• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Is the Non-Aggression Principle Is a Flawed Moral Position?

Binary_Digit said:
What if it was a million people? Is there any number that's so high it actually becomes unethical to not save them in spite of the consequence?
Click to expand...

There is no such number.

Aggression is wrong.
 
csbrown28 said:
So you would sacrifice 10? 100? 1000? 10,000? people so you didn't have to make a decision that caused the death of just one person to save a much larger number of people?

Time to re-evaluate your morals....Clearly they are broken.
Click to expand...

So the five people are somehow special because they are more numerous? So special, in fact, that I have a moral obligation to murder a man just to save them?

I don't necessarily agree with him on this, but it definitely isn't as black & white as you would like us to think.
 
TeleKat said:
So the five people are somehow special because they are more numerous? So special, in fact, that I have a moral obligation to murder a man just to save them?

I don't necessarily agree with him on this, but it definitely isn't as black & white as you would like us to think.
Click to expand...

The first thing I would ask is, do things change if it's one life for 10,000? If the answer is yes, then count back to the point where that decision changes and let me know what it is.

The answer isn't simple, but all other things being equal most people agree (literally as this question has been studied) that saving a net 4 lives is the right thing to do.

Its also a choice that could easily be made different depending on, as I said in another post, information.....

Let me tell you what I said the first time I had heard this question posed to me.....

I said all other things being equal, then it made sense to save a net 4 lives......Then I proceeded to ask more about the men and if any other information was known. I was told no there was nothing else I knew about the men.

The problem as I said in another post is one of information.....Because as we know, all other things are rarely equal.

Let's say I had pulled the lever and found out that the 5 men were a work detail from a local prison serving life sentences for murder and the one man was just an employee. A good family man with 5 kids and a wife.

Was what I did immoral? Well in light of new information it's easy to judge what i did in that light, but the morality of my action should be judged in the light of information I had at the time. It is possible for an action taken to be moral, but immoral given better information. Now we can argue the nuances of what I should have known. In other words, judging an im/moral act and the person that did it should judged separately. This is why, I suspect, you are hesitant. Because you know that society will judge your actions in light of information that comes available after the fact, whereas you might be more willing to act if you know society knowingly embraced the idea of information known at the time based on societies dedication to study and understand morality.


Some scenarios that might have change our decision to pull the lever.

What if the 5 were old men and the one was a baby?

What if the 5 were middle aged men and the one was a man who was on the cusp of curing virtually all disease?

What if the 5 were attempting to commit suicide together and the one wanted to live?

What if the one thought the train was coming his way and he wanted to die and the five wanted to live?

The point as I keep reiterating is that morality is a whole lot harder than some rules written down. Most people want their morality served up to them in simple easy to digest morsels so they don't have to think beyond those ideas. Morality to them is 10 rules written in the bible, while others believe that you have to read the bible cover to cover. Others believe that the NAP is a good guide to morality, while you say the NAP is a good start, but you have to define it in context. Judging rules in context just means employing your own intuition. All I'm arguing is, educate your intuition.

Morality is something that we should all dedicate and challenge ourselves to. Morality cannot be derived from a few commandments or a few paragraphs and then forgotten about until it's time to deploy it, because the reality is that for many of the moral decisions we make the guidelines of NAP, utilitarianism, Kant's morality all of them aren't complete. As long as new information is available, morality should evolve based on that information.
 
JayDubya said:
There is no such number.

Aggression is wrong.
Click to expand...

This is exactly the kind of absolute morality that I'm talking about.

This kind of thinking prevents the person deploying it from having to give any thought. Morality based on a single value, non-aggression in this case, trumps every other value and consideration. Everything is black and white so the person that believes in this idea (again, non-aggression) can appeal to a set of clearly defined rules written down in a book or on paper so you can justify your actions. This is the kind of one dimensional thinking that causes unnecessary suffering. Though I'm not accusing Jay of deliberate malice, just stubborn ignorance.

Would Jay push a person violently to save them from being hit by a car?

I wonder?

If so, is that not aggression or will Jay appeal to intuition and common sense here? How violent would Jay be willing to get in order to save a life? What if the push to prevent them from being hit by a car was into an 8ft deep hole?

Morality isn't easy and it shouldn't be deployed using absolutes.
 
csbrown28 said:
Would Jay push a person violently to save them from being hit by a car?
Click to expand...

That does not violate the NAP, for they are reacting to (negligent) force, the car. Force is only ever justified in reaction/retaliation.
 
Lachean said:
That does not violate the NAP, for they are reacting to (negligent) force, the car. Force is only ever justified in reaction/retaliation.
Click to expand...

You say the car was negligent, but what if it was the person who was negligent and wasn't paying attention?

Would it matter if the person put themselves in harms way on purpose?
 
csbrown28 said:
You say the car was negligent, but what if it was the person who was negligent and wasn't paying attention?

Would it matter if the person put themselves in harms way on purpose?
Click to expand...

You're essentially asking if forcefully preventing a suicide violates the NAP are you not?
 
How do you prevent others from obtaining sufficient leverage to coerce you, then taking advantage of your nonaggression for their own benefit?
 
csbrown28 said:
This is exactly the kind of absolute morality that I'm talking about.

This kind of thinking prevents the person deploying it from having to give any thought. Morality based on a single value, non-aggression in this case, trumps every other value and consideration. Everything is black and white so the person that believes in this idea (again, non-aggression) can appeal to a set of clearly defined rules written down in a book or on paper so you can justify your actions. This is the kind of one dimensional thinking that causes unnecessary suffering. Though I'm not accusing Jay of deliberate malice, just stubborn ignorance.

Would Jay push a person violently to save them from being hit by a car?
Click to expand...

Never needed to push anyone, as that would logically get myself hit. I do recall that I have pulled folks out of the street so as to avoid an oncoming car. Hardly aggression, though. If the car hit them, that would be aggressive force, potentially lethal force.
 
Lachean said:
You're essentially asking if forcefully preventing a suicide violates the NAP are you not?
Click to expand...

I asked two questions, but I'll rephrase....

If a person walks in front of a car would you initiate force against them to save them?

In your response you assumed that the car was the negligent party, but that is not the only possibility......

Possibilities are (but perhaps not limited too),

1. The car is negligent as you said.

2. The person is negligent as they did not cross in cross walk and aren't paying attention

3. The person is negligent as they walk in front of the car on purpose and are in fact the party that is aggressing.

In each of these scenario's you clearly have the opportunity to save the person.....What do you do?

What would a person who believes the NAP is a solid foundation of ethics?


Now here is what I've been arguing.....

It is possible from the observer's point of view that all three of these possibilities are indistinguishable from one another.

If it were me I would do the moral calculus and decide that saving the person to prevent suffering to the person about to be hit, the person about to hit the pedestrian and all of the friends and family that know both parties. My aggression, regardless of either parties intention (the driver and the pedestrian) are justified, imo.
 
csbrown28 said:
The first thing I would ask is, do things change if it's one life for 10,000?
Click to expand...

If the universe were to cease to exist if I didn't divert the trolley to kill that guy, I wouldn't kill that guy.
 
csbrown28 said:
The first thing I would ask is, do things change if it's one life for 10,000? If the answer is yes, then count back to the point where that decision changes and let me know what it is.

The answer isn't simple, but all other things being equal most people agree (literally as this question has been studied) that saving a net 4 lives is the right thing to do.

Its also a choice that could easily be made different depending on, as I said in another post, information.....

Let me tell you what I said the first time I had heard this question posed to me.....

I said all other things being equal, then it made sense to save a net 4 lives......Then I proceeded to ask more about the men and if any other information was known. I was told no there was nothing else I knew about the men.

The problem as I said in another post is one of information.....Because as we know, all other things are rarely equal.

Let's say I had pulled the lever and found out that the 5 men were a work detail from a local prison serving life sentences for murder and the one man was just an employee. A good family man with 5 kids and a wife.

Was what I did immoral? Well in light of new information it's easy to judge what i did in that light, but the morality of my action should be judged in the light of information I had at the time. It is possible for an action taken to be moral, but immoral given better information. Now we can argue the nuances of what I should have known. In other words, judging an im/moral act and the person that did it should judged separately. This is why, I suspect, you are hesitant. Because you know that society will judge your actions in light of information that comes available after the fact, whereas you might be more willing to act if you know society knowingly embraced the idea of information known at the time based on societies dedication to study and understand morality.


Some scenarios that might have change our decision to pull the lever.

What if the 5 were old men and the one was a baby?

What if the 5 were middle aged men and the one was a man who was on the cusp of curing virtually all disease?

What if the 5 were attempting to commit suicide together and the one wanted to live?

What if the one thought the train was coming his way and he wanted to die and the five wanted to live?

The point as I keep reiterating is that morality is a whole lot harder than some rules written down. Most people want their morality served up to them in simple easy to digest morsels so they don't have to think beyond those ideas. Morality to them is 10 rules written in the bible, while others believe that you have to read the bible cover to cover. Others believe that the NAP is a good guide to morality, while you say the NAP is a good start, but you have to define it in context. Judging rules in context just means employing your own intuition. All I'm arguing is, educate your intuition.

Morality is something that we should all dedicate and challenge ourselves to. Morality cannot be derived from a few commandments or a few paragraphs and then forgotten about until it's time to deploy it, because the reality is that for many of the moral decisions we make the guidelines of NAP, utilitarianism, Kant's morality all of them aren't complete. As long as new information is available, morality should evolve based on that information.
Click to expand...

You have not said a single thing I disagree with. Would you agree that the NAP is a sufficient guiding principle to apply loosely along with your intuition and situational context?
 
JayDubya said:
Never needed to push anyone, as that would logically get myself hit. I do recall that I have pulled folks out of the street so as to avoid an oncoming car. Hardly aggression, though. If the car hit them, that would be aggressive force, potentially lethal force.
Click to expand...

