Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

A 'criticism' of the Non-Aggression Principle...

This post has 52 Replies | 7 Followers

Top 500 Contributor
Posts 203
Points 5,505
TronCat Posted: Fri, Sep 28 2012 1:20 PM

 

The view of "morality" according to the NAP:

"I push someone out of the way of a bus to save their life = aggressive force (immoral)."

"Someone pushes me off their boat and into the water, drowning me = defense of property (moral). My death was the cause of nature. The person who pushed me into the water was just exercising control over his property."

 

What do you think of that?

  • | Post Points: 155
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,922
Points 79,590
Autolykos replied on Fri, Sep 28 2012 1:24 PM

It's certainly not consistent with what I call the NAP. In the second example, I think the boat owner committed murder if the other person drowned as a direct result of being pushed off the boat and into the water.

The keyboard is mightier than the gun.

Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.

Voluntaryism Forum

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,745
Wheylous replied on Fri, Sep 28 2012 1:44 PM

Wrong application of the NAP in both scenarios.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,922
Points 79,590
Autolykos replied on Fri, Sep 28 2012 1:47 PM

I'll add that, while I think pushing a person out of the way of a bus would constitute aggression prima facie, I also think it's legitimate for the person who was pushed to forgive it ex post facto.

The keyboard is mightier than the gun.

Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.

Voluntaryism Forum

  • | Post Points: 50
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,745
Wheylous replied on Fri, Sep 28 2012 2:04 PM

That sums it up

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Fri, Sep 28 2012 2:19 PM
 
 

TronCat:
The view of "morality" according to the NAP:

"I push someone out of the way of a bus to save their life = aggressive force (immoral)."

Wasn't that the plot from the Incredibles, Mr. Incredible gets sued by a guy for saving his life when he jumped from a building and injured in the rescue attempt :P

TronCat:

"Someone pushes me off their boat and into the water, drowning me = defense of property (moral). My death was the cause of nature. The person who pushed me into the water was just exercising control over his property."

What do you think of that?

We don't know the circumstances of how he got on the boat. Firstly, one can only morally use as much force to stop an aggression as was used to commit it, lest one go beyond that into aggression yourself.

So, should someone sneak on a boat, you're justified in dropping them off at the next stop and forcibly removing them. Pushing them into a life-threatening situation would be going beyond that, I think, since their sneaking on board did not force a life-threatening situation on you.

 
Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Female
Posts 260
Points 4,015

As I understand NAP, pushing a person out of the way of a bus would in fact be a violation whereas letting them get hit would be an NAP-neutral act.  I would push the person, and so would almost anyone else, and the other guy wouldn’t have any real grievance to take up with me.  If I hit him too hard out of fear and actually did physical damage, he’d be right to expect me to make amends.  Likewise if I overreact to an attack, and do more damage to my attacker than they were threatening or actually applying to me, I’d be in the wrong again.  NAP would authorize me to use equal force as a last resort against an attack, but not GREATER than equal force. 

Example #1 is why people have personal moral codes.  NAP is, in my opinion, must be the foundation of a legitimate personal code of morals or list of personal values.  But it’s the basis, not the whole, of the process.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,745
Wheylous replied on Fri, Sep 28 2012 2:30 PM

Pretty much right.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,679
Points 45,110
gotlucky replied on Fri, Sep 28 2012 2:40 PM

Autolykos:

I'll add that, while I think pushing a person out of the way of a bus would constitute aggression prima facie, I also think it's legitimate for the person who was pushed to forgive it ex post facto.

Absolutely. Some people tend to forget or not understand the role of forgiveness. Forgiveness is a signal that an act that would otherwise be considered a crime should not be considered a crime or should be punished to a lesser degree. People do not have the time to contemplate all the different possible scenarios that could occur and decide whether they personally would consider something to be a crime. Let's look at the following scenarios:

1. A teenager vandalizes a church.

2. A homeless man breaks into a church in order to seek shelter.

The priest that runs the church has some choices. He might be willing to forgive the teenager of his crime on the condition that he clean and restore what he damaged. The priest might be willing to forgive the homeless man after considering his circumstances. Perhaps the priest knows that particular teenager, and he has defaced the church before. The priest might be less willing to forgive the vandal. He might want a lot more in restitution than just restoration.

We could examine all sorts of possible choices the priest might make regarding these two acts of aggression. And these are only two possible crimes that could be committed. Are we to expect that this priest ought to sit down and reason out what he considers to be a crime against him or his church before they take place? That would be ridiculous.

Forgiveness is an important signal precisely because it allows people to make these decisions after the fact. The priest can decide if the homeless man seeking shelter is really a crime or not. He might change his opinion over time. It's the same with the first scenario the OP provided. We all might say to ourselves that we would want to be saved from an oncoming bus. Okay, but at what cost? I might be grateful to be alive, but what if my savior breaks my legs? Or my arms? What if he paralyzes me? Do I really need to consider all the possible options before such a scenario occurs? Can I really expect others to do that?

No, that would be absurd. If someone saves me from a bus by pushing me out of the way, I get to decide after the fact if that is a crime. Most people would be grateful, but even if we get a few jerks who want to sue for being shoved, so what? How much money are they really going to receive in restitution? Would the "restitution" even be worth the cost of court?

/rant

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 985
Points 21,180
hashem replied on Fri, Sep 28 2012 2:54 PM

The NAP is a principle. By definition, to be consistent there must be no exceptions to it, which causes problems for inconsistent alleged supporters who don't want to look bad (because they can't form the correct defense, because they don't actually understand anything about it). If you support the NAP, by definition you support it ALWAYS.

Take the OP for example. "morality" is in quotes, or in parenthesi. The NAP says nothing about morals. The NAP is a propertarian rule, describing a grund norm which SHOULD be followed to have efficient use of property in a SOCIAL environment. Morals are bullshit, which is why nobody actually has anything consistently principled to say about them.

Stephen Kinsella points this out in the very beginning in What Libertarianism Is

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect. —Mark Twain
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Female
Posts 260
Points 4,015

I don't think it's fair to say that morals are bullshit because they aren't consistent across the board.  All value is subjective, whether you're talking about moral value or monetary value. 

NAP is the standard by which we can judge the sort of right-of-way of property, but it isn't the way we assign relative value to actions. 

When morals contradict NAP, there's a choice to be made and it comes down to the acceptance of guilt.  If you act out of accord with NAP you automatically accept the consequences, if the other guy chooses to press the matter.  Whether or not they do would depend on THEIR personal values and assessment of the possible advantage of doing so.

Moral choices are cost/benefit choices, but the currency is considered to be other than physical.  That's not really the realm of NAP.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 781
Points 13,130

"I push someone out of the way of a bus to save their life = aggressive force (immoral)."

Yes.

"Someone pushes me off their boat and into the water, drowning me = defense of property (moral). My death was the cause of nature. The person who pushed me into the water was just exercising control over his property."

Possibly. It depends on the terms of the agreement that was made between the two persons. That is, is the non-owner's right to be on the boat contingent only on the owner's permission, or might the non-owner have a right to be on the boat under certain conditions even if the owner disapproves? What determines the answer to these question is the agreement made between the two parties.For example, if the agreement was that the non-owner would be allowed on the boat for the duration of the trip unless he misbehaved (however that might have been defined), then the owner would have no right to toss the non-owner off the boat unless he had misbehaved. This case is very easily resolved if there's a written contract. But what if there is no written contract? My view is that intent of the parties concerned is a necessary and sufficient condition for property rights to change hands. What this means is that in some property dispute where there is no written contract, the judge/arbitrator has to use whatever evidence is available to try and determine what each party intended, since what they intended determined what and how property rights were assigned. Regarding the boat incident, if there was an agreement (even if unstated) that the non-owner would be allowed on the boat until the end of the trip, regardless of any other considerations, then the owner violated the property rights of the non-owner by throwing him overboard, and is liable for damages resulting from that action. A judge/arbitrator looking at a real case like this is not going to have any way of actually reconstructing the agreement, since it was never recorded in any way, and the one party is dead, so he should assume that the agreement was reasonable, using his own judgment to determine what a reasonable agreement would be. And presumably, it would not be reasonable to agree to get onto a boat knowing that the other party could rightfully toss you overboard in the middle of the ocean, and hence the judge would find that such was not part of the agreement, and that therefore the owner committed a tort by throwing the non-owner overboard.

apiarius delendus est, ursus esuriens continendus est
  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 27
Points 405
David K. replied on Fri, Sep 28 2012 6:46 PM

"I push someone out of the way of a bus to save their life = aggressive force (immoral)."

 

I don't understand why so many people use this bogus "argument" against the NAP. If the bus driver has the right to drive on the road, then blocking the way of the bus clearly violates the property rights of the bus owner (and possibly of the road owner, too). It's perfectly legitimate to prevent someone from aggressing against the bus owner.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 458
Points 6,985
gocrew replied on Fri, Sep 28 2012 8:02 PM

I'll add that, while I think pushing a person out of the way of a bus would constitute aggression prima facie, I also think it's legitimate for the person who was pushed to forgive it ex post facto.

 

It's not aggression, it's an act of saving the other person. Use the action axiom, means and ends. The end was to save the other person from getting hit. The means was to push him out of the way. When you say it's legitimate for the other person to forgive, that makes it seem like they can choose not to forgive and would then be entitled to damages. That wouldn't be the case.

Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under - Mencken

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 458
Points 6,985
gocrew replied on Fri, Sep 28 2012 8:04 PM

As I understand NAP, pushing a person out of the way of a bus would in fact be a violation whereas letting them get hit would be an NAP-neutral act.

Letting them get hit is NAP-neutral, but pushing them out of the way would be a violation. If they later say they preferred to get hit, they can jump right back out on the highway and do so. Otherwise, you have done them a huge favor and it's not aggression.

Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under - Mencken

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,018
Points 17,760

Payment of restitution for the tresses passes of property is certainly not death but usually a fine or other kind of restitution to settle the matter. Lex talons is all good but I seldom lay use it because a lot of people exploit this rule for revenge and not justification to settle a wrong.

it is muchbetter to wip yur slave 49 times tout of 50 instead of giving him 51 lashes

as far as te push out of bus, it is ok to save someone's life like this but if the person feels like you did wrong then it is a matter of settling the issue (thouh I doubt anyone will want to fine someone that saved their life)

“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence."
"The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Fri, Sep 28 2012 8:39 PM
 
 

gocrew:
It's not aggression, it's an act of saving the other person. Use the action axiom, means and ends. The end was to save the other person from getting hit. The means was to push him out of the way. When you say it's legitimate for the other person to forgive, that makes it seem like they can choose not to forgive and would then be entitled to damages. That wouldn't be the case.

A push is an aggressive act regardless of context, regardless of motives.

The motives is why the pushee will forgive the pusher.

If we begin taking motives into account rather than objective actions, we quickly run into contradictions, like saying it's okay to use aggression to tax someone because it's for the benefit of society :\

If you push someone to save them and end up injuring them too, they could in theory still sue. Lots of would-be rescuers have also made the situation worse by trying and have been legitimately sued also. Like the girl with a broken neck whose rescuers picked her up and by that made her into a quadraplegic.

 
Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 458
Points 6,985
gocrew replied on Fri, Sep 28 2012 8:40 PM

as far as te push out of bus, it is ok to save someone's life like this but if the person feels like you did wrong then it is a matter of settling the issue

 

They would have to prove you did them wrong. They can do this by jumping out in front of the next bus.

Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under - Mencken

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Fri, Sep 28 2012 8:40 PM
 
 

David K.:

I don't understand why so many people use this bogus "argument" against the NAP. If the bus driver has the right to drive on the road, then blocking the way of the bus clearly violates the property rights of the bus owner (and possibly of the road owner, too). It's perfectly legitimate to prevent someone from aggressing against the bus owner.

You make an interesting point.

 
Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 458
Points 6,985
gocrew replied on Fri, Sep 28 2012 8:48 PM

A push is an aggressive act regardless of context, regardless of motives.

 

Be careful not to jump definitions. Aggressive, in the way you use it, is not derived from Aggression as libertarians use the term for the NAP. I might aggressively (making an all-out effort to win or succeed) save someone's life without committing aggression, in the libertarian sense of the word.

The motives is why the pushee will forgive the pusher.

Let us concern ourselves with a case where the pushee does not forgive. Would you sersiously support his claim of damages? That would be silly.

If we begin taking motives into account rather than objective actions, we quickly run into contradictions, like saying it's okay to use aggression to tax someone because it's for the benefit of society :\

That's not a contradiction, it's simply wrong. We have to take ends, motives as you say, into account, because it is an inherent part of human action. We cannot say what an act is without the human intent. Without the intent, it is not fully an act.

When I push someone out of the way of a bus, my action is to save their life. If my action has been one of saving a life, this is not aggression, pure and simple.

If you push someone to save them and end up injuring them too, they could in theory still sue. Lots of would-be rescuers have also made the situation worse by trying and have been legitimately sued also. Like the girl with a broken neck whose rescuerspicked her up and by that made her into a quadraplegic.

But this doesn't advance your argument. If I am negligent and do more harm than good in my attempt to save someone, then I must pay restitution, of course. This has nothing to do with whether or not a shove must always be an act of aggression.

Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under - Mencken

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Fri, Sep 28 2012 9:03 PM
 
 

gocrew:

A push is an aggressive act regardless of context, regardless of motives.

 

Be careful not to jump definitions. Aggressive, in the way you use it, is not derived from Aggression as libertarians use the term for the NAP. I might aggressively (making an all-out effort to win or succeed) save someone's life without committing aggression, in the libertarian sense of the word.

True enough, since the context could be the push is an instance of defensive action.

However that isn't defined by motives, but by the actions of the other party. I'm deeply suspicious of any attempt to enshrine motives, which are unproveable, as a standard of judgment for any action, and you should be too.

So, in the given example, the push is not a reaction to that of the woman walking in front of a bus. We assume she's unknowingly walking into harm and act to save her.

Motives are why she may forgive us, but I'm not sure it has anything to do with whether a push is an aggressive act or not. It certainly is possible to commit aggression in the course of intending to save someone.

There's the example of A holding B hostage pointing a gun at C, using B as a human shield. If C shoots at A and hits B, though his intent was to save B, he has now killed B and committed an act of aggression for which B's heirs may choose to forgive him but don't have to, and could have him brought up on charges and prosecuted, surely.

 

 
Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 985
Points 21,180
hashem replied on Fri, Sep 28 2012 10:24 PM

TronCat:
What do you think of that?

BS. Complete BS. Morality was in quotes in the OP. It was in parenthesis also. Why? Because nobody actually knows what they're talking about when it comes to morals. Case in point: the NAP has nothing to do with morals. The NAP is a propertarian rule that must be posited (it is a positive rule) and accepted by more than one person—it isn't absolute or true except to the extent that more than one person acknowledges it as such. It isn't a de facto law about the nature of reality—it must be suggested, acknowledged, and accepted as a positive social rule regarding property. It says nothing about morals.

Morals are the refuge of people who know nothing about morals. Just ask anyone to define morally wrong and to support their definition with an absolute, objective truth about a particular behavior in a social setting being necessary and always objectively evil, and another behavior that is always and necessarily objectively righteous.

Nobody has a consistent, principled moral theory. Because nobody knows what they're talking about regarding morals. That's why examples like the OP exist, bringing the NAP into a discussion about—in quotes—so-called "morality".

Pushing someone out of the way of a bus IS a violation of the NAP. That's all you can say about it. You can't bring morals into the discussion if the topic is in regards to the NAP. Whether you pushed them to save their live has nothing to do with whether it was a violation of the NAP.

I just feel like we can get a lot further on the topic of morality if we stop lying about it and deal with the brute facts head on. We don't need to play with smoke and mirrors and throw in things like the NAP which have nothing to do with morality.

The nonaggression principle is also dependent on property rights, since what aggression is depends on what our (property) rights are. If you hit me, it is aggression because I have a property right in my body. If I take from you the apple you possess, this is trespass — aggression — only because you own the apple. One cannot identify an act of aggression without implicitly assigning a corresponding property right to the victim.
—Stephen Kinsella

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect. —Mark Twain
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,922
Points 79,590
Autolykos replied on Sat, Sep 29 2012 8:54 AM

gocrew:
It's not aggression, it's an act of saving the other person. Use the action axiom, means and ends. The end was to save the other person from getting hit. The means was to push him out of the way. When you say it's legitimate for the other person to forgive, that makes it seem like they can choose not to forgive and would then be entitled to damages. That wouldn't be the case.

I think saving another person can involve aggression. With all due respect, I think talking about means and ends is beside the point. So yes, I think the person pushed could legitimately choose not to forgive and would then be entitled to damages. However, I think the damages would be very minor, as the direct retaliation would simply involve pushing the original pusher with approximately the same amount of force. I also think it's extremely unlikely that the person pushed would not forgive.

The keyboard is mightier than the gun.

Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.

Voluntaryism Forum

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 814
Points 16,290

I can't think of anything off the top of my head that is absolute.

That said, the point is that the NAP is the best that has been offered, especially compared to "the virtue of selfishness" or even predominantly "analyzing" cost/benefit.

I'm sure even Rothbard would push an agent of the state out of the way if it prevented a murder. : )

Good question from the OP though: )

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 985
Points 21,180
hashem replied on Sat, Sep 29 2012 9:16 AM

No, bad question from the OP. Blatant and shameless conflation of morals with social norms. The NAP has nothing to do with morals. Don't encourage ignorance and stagnation on such an important topic by congratulating misleading posts.

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect. —Mark Twain
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,922
Points 79,590
Autolykos replied on Sat, Sep 29 2012 10:26 AM

Hashem, what definition of the noun "moral" are you using?

The keyboard is mightier than the gun.

Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.

Voluntaryism Forum

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 132
Points 1,890
Wesker1982 replied on Sat, Sep 29 2012 10:55 AM

You could physically stop somebody from eating a muffin. They clearly desire to eat the muffin. But then you physically stop them. At first, they are very angry, the action was without their consent. Then they learn that it was a poisonous muffin. So was your action unjustified aggression? It entirely depends. If upon learning that the food is poisoned, the person had really wanted you to physically stop them, then it is not a violation of the NAP. 

It is possible that they would still find your action non-consensual, but situations like this and preventing someone from getting hit by a bus are judgment calls that have to be made by individual  people. As a follower of the NAP I am thinking "ok there is a chance I am violating the NAP but I *probably* am not. So I will save this persons life and take my chances that I am wrong." 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,679
Points 45,110
gotlucky replied on Sat, Sep 29 2012 10:56 AM

@gocrew

I'm not sure what definition of aggression you are using. The standard libertarian definition is "the initiation of violence or the threat thereof". Some people choose to use the word coercion instead of violence, so that it reads "the initiation of coercion or the threat thereof". Regardless, a shove is a physical act, and if you shove someone without their consent, then you have initiated violence against them. Your intent is irrelevant to the matter of whether the act was aggressive or not. Intending to save the person in front of the bus does not change the fact that you have initiated violence or force or coercion against him.

As Autolykos pointed out earlier, and I expanded a little on it, these people who are saved would most likely forgive their savior for that act of aggression. Forgiveness is a signal that the victim does not consider the action done to have been criminal (or that it ought to be punished less severely). It is not something that must necessarily be decided upon beforehand, and that's one of the great things about forgiveness. It allows for people to demonstrate after the fact that an action should not be viewed as aggressive.

