In a previous thread, I defeated the universal application on the non-agression axiom with a counter-example like this:
You're at the beach and notice a child drowing out in the ocean. No one on the beach is a strong enough swimmer to save the child. However, one of the bystanders has a boat 20 feet away that could easily be used the save the child. However, the owner does not concent to the use of the boat.
In this scenario, it seems obvious that it is ok to use agression to take the boat and go save the child.
Thus, the non-agression axiom is defeated.
Now, allow me to the put the final nail in the coffin of this principle.
Imagine that your loved one is standing on the edge of a bridge. You can grab them by the arm or shirt to pull them back to safety but they have said not to. Obviously, if my wife/girlfriend/mom/dad/sister/friend/ect. were in hat situation and I could pull them back I would do so even though I was using agression against them.
I'm willing to bet you would to.
In the last thread, many hard-core anarchists said that they would just use agression and take the punishment. But by admitting this, they concede that non-agression is not a principle that they feel should be adhered to 100% of the time.
I think that it is time to put non-agression to a rest. Non-agression is false, but don't take that as an endorsement of using agressoion whenever you want. From here, the goal should be to elucidate when agression is ok in non-self-defense scenarios and when it is not. Whether or not he state is a form of non-self-defense agression that is permissible is certainly still debatable.
Maybe you should try an argument that isn't one giant appeal to emotion.
The example is an appeal to your intuition that it is ok to use force in the certain cases.
If you think that agression is ok in the examples, please explain why it is not a violation of the NAP.
No, it is never "ok"(I assume you mean morally right) to infringe on someone's property rights. The ends do not justify the means.
I fail to see how dreaming up scenarios where you would feel comfortable using force against someone undermines the NAP.
nibbler,
Then I assume you would just watch your loved one plummet to their death. If so, just say it.
Copperhead,
All philosophy suffers from this problem of competing intuitions. Are you a sceptic or do you believe we can have knowledge of ethical propositions?
Trianglechoke7: nibbler, Then I assume you would just watch your loved one plummet to their death. If so, just say it. Copperhead, All philosophy suffers from this problem of competing intuitions. Are you a sceptic or do you believe we can have knowledge of ethical propositions?
Again, appeal to emotion. I'll respond when you actually get an argument.
Seriously, you're acting as if the NAP means no one will ever ever never ever never ever violate anyone's property rights. Classic strawman.
Further, you're presuming that the person so taking the boat won't accept the consequences should the owner of the boat do anything about it, and assuming that the owner of the boat WILL do something about it.
I fail to see the point of your ridiculous example, and I would hope that you would refrain from posting such nonsense in the future.
The non-aggression axiom just means it is wrong to agress against others. You have not proven that it was morally OK to do so. However, it is highly doubtful that most courts would give you a very severe punishment for what you did.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
In the last thread, many hard-core anarchists said that they would just use agression and take the punishment. But by admitting this, they concede that non-agression is not a principle that they feel should be adhered to 100% of the time. I think that it is time to put non-agression to a rest. Non-agression is false
I think that it is time to put non-agression to a rest. Non-agression is false
I think it's time to put idiotic arguments to a rest. Nothing has been "conceded"; if the non-aggression axiom were not to be adhered to punishment would not be meritted for violating it. All you have shown is that some people prefer punishment due to uncertainty as to whether their action will be viewed as coercion or not over inaction. To which I retort: so what? Come up with a real argument, why don't you, so as to render the title of your thread somewhat less fraudulent?
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
What evidence would constitute proof against NAP?
Trianglechoke7: What evidence would constitute proof against NAP?
I believe that's your job to find. You are, after all, the one who's claiming to have "disproved" the NAP.
I think I have given proof. But according to everyone else, I havn't. So, now I'm asking what exactly YOU think constitues proof against NAP.
It seems to me that you guys are basically argueing like this:
"Just because YOU think that the Gettier problem is a counter-example to the proposition that knowledge=justifies true belief doesn't mean that it is."
When you get to that point, I just don't know what to say.
Logical inconsistency?
How does what you have argued even come close to being analogous to a Gettier problem?
No, all you've given is "People will violate the property rights of others in certain cases, therefore the NAP as an absolute is wrong". You're assuming those who adhere to the NAP as a concept refuse to believe that anyone could ever violate the property rights of another if that person holds to the NAP (strawman), and the form of your argument is a non sequitur.
And since you don't know what to say, it's best that you not say anything at all.
Jon,
I knew someone would say internal inconsistency. But couldn't multiple ethical principles have internal consistency? And since intenal consistency does not equal truth, how would you judge between them? Also, is internal inconsistency the only means of disproving ethical propositions, or are their others?
What I'm doing is analgous to the Gettier problem in that I am making up a hypothetical scenario which your intuition about a concept is challenged by the scenario.
Knight,
I apologize for coming off arrogent in my initial post. Now, can we speak on civil terms?
You have not accurately characterized my arguement.
(1) If NAP is true, then it is never morally right to violate someone's property rights
(2) (Suicide example) is a case in which it is morally right to violate someone's property rights
(3) Therefore, NAP is false
The Gettier problems show that there are counterexamples to a conceptual definition of knowledge, i.e. where one has justified (and this is where the problem arises for the internalist conception of knowledge), true belief but it simply is not knowledge. I guess you could say to an extent both rely on intuitions. However. in the case of pulling back a person trying to kill themselves, against their will, one is indeed aggressing. If one is unsure whether the individual would want to be pulled back but would rather be safe than sorry, they're risking it. There'd be no risk and there'd be no prospect of punishment if the NAP were false. Willingness to take the punishment thus is not inconsistent with it. Personally I'd simply try convince the person not to jump off. If I believed they were of sound mind, I'd not stop them.
Trianglechoke7: Jon, I knew someone would say internal inconsistency. But couldn't multiple ethical principles have internal consistency? And since intenal consistency does not equal truth, how would you judge between them? Also, is internal inconsistency the only means of disproving ethical propositions, or are their others? What I'm doing is analgous to the Gettier problem in that I am making up a hypothetical scenario which your intuition about a concept is challenged by the scenario. Knight, I apologize for coming off arrogent in my initial post. Now, can we speak on civil terms? You have not accurately characterized my arguement. (1) If NAP is true, then it is never morally right to violate someone's property rights (2) (Suicide example) is a case in which it is morally right to violate someone's property rights (3) Therefore, NAP is false
You seem to be skipping over the part where you prove that it's actually morally right to violate someone's property rights. All you've done so far is show that people would likely violate someone's property rights if it meant saving a loved one. That doesn't make it right. Again, the ends don't justify the means.
Trianglechoke7:You have not accurately characterized my arguement.
Please do NOT be so dishonest in the future.
As to your so-recently-proffered nonsense about suicide: Please stop misusing what the NAP is and what morality is. This is why you're getting smacked around.
Trianglechoke7: In a previous thread, I defeated the universal application on the non-agression axiom with a counter-example like this: You're at the beach and notice a child drowing out in the ocean. No one on the beach is a strong enough swimmer to save the child. However, one of the bystanders has a boat 20 feet away that could easily be used the save the child. However, the owner does not concent to the use of the boat. In this scenario, it seems obvious that it is ok to use agression to take the boat and go save the child. Thus, the non-agression axiom is defeated. Now, allow me to the put the final nail in the coffin of this principle. ...
...
Actually, I think the boat example is a stronger example.
Take my argument above and substitute the boat in for suicide.
Now, I readily admit that my only proof that the boat example is proof that it is ok to agress against a persons property, is intution.
Just like in the Gettier problem the ONLY proof that a Gettier example is proof against the traditional definition of knowledge is a persons intution. There is no other proof.
The only way out of this is:
(1) Stick to your guns and say that it's wrong to take the boat, and the person that does deserves to be punished.
(2) Say that the agression is not a violation of property rights. Perhaps non-action can be construed as a form of agression and therefore justified on self-defense (or defense of others) grounds.
Trianglechoke7: So, now I'm asking what exactly YOU think constitues proof against NAP.
So, now I'm asking what exactly YOU think constitues proof against NAP.
Trianglechoke7: (1) If NAP is true, then it is never morally right to violate someone's property rights
Marko,
The problem I have with your argument is that your trying to have your cake and eat it too.
You make it sound as if the person who takes the boat has done something morally laudable, yet at the same time derserves to be punished (paying a fine). How can it be justified to use use force (paying a fine) against a person for committing a morally good deed?
Trianglechoke7: Now, I readily admit that my only proof that the boat example is proof that it is ok to agress against a persons property, is intution.
To show NAP is not valid you must think of a scenario where punishment for its violation is not in order.
I think it's wrong to punish the man who takes the boat.
Law, justice and morality are intertwined.
Specifically, ALL illegal things should be immoral things. And NO moral things should be illegal things.
Trianglechoke7: Actually, I think the boat example is a stronger example. Take my argument above and substitute the boat in for suicide. Now, I readily admit that my only proof that the boat example is proof that it is ok to agress against a persons property, is intution. Just like in the Gettier problem the ONLY proof that a Gettier example is proof against the traditional definition of knowledge is a persons intution. There is no other proof. The only way out of this is: (1) Stick to your guns and say that it's wrong to take the boat, and the person that does deserves to be punished. (2) Say that the agression is not a violation of property rights. Perhaps non-action can be construed as a form of agression and therefore justified on self-defense (or defense of others) grounds.
K, now what?
