have access to affordable healthcare" I'd be down with it, and then you say "great, let's steal money to do it" I'd have to stop you there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted May 7, 2016 Share Posted May 7, 2016 There is no Truth in the NAP. Only the avoidance of hypocrisy and mutually assured destruction. Valid Statement? No, hypocrisy and mutually assured destruction are only emotional preferences. No, preference is an emotional value judgement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotDarkYet Posted May 7, 2016 Share Posted May 7, 2016 What if I said..."There is no Truth in mathematics. Only the avoidance of hypocrisy and faulty designs." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardY Posted May 7, 2016 Author Share Posted May 7, 2016 No, hypocrisy and mutually assured destruction are only emotional preferences. No, preference is an emotional value judgement. So would you say the NAP is Deterministic? There is no Truth in mathematics. Only the avoidance of hypocrisy and faulty designs. No, Hypocrisy is to state one thing to an individual and do something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotDarkYet Posted May 7, 2016 Share Posted May 7, 2016 Stating 2+2=5 is hypocritical because you're simultaneously... 1. Stating that numbers make sense (2=2) 2. Writing an answer that contradicts that very premise Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardY Posted May 7, 2016 Author Share Posted May 7, 2016 Stating 2+2=5 is hypocritical because you're simultaneously... That would depend on the individual's personal association of symbols being used and I would have to state that to another person, hence not hypocrisy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotDarkYet Posted May 7, 2016 Share Posted May 7, 2016 "depends on that individuals personal association of symbols being used" = Not an argument. If numbers have meaning, then you can not use the validity of numbers to show that numbers are invalid. To do so would be HYPOCRITICAL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardY Posted May 7, 2016 Author Share Posted May 7, 2016 "depends on that individuals personal association of symbols being used" = Not an argument. If numbers have meaning, then you can not use the validity of numbers to show that numbers are invalid. To do so would be HYPOCRITICAL. A + A = F5 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EclecticIdealist Posted May 7, 2016 Share Posted May 7, 2016 Richard Y, please define the NAP as you used it in the post originating this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted May 8, 2016 Share Posted May 8, 2016 So would you say the NAP is Deterministic? No, Hypocrisy is to state one thing to an individual and do something else. No it's not deterministic. It's a rational principle. If you violate you will be unable to rationally justify your behavior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardY Posted May 8, 2016 Author Share Posted May 8, 2016 Richard Y, please define the NAP as you used it in the post originating this thread. NAP, Non Aggression Principle, The mutual acceptance of the Non initiation of force. No it's not deterministic. Is Truth not Deterministic then? It's a rational principle. If you violate you will be unable to rationally justify your behavior. Which I agree with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EclecticIdealist Posted May 8, 2016 Share Posted May 8, 2016 The mutual acceptance of the Non-Initiation of force is not a principle. A principle describes an action or cause and its relation to a specific effect or result. The Non-Aggression Principle is the notion that the best way to maintain the maximum amount of Individual liberty is for all members of society to refrain from the initiation of the use of force. All that may properly be termed as principles (i.e., the effects or results rationally and empirically follow from the action or cause) express true relationships or in other words, they have an affirmative truth value. Principles are not the same as moral propositions. The NAP is a principle. The idea that "Following the NAP is good" is a moral proposition which does not have a truth value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted May 8, 2016 Share Posted May 8, 2016 Is Truth not Deterministic then? No. Maybe you mean something different by deterministic. There are many types of determinism. Which I agree with. Right, so the NAP has truth in it. If moral theories, justifications, rules that violate it all fall into insurmountable contradiction then that tells you it's a correct moral principle. The mutual acceptance of the Non-Initiation of force is not a principle. A principle describes an action or cause and its relation to a specific effect or result. The Non-Aggression Principle is the notion that the best way to maintain the maximum amount of Individual liberty is for all members of society to refrain from the initiation of the use of force. All that may properly be termed as principles (i.e., the effects or results rationally and empirically follow from the action or cause) express true relationships or in other words, they have an affirmative truth value. Principles are not the same as moral propositions. The NAP is a principle. The idea that "Following the NAP is good" is a moral proposition which does not have a truth value. A principle is a foundational rule or proposition. The NAP is a foundational rule, so it is a principle. I see you later say it's a principle but how does that gel with your claim that the NAP is a notion.? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardY Posted May 8, 2016 Author Share Posted May 8, 2016 No. Maybe you mean something different by deterministic. There are many types of determinism. Such as? Right, so the NAP has truth in it. If moral theories, justifications, rules that violate it all fall into insurmountable contradiction then that tells you it's a correct moral principle. If Truth is deterministic (a future result in reality) then, the NAP if it contains Truth is deterministic. The mutual acceptance of the Non-Initiation of force is not a principle. So is it not ok to kill a fish to eat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lars Posted May 8, 2016 Share Posted May 8, 2016 Truth is deterministic? Are you saying that an idea is only valid if it produces a predefined result through observation or application?Fish are not moral agents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 Such as? If Truth is deterministic (a future result in reality) then, the NAP if it contains Truth is deterministic. I don't know what "a future result in reality" means or how that's necessarily deterministic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EclecticIdealist Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 A principle is a foundational rule or proposition. The NAP is a foundational rule, so it is a principle. I see you later say it's a principle but how does that gel with your claim that the NAP is a notion.? What I was indicating is that your first statement "The mutual acceptance of the non-initiation of force" was not a statement of a principle, it was merely a description of the behavior part of the NAP or perhaps a policy. I then stated what the NAP is (or at the very least, my understanding of it). So is it not ok to kill a fish to eat? Whether or not you choose to kill a fish to eat is, to most people, a personal preference (unless the fish happen to be endangered, in which case, it might be considered immoral, or at the very least, aesthetically negative or taboo.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardY Posted May 9, 2016 Author Share Posted May 9, 2016 Truth is deterministic? Are you saying that an idea is only valid if it produces a predefined result through observation or application? No, I'm saying an idea depends on the condition of experience of an individual (Immanuel Kant) and is a form of pattern matching by the person. "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."- Albert Einstein. Fish are not moral agents. Which is exactly my point, a Shark is not subject to the NAP, it does not express mutual acceptance of the NAP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 Which is exactly my point, a Shark is not subject to the NAP, it does not express mutual acceptance of the NAP. Sharks might be subject to the NAP. How it applies to certain animals hasn't been fully explored yet. Maybe you can't murder a sahrk but torturing one might be just as much of a violation as torturing a human. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ValueOfBrevity Posted May 13, 2016 Share Posted May 13, 2016 There is no Truth in the NAP. Only the avoidance of hypocrisy and mutually assured destruction. Valid Statement? Please expand on the following: -What hypocrisy is the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) intended to avoid? -Are you claiming: societies which do not follow the NAP (e.g. governments) are insured mutual destruction as a result of their existence? Also, the validity of your statement cannot be assessed because you have provided no premises. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardY Posted May 14, 2016 Author Share Posted May 14, 2016 -What hypocrisy is the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) intended to avoid? Just that if people claim to abide by the Non-Aggression Principle they are able to follow it consistently and so is everybody else without infringing on anybody's freedom to live peacefully, an expression of Kant's Moral Imperative. To claim to support taxation or "social" democracies would be a hypocritical exemption to the NAP as they involve coercion. -Are you claiming: societies which do not follow the NAP (e.g. governments) are insured mutual destruction as a result of their existence? Basically yes, societies that do not follow the NAP, allow for individuals that also do not follow the NAP a first strike capacity to inflict damage, physical or financial on whoever they can, to gain advantages such as wealth or some unknown emotional gratification. Also, the validity of your statement cannot be assessed because you have provided no premises. Yes I can see your point. How valid the statement is depends on what you would class Truth as? I would class Truth as deterministic (Unified Field Theory, maybe?) though I do not know exactly what Truth is. "Truth" in Mathematics or History I would class as pattern matching, with "Truth" being a potential range of possibilities depending on the question asked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Libertus Posted May 14, 2016 Share Posted May 14, 2016 "All roses are red" = is a proposition (i.e. it can be true or false) "Don't cut roses that are red" = not a proposition "mutual respect" is not true or false, either "mutual acceptance of the non initiation of force" = not a proposition either. "People should respect each other, mutually" hints at, suggests a proposition, but is vague (weasel word "should" needs to be fleshed out). "The initiation of force is morally wrong" hints at a proposition, but is vague ("morally wrong" is a loaded term and more complex than the NAP itself, so it's often not helpful to define the NAP that way, as it confuses the reader more, not less). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts