Political Theory

Re: Questions regarding the Non Aggression Axiom, Consequentialism & Natural Law with regards to Anarchy

macsnafu — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 01:24:54 GMT

I agree that Tremblay is interesting to read, even if you don't reach the same conclusions he does.

As for the original question, there's always one thing you can do if there's a question of whether not a rights-violation has occurred: third-party arbitration. However, if you have a libertarian society (or an AC society) with a reasonably functioning legal system, most such issues should already be addressed, and only occasionally would a novel situation present itself that needs to be sorted out from scratch.

The market process is a discovery process, even when it comes to legal problems--we don't have to solve all possible situations beforehand, and probably can't even if we tried.

Re: Questions regarding the Non Aggression Axiom, Consequentialism & Natural Law with regards to Anarchy

Grant — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 02:35:14 GMT

JonBostwick:
Actions must be legitimate on their own merit.

How can an action be separated from the result of that action? If one performs an action which is known to always cause a certain event, how can that event be separated from the action itself? The event must always follow the action.

In much of mathematics and physics, causality is seen as an illusion. I'm curious as to why this observation doesn't seem to influence ethics (or at least the ethics that I read). I'd argue that dentological morals evolved because of the extreme difficulty in knowing all of the effects of an action, but they aren't necessarily valid for all scenarios.

Re: Questions regarding the Non Aggression Axiom, Consequentialism & Natural Law with regards to Anarchy

Inquisitor — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 18:55:29 GMT

I'm actually moving towards virtue ethics from deontology. I think contractarianism is also a separate form of ethics, as I can't see it stemming from any of the other groupings.

Re: Questions regarding the Non Aggression Axiom, Consequentialism & Natural Law with regards to Anarchy

Geoffrey Allan Plauché — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 18:30:27 GMT

loweleif:

1) Is a floodlight intense laser beam a contradiction of the NAP. Is so, is this a practical problem?

2) Was my reasoning in fact that of a consequentialist? (I personally do not justify the means by the ends.) Are they confusing the term? Or am I confusing my reasoning?

Deontology and consequentialism are actually not the only types of ethics. There is a third way that I prefer: virtue ethics. There is a burgeoning tradition of Aristotelian libertarianism that developts a theory of natural rights out of a neo-Aristotelian virtue ethics. See, for example, major works by Roderick Long, Douglas Rasmussen and Douglas Den Uyl, and Henry Veatch.

Re: Questions regarding the Non Aggression Axiom, Consequentialism & Natural Law with regards to Anarchy

Matthew Graybosch — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 16:44:38 GMT

ozzy43:
The condo owner walks out to where you are hanging on for dear life, says 'get off of my property.' What do you do?

Climb into his condo through the window, walk out the front door, and take the elevator down. If he objects, he can sue for restitution.

Re: Questions regarding the Non Aggression Axiom, Consequentialism & Natural Law with regards to Anarchy

A.L.Pruitt — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 00:07:34 GMT

JonBostwick:
Actions must be legitimate on their own merit.

Although I think intuitively understand this, could you please expand on this for me? By the term merit, do you mean we must judge the inherent nature of the action? Inherent right's and wrong's? And where do we get this from? The NAP?

Re: Questions regarding the Non Aggression Axiom, Consequentialism & Natural Law with regards to Anarchy

Dynamix — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 22:38:30 GMT

Physiocrat:

A quick warning to everyone about Mr Francois Tremblay. He is a former objectivist and retains that incredibly dogmatic disposition. Never, ever attempt to engage him in argument since you will waste your time. Any one who has argued with him on Strike the Root and Facebook will know this.

Physiocrat:

Just to clarify on Mr Tremblay he has some good ideas and is an interesting read. But just don't debate with him; you may aswell hit your head against the wall.

double post?

Re: Questions regarding the Non Aggression Axiom, Consequentialism & Natural Law with regards to Anarchy

Physiocrat — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 12:28:58 GMT

Just to clarify on Mr Tremblay he has some good ideas and is an interesting read. But just don't debate with him; you may aswell hit your head against the wall.

Re: Questions regarding the Non Aggression Axiom, Consequentialism & Natural Law with regards to Anarchy

Inquisitor — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 23:22:35 GMT

Actions must be legitimate on their own merit.
The State claims that ends justifies means when they rob us in the name of "society."

True. If the action involves robbery in the name of the 'greater good' it never will be just at all.

Re: Questions regarding the Non Aggression Axiom, Consequentialism & Natural Law with regards to Anarchy

A.L.Pruitt — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 22:34:47 GMT

Well thank you.

Inquisitor:

Loweleif: (I personally do not justify the means by the ends.)

Then by what do you justify them, if not the ends?

The answer above by JonBostwick is quite correct. However, I could say that "The ends do not justify illegitimate means". And then you may say well, what's illegitimate? Well, anything that contradicts the rights of self ownership. > NAP

Inquisitor:
I'm not a fan of Mr Tremblay. I think many people on this forum are far more knowledgeable than he is.

Perhaps. However the review on Strike-The-Root was fairly accurate, and the author doesn't necessarily make the idea's in the book suffer. He's pretty much written a basic summary of A-C thought, albeit with a slight/moderate David Friedman influence.

Re: Questions regarding the Non Aggression Axiom, Consequentialism & Natural Law with regards to Anarchy

Bostwick — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 22:06:44 GMT

Inquisitor:
Loweleif:
(I personally do not justify the means by the ends.)

Then by what do you justify them, if not the ends?

Actions must be legitimate on their own merit.

The State claims that ends justifies means when they rob us in the name of "society."

Re: Questions regarding the Non Aggression Axiom, Consequentialism & Natural Law with regards to Anarchy

Inquisitor — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 15:02:17 GMT

Loweleif:
(I personally do not justify the means by the ends.)

Then by what do you justify them, if not the ends?

Welcome to the forum by the way. I might work out a longer answer to some of your questions later, when I have a bit more time. I agree with Physiocrat, FWIW. I'm not a fan of Mr Tremblay. I think many people on this forum are far more knowledgeable than he is.

Re: Questions regarding the Non Aggression Axiom, Consequentialism & Natural Law with regards to Anarchy

Physiocrat — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 14:09:03 GMT

A quick warning to everyone about Mr Francois Tremblay. He is a former objectivist and retains that incredibly dogmatic disposition. Never, ever attempt to engage him in argument since you will waste your time. Any one who has argued with him on Strike the Root and Facebook will know this.

Re: Questions regarding the Non Aggression Axiom, Consequentialism & Natural Law with regards to Anarchy

A.L.Pruitt — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 08:24:32 GMT

Cheers.

Dynamix:
think you may have misunderstood me... "All action that violates another's person or property ,,,,) should be ceased (shouldn't be done)."... Whether or not the NAP lays moral groundwork for retaliatory action in the case of X is independent of the question of whether or not X is moral to begin with.

I did indeed misunderstand you. Earlier you stated "... question of what exactly constitutes an objective violation (independent of the opinions of the actor or acted-upon) reveals difficulty with the NAP's application." I'm terribly sorry, but this point slipped passed me. That nullifies my point really.
. I just realized something. (Although I'm sure it's been touched upon by Rand in other's with regards to emergency lifeboat situations.) The NAP is a universal ethic, and just because it's own believers may contradict it does not make it invalid or nonsense (after all we are humans not robots).
For if I were on a plane, and was asked to peacefully leave the premises of the plane, I would gladly go to court and compensate/take the punishment proportional to my resistance. Yet creator's of such scenario's demand that if I believe in such a principle that I must hold myself to it even in such extreme circumstances. But in actual fact I do! By being taken to court, the retaliatory action is taken over the other course of sure suicide. So the NAP is still fulfilled, and enforced. By holding the NAP I would not say this sprinkle's magical moral pixie dust with the result of world peace.

Dynamix:
My distinction between deontology and consequentialism might be a little hazy (others feel free to correct me here), but it seems to me that you're searching for the effect (damage) of a cause (light) before making a judgment. I'm not sure that this is consequentialism. Actually, in order to meet that criteria I think you'd have to take both the cause and effect into account and then judge the moral nature of the action relative to other, more pressing gains or losses (consequences). For example, I turned a mega-laser on to your house and burned a hole through it. "You can't just burn holes through people's houses! Wrong!" says the deontologist. "But he turned on the laser so that he could scare away the encroaching UFO army, who otherwise would have annihilated the whole city! So it was Right!" says the consequentialist.

Those were my sentiments exactly but I was unable to articulate it. Cheers. I really am not a fan of some consequentialist theories e.g utilitarianism. If my argument was indeed consequentialism (In fact one would have to tie down exactly what type of consequentialism it was) why I would feel like a zealous christian who blasphemed.

Dynamix:
I think that's a working example. Intent might also play into it. I..., effect.

I don't know enough about Deontology however intent would most likely fall in threat of violence.

Dynamix:
Please do! :)

I'll get back to you in 60 years.

Re: Questions regarding the Non Aggression Axiom, Consequentialism & Natural Law with regards to Anarchy

Dynamix — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 07:39:52 GMT

loweleif:
I'm glad you enjoyed it. I shall try. BTW, does the forum have a list of forum rules?

Yep - http://mises.com/forums/t/19.aspx

Well I wouldn't go as far to say that all interpersonal action that violates another person or property must be ceased as the NAP gives grounds for retaliatory action.

I think you may have misunderstood me. Essentially, what I meant was, "All action that violates another's person or property (i.e., that which is aggressive, i.e., that which is unethical, i.e., that which we shouldn't do) should be ceased (shouldn't be done)." To say that we shouldn't do what shouldn't be done isn't controversial. Whether or not the NAP lays moral groundwork for retaliatory action in the case of X is independent of the question of whether or not X is moral to begin with.

But here is the part that bothers me...the power of the beam is not so much the issue as the damage that it actually does. As has already been stated, there is a difference between a slap and a breaking one's arm, and the Rothbard's interpretation of the NAP allowed proportionate force to each. However, by examining the the amount of damage done, and saying one is a violation (mega-laser) and the other is not (floodlights) does this make me a consequentialist?

My distinction between deontology and consequentialism might be a little hazy (others feel free to correct me here), but it seems to me that you're searching for the effect (damage) of a cause (light) before making a judgment. I'm not sure that this is consequentialism. Actually, in order to meet that criteria I think you'd have to take both the cause and effect into account and then judge the moral nature of the action relative to other, more pressing gains or losses (consequences).

For example, I turned a mega-laser on to your house and burned a hole through it. "You can't just burn holes through people's houses! Wrong!" says the deontologist. "But he turned on the laser so that he could scare away the encroaching UFO army, who otherwise would have annihilated the whole city! So it was Right!" says the consequentialist.

I think that's a working example. Intent might also play into it. In the case of the slap and the broken arm, if one observes someone else intending to strike and break another's arm and sees it glance off instead (a miss, a "slap"), it's still understood what the intended effect was (a broken arm). Such an action might still be condemned as immoral by the deontologist by an understanding of the intentional, if not actual, effect.

[EDIT: Whether or not something as petty as an intended slap on the wrist is immoral if the acted-upon individual expressly prohibited it in advance...I don't know. Probably.]

Well although that skepticism may be grounded, I might just make it my pursuit to come up with or improve on the current objective ethical standard.

Please do! :)