Stefan Molyneux addressed this topic in his book Universally Preferable Behavior. The scenario he brought up was you have somehow become stranded high up in the air on a flagpole. If you were to jump down, you would die on impact. But there is a house next to you, and if you jump through one of its windows(breaking it) you can save yourself. This hypothetical is very similar to the one you proposed, and they are both answered the same way. Would pretty much everyone swing into the window to save themselves? Would pretty much everyone steal the boat to save the child? The answer to both of these questions is yes. That is entirely irrelevant to the point, however. The point is, do you, as the homeowner or the boat owner, have the right to not be aggressed against, and having been aggressed against, do you have the right to be reparated? The answer to both of these questions is "yes" universally. In every situation. The motive for the aggression has no barring on this.
Shame to start off 2009 like this. Boo on you trianglechoke. This example has been beaten to death numerous times, it's a joke that you congratulate yourself, for claiming to own an argument used by thousands of people before.
Lame.
"Hey everybody, I just proved the world is round! Ha!"
Now we are getting somewhere, and I can see where the disagreement lies.
I do not agree that the person who owns the boat derserves to be reimbursed in anyway. I also do not think the person who takes the boat should be punished in anyway.
Why? Intuition, that's it. Now what? How do you fight intutition, because I cannot see any reason why someone would think the opposite other than inutition as well?
Trianglechoke7: Marko, The problem I have with your argument is that your trying to have your cake and eat it too. You make it sound as if the person who takes the boat has done something morally laudable, yet at the same time derserves to be punished (paying a fine). How can it be justified to use use force (paying a fine) against a person for committing a morally good deed?
Maybe you haven`t noticed, but there is a victim in all of this. Whose property has been agressed upon?
I haven't missed it. The boat owners property has been agressed upon.
But like I said above, I don't think he deserves to be reimbured or other agressor punished.
Trianglechoke7: Specifically, ALL illegal things should be immoral things. And NO moral things should be illegal things.
So if I stole a loaf of bread to feed my family, not only would that action not be wrong, but the person who got his bread stolen should have no recourse to restore that which he lost?
Trianglechoke7: I haven't missed it. The boat owners property has been agressed upon. But like I said above, I don't think he deserves to be reimbured or other agressor punished.
Trianglechoke7:Actually, I think the boat example is a stronger example. Take my argument above and substitute the boat in for suicide. Now, I readily admit that my only proof that the boat example is proof that it is ok to agress against a persons property, is intution.
Do you have any clue?
Justifying aggression in the saving of the child would seem to justify aggression in all cases. If there is ever a man that has less than anyone else, then that man and his supporters should be allowed to aggress.
There are millions starving in Africa, can I take from you to save them?
There are 1000's of incurable, terminal diseases, should your income be taken to finance their cures?
Others are saying they would take his boat and bear the cost. But who determines that cost? The value of goods and services are subjective. What if the boat owner says the boat thief must be his slave for the rest of his life? How can another determine the value of his boat? If YOU determine the value of HIS boat, then aren't you usurping and aggressing against his property rights? Isn't that eminent domain?
"The best way to bail out the economy is with liberty, not with federal reserve notes." - pairunoyd
"The vision of the Austrian must be greater than the blindness of the sheeple." - pairunoyd
Trianglechoke7:You're at the beach and notice a child drowing out in the ocean. No one on the beach is a strong enough swimmer to save the child. However, one of the bystanders has a boat 20 feet away that could easily be used the save the child. However, the owner does not concent to the use of the boat. In this scenario, it seems obvious that it is ok to use agression to take the boat and go save the child.
No it doesn't. What you're saying is that your subjective emotions have the power to determine objective ethical truth. In other words, you just used an appeal to emotion.
Your argument can be basically summed up like this:
P1: I see a child drowning.
P2: I must use violence to save the child.
∴ NAP, natural rights, argumentation ethics, and other property right respecting ethical systems are wrong.
As you can see, your argument ultimately makes no sense. It is a giant exercise in non sequiturs and appeals to emotion.
Imagine that your loved one is standing on the edge of a bridge. You can grab them by the arm or shirt to pull them back to safety but they have said not to. Obviously, if my wife/girlfriend/mom/dad/sister/friend/ect. were in hat situation and I could pull them back I would do so even though I was using agression against them. I'm willing to bet you would to.
If they're doing something that THEY want to, and you prevent them, you are using aggression and coercing against them. That is no different from you being thrown into prison just because you decided to be a normal human being. Now, if they're about to fall accidentally off of the bridge, you can save them by pulling them back, which would not be considered aggression.
Either way, your appeal to emotion at the end is no conclusive proof that the NAP is wrong.
Only because they wouldn't adhere to it doesn't mean that it isn't true.
It is time to put logical fallacies to rest. That would include locking this thread.
Political Atheists Blog