Actually, it's not logical that you'd be hit in all instances, but take a look at my last post....
 
TeleKat said:
You have not said a single thing I disagree with. Would you agree that the NAP is a sufficient guiding principle to apply loosely along with your intuition and situational context?
Click to expand...

I think the NAP values non-aggression which I think is an excellent principle, all other things being equal, but as I said, all other things are not always equal. Context requires that the person judging a given situation do some kind of "moral calculus". The better informed people are the better their decisions.

Personally I think that NAP isn't a good foundation for ethics as you need information before you can deploy it in a way that it offers the best possible outcome. I think there are other fundamental moral values that I think can be placed "below", that is, as a foundation beneath NAP.
 
to me some of you got out the reservation .

I believe first you have to talk about what is in the constitution.....rights and privileges.

rights being negative law, and not contingent on laws made by man..........meaning I don't need law to exercise those rights, I do them freely, and government is instituted for the purpose to secure those rights

privileges being positive law [made by government], and contingent on laws made by man, meaning if I want the privilege, I must do what the laws states in order to get the privilege.

when a person violates rights of another person, or threatens the health of the public....force.... physical or force of law can be applied to that person.

when a person has not violated the rights of a person, nor threaten the health and safety of the public, ...meaning there is no victim....then it is a form of aggression for a person to use force, OR law on a citizen, ...............to prohibit or force the citizen to preform an action.
 
JayDubya said:
If the universe were to cease to exist if I didn't divert the trolley to kill that guy, I wouldn't kill that guy.
Click to expand...

Come on Jay....Why the need to go to such extremes?

So between 0 and the entire universe, is there any number of people you'd be willing to kill to save others given the scenario's that you've already been offered?

Let's have some fun... Maybe some of you are old enough to remember the movie "Spy's like us"? I saw it in the theater, It was pretty funny when I was young....

Spies Like Us (1985) - IMDb

In the movie Dan Aykroyd and Chevy chase are bungling CIA agents sent as decoys (though they don't know that) to lunch a Soviet ICBM, but actually end up completing their mission, they infiltrate the Soviet Union and complete their mission to launch the missile, only after they launch it do they realize that it's aimed at the US. In the movie they reprogram the computer to alter the trajectory of the ICBM back into space after a missile defense system fails to destroy the warhead.

Now lets say you Jay show up right after the launch, you are the only one capable of reprograming the warhead remotely (let's say, unlike the move that the CIA guys only knew how to launch not reprogram), but after a short inspection of the launch station you realize that the flight is to a point that all it's fuel has been spent and at this point the warhead is gliding into it's target via GPS tracking. This means you can't divert the warhead more than a few hundred miles. The target is St Louis so there is no ocean to guide it into and you can't reach the Great Lakes. You can reprogram it to miss the heavily populated city, but no matter where it lands some loss of life is certain.

What do you do?

Is what you decide to do consistent with your strict interpretation of NAP?
 
Last edited:
csbrown28 said:
Come on Jay....Why the need to go to such extremes?

So between 0 and the entire universe, is there any number of people you'd be willing to kill to save others given the scenario's that you've already been offered?

Let's have some fun... Maybe some of you are old enough to remember the movie "Spy's like us"? I saw it in the theater, It was pretty funny when I was young....

Spies Like Us (1985) - IMDb

In the movie Dan Aykroyd and Chevy chase are bungling CIA agents sent as decoys, but actually end up completing their mission, they infiltrate Russia on orders and launche a mobile Russian ICBM, only after they launch it do they realize that it's aimed at the US. They reprogram the computer to alter the trajectory of the ICBM...

Now lets say you Jay show up right after the launch, you are the only one capable of reprograming the warhead remotely (let's say, unlike the move that the CIA guys only knew how to launch not reprogram), but after a short inspection of the lauch station you realize that the flight is to a point that all it's fuel has been spent and at this point the warhead is gliding into it's target via GPS tracking. This means you can't divert the warhead more than a few hundred miles. The target is St Louis so there is no ocean to guide it into and you can't reach the Great Lakes. You can reprogram it to miss the heavily populated city, but no matter where it lands some loss of life is certain.

What do you do?

Is what you decide to do consistent with your strict interpretation of NAP?
Click to expand...

The only reason he would be there is aggression (forcing a country to use weapons). Also, the only reason he would have the know-how is aggression (training to launch and program weapons).
Considering each of those are against his values, his being on scene with sufficient knowledge is unlikely.
 
ernst barkmann said:
to me some of you got out the reservation .

I believe first you have to talk about what is in the constitution.....rights and privileges.

rights being negative law, and not contingent on laws made by man..........meaning I don't need law to exercise those rights, I do them freely, and government is instituted for the purpose to secure those rights

privileges being positive law [made by government], and contingent on laws made by man, meaning if I want the privilege, I must do what the laws states in order to get the privilege.

when a person violates rights of another person, or threatens the health of the public....force.... physical or force of law can be applied to that person.

when a person has not violated the rights of a person, nor threaten the health and safety of the public, ...meaning there