Besides, what if the person wanted to get hit by the bus? Well, that is an act of aggression against the owner/driver of the bus. It might even be considered aggressive by the person who owns the road. After all, does Burger King want people killing themselves or purposely injuring themselves in their restaurant? They want a nice (quite subjective) atmosphere for their patrons. It's the same with malls and roads. Just as BK or malls or whatever would prohibit fighting on their property, they would probably prohibit suicide on their property too. So if the person who tried to kill himself by using the bus tries to sue for damages, then he is also liable for his aggression against the bus owner.

And also, what if he didn't want to kill himself? What if he's just a jerk who wants to sue someone for saving his life? Well, as I pointed out earlier, the costs of a lawsuit would probably exceed the restitution for the crime itself. That and he would have to actually catch the person and know who it was in order to know who to sue. It's just so impractical. Who is going to step in to help restrain the person who saved the "victim"? Are people really going to help stop him? Most people would probably be disgusted at the jerk and refuse to help him catch the "criminal" who saved him.

Even if this action is considered aggressive, you have to consider that in a decentralized society, that doesn't mean that people are going to be punished for it. It's just so unlikely.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 985
Points 21,180
hashem replied on Sat, Sep 29 2012 11:12 AM

My whole point is that my definition is irrelevant. Your definition is irrelevant. The actual words he chose, "morality", or (immoral), or (moral) are utterly irrelevant. What's relevant is what the OP means by invoking the word "morality". What matters is that the OP conveys in no uncertain terms what he is talking about under the label "morality" or (moral), or else, by definition, he's not talking about anything particular and the resulting thread will be a circle jerk of ignorance—just like the free will threads.

He could call it the spaghetti monster and that wouldn't change anything. Until he defines his terms, people have no clue what he means, so the thread is a hairball of projected ignorance and misunderstandings that will get us nowhere in regards to the highly important topic of morality.

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect. —Mark Twain
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 203
Points 5,505
TronCat replied on Sat, Sep 29 2012 1:06 PM

Just so everyone in here knows, that quote in the OP is not actually mine. 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 985
Points 21,180
hashem replied on Sat, Sep 29 2012 1:15 PM

Then the answer to the OP is clear:

There is no answer, because the question is asking nothing. Since "morality" is explicitly undefined, then it is asking, by definition, about nothing in particular. The question is no more comprehensible than, "Is it moral spaghetti monster to push someone out of the way of a bus, even though pushing someone against their will or without their express consent is a violation of the NAP?"

The problem is that people tend to THINK they know something about morality, and they assume that other people both know and believe the same theory. So the OP invokes "morality", aka "the spaghetti monster" and the entire result is utterly meaningless, doing no justice to such an important topic as morality.

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect. —Mark Twain
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 203
Points 5,505
TronCat replied on Sat, Sep 29 2012 1:18 PM

Okay, so pretend the word morality is not in the OP. Thoughts? 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 985
Points 21,180
hashem replied on Sat, Sep 29 2012 1:23 PM

TronCat:
Okay, so pretend the word morality is not in the OP. Thoughts?

Sure, let's see what happens...

TronCat:
The view of "morality" according to the NAP:

"I push someone out of the way of a bus to save their life = aggressive force (immoral)."

"Someone pushes me off their boat and into the water, drowning me = defense of property (moral). My death was the cause of nature. The person who pushed me into the water was just exercising control over his property."

 

What do you think of that?

AKA

TronCat:
The view of according to the NAP:

"I push someone out of the way of a bus to save their life = aggressive force."

"Someone pushes me off their boat and into the water, drowning me = defense of property. My death was the cause of nature. The person who pushed me into the water was just exercising control over his property."

What do you think of that?

What??? How does removing the term morality get us anywhere? Now the OP is even less coherent...

As an aside, my response stands. That the NAP has nothing to do with morality. It is a positive social norm about rules for property. It is always, necessarily a violation of the NAP to aggress against the person or property of another person. This says NOTHING about whether such action is evil or righteous. It just says whether or not an action can be classified as a violation of property.

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect. —Mark Twain
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 203
Points 5,505
TronCat replied on Sat, Sep 29 2012 1:31 PM

I was kind of looking for what you would do in each situation, particularly the former. 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,922
Points 79,590
Autolykos replied on Mon, Oct 1 2012 10:40 AM

hashem:
My whole point is that my definition is irrelevant. Your definition is irrelevant. The actual words he chose, "morality", or (immoral), or (moral) are utterly irrelevant. What's relevant is what the OP means by invoking the word "morality". What matters is that the OP conveys in no uncertain terms what he is talking about under the label "morality" or (moral), or else, by definition, he's not talking about anything particular and the resulting thread will be a circle jerk of ignorance—just like the free will threads.

He could call it the spaghetti monster and that wouldn't change anything. Until he defines his terms, people have no clue what he means, so the thread is a hairball of projected ignorance and misunderstandings that will get us nowhere in regards to the highly important topic of morality.

I agree that what's relevant is what the OP means by invoking the word "morality". But when in doubt about the intended meaning of a word, I assume the traditional meaning of it is the intended one.

I personally consider the non-aggression principle to be a moral principle - that is, a principle of morality. By "morality" I mean "a system of deciding whether to employ or support coercion against something". I think that's actually close to the traditional definition of "morality", but it makes explicit what the traditional definition seems to keep as implicit.

The keyboard is mightier than the gun.

Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.

Voluntaryism Forum

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Mon, Oct 1 2012 1:51 PM
 
 

Autolykos:

I personally consider the non-aggression principle to be a moral principle - that is, a principle of morality. By "morality" I mean "a system of deciding whether to employ or support coercion against something". I think that's actually close to the traditional definition of "morality", but it makes explicit what the traditional definition seems to keep as implicit.

This has been my view as well.

 
Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 985
Points 21,180
hashem replied on Mon, Oct 1 2012 2:51 PM

How about this definition for immoral?

'characteristic of behavior that is felt to deserve punishment'

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect. —Mark Twain
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Mon, Oct 1 2012 4:59 PM
 
 

hashem:

How about this definition for immoral?

'characteristic of behavior that is felt to deserve punishment'

It's an endorsement of moral relativism; it relies on feelings as its standard.

The propertarian ethic of immorality is much stronger as it relies on objective facts, not feelings, for judgments of immorality. The standard of invasion is an objectively determinable standard.

 
Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,679
Points 45,110

I don't understand what is wrong with the standard defition?

 

Adjective

moral (comparative more moralsuperlative most moral)

  1. Of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behaviour, especially for teaching right behaviour.
    moral judgmentsmoral poem
  2. Conforming to a standard of right behaviour; sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment.
    moral obligation
  3. Capable of right and wrong action.
    moral agent
  4. Probable but not proved.
    moral certainty
  5. Positively affecting the mind, confidence, or will.
    moral victorymoral support

Some people consider aggression to be immoral (libertarians). Others consider aggression to be moral under certain conditions - ends justify the means. Redefining morality to deal with the realm of violence seems odd, and not only that, but it completely limits people's beliefs about actions that are nonviolent but can have a moral value. For example, some people consider lying to always be wrong, others might consider it to be wrong only under certain conditions. But if you just redefine moral/immoral to dealing with actions that deserve punishment, or define it like Anenome, you completely cut out entire thoughts from being rendered in English.

Instead of redefining moral/immoral, just talk about what actions ought to be considered right/wrong. But excluding some actions entirely from the discussion limits language, discussion, and understanding.

For the record, I support the NAP because I consider aggression to be immoral. I also consider other actions to be immoral too, but as Rothbard pointed out, libertarianism is not about defining a personal ethic but about defining a political ethic.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Mon, Oct 1 2012 6:47 PM

I assumed we were talking about a political ethic, about how to define malum in se. I don't support the injection of any personal ethic, which is why a propertarian ethic provides a proper basis for a political ethic, because it's based on facts and reality rather than any subjective ethical system derived from past religions.

Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 35
Page 1 of 2 (53 items) 1 2 Next > | RSS