Treason and the NAP

[RichardY]

Is the idea of treason as an immoral action covered by the NAP, perhaps some people don't consider treason immoral?

 

Take for example the betrayal of Jesus by Judas, by pointing Jesus out to people with maybe not the best intentions at heart for Jesus or his teachings, in return for a small amount of money. At what point has Judas initiated force against Jesus?

[apples and grapes]

I would say that treason can be analysed in two categories, assault/murder and fraud

Judas told the Romans where Jesus was, knowing that they would aggress against him in some way. Judas was causally linked with the aggression taking place, and the aggression would not have taken place if he hadn't betrayed Jesus. Therefore, he holds a lot of responsibility for the immoral actions that took place afterwards. It is this action where he initiates force against Jesus

On top of that, there would have been a reasonable assumption on the part of Jesus that his disciples would not betray him. If this was a written contract, it would be a clearer case of fraud on the part of Judas (selling information he had promised not to sell). In not a direct violation of UPB, it would at least be a violation of APB in that he sold information that Jesus only allowed him privy to under the reasonable assumption that he wouldn't do so

 

So I think treason is immoral. However, if Jesus was actually a murderer (dun dun duuun), then I don't know if I'd call Judas treasonous. So if, say, the entire US army 100% from accountant to grenadier was doing horrible, evil things, and one of the soldiers released information, that would not be treason. So take someone like Snowden, whether he is a traitor largely depends on what information he leaked. Say he leaked a document that proved Pvt. Douchebag murdered some innocent disabled children, that wouldn't be traitorous. If he leaked the location of some innocent spy undercover trying to idk save innocent disabled children from ISIS, I think that would be treasonous

Thoughts? =)

[dsayers]

Judas told the Romans where Jesus was, knowing that they would aggress against him in some way. Judas was causally linked with the aggression taking place, and the aggression would not have taken place if he hadn't betrayed Jesus. Therefore, he holds a lot of responsibility for the immoral actions that took place afterwards. It is this action where he initiates force against Jesus

Agreed. Because the people he pointed Jesus out to had already indicated that they were going to initiate the use of force against Jesus, this is a credible threat. When Judas pointed Jesus out to them, a reasonable person would assume that they would initiate the use of force against Jesus because of this credible threat. Making Judas's behavior immoral.

 

On top of that, there would have been a reasonable assumption on the part of Jesus that his disciples would not betray him. If this was a written contract

If it was in fact a contract, then yes, it would also be immoral in that it would be a violation of that contract. Without that contract though, for Judas to betray Jesus (in the abstract, not in the way specified above) would not be immoral. Jesus is responsible for who he chooses to associate with. If he wishes to not be betrayed, it is his responsibility to associate only with people he can trust will not betray him.

 

This is actually an important distinction because many drug/smoking laws are thought to be righteous (within a statist paradigm) because they argue that a drug abuser is NOT only harming themselves. When in fact they are and the ways in which their abuse hurts others is their responsibility for associating with somebody that could hurt them in this fashion.

 

@RichardY: Could you define treason? Maybe it's just me, but I would guess the word would invoke a picture of behaving in a way that is detrimental to the country that claims to own them. Which would be an entirely different analysis.

[RichardY]

I would say that treason can be analysed in two categories, assault/murder and fraud

 

Judas told the Romans where Jesus was, knowing that they would aggress against him in some way. Judas was causally linked with the aggression taking place, and the aggression would not have taken place if he hadn't betrayed Jesus. Therefore, he holds a lot of responsibility for the immoral actions that took place afterwards. It is this action where he initiates force against Jesus

From the story Judas pointed out Jesus to the Jewish priesthood by a kiss (could have just said that guy there, probably some symbolic meaning). The priests requested that the roman soldiers bring Jesus to see the governor, to which Jesus agreed willingly to and with foreknowledge of the plot. ( I remember watching Youtube videos on police doing stop and search in the USA where the occupant of the vehicle would ask if they were being charged and the police would just end up waving them on.)  

 

Don't think there was any particular agreement Jesus had with his disciples or even if they were referred to as disciples at the time. As for Snowden I guess a lot would depend on what he agreed to when he signed up (and Constitution?, religous beliefs? etc ), whether what he did was treasonous, he obviously betrayed somebody.

 

 

APB?

 

 

As another thought experiment, would somebody who is a traitor to the Mafia have more integrity or less integrity, as treason in a large part seems related to integrity.

 

 

@RichardY: Could you define treason? Maybe it's just me, but I would guess the word would invoke a picture of behaving in a way that is detrimental to the country that claims to own them. Which would be an entirely different analysis.

 

From Google I get the definition: the action of betraying someone or something.

 

For someone, I consider the word betrayal to be appropriate for going against their personal preferences in a way that you said you would not or acted in a way that led a person to believe you had their best interests at heart. Betrayal is something that I would say could be immoral but it also might not be immoral.

 

For something, things seem to get more complicated. Intuitively I feel that treason is always immoral, but it does not and should not have to be related to an Empire, Country, City state, tribe or perhaps family. Going to think on this point a little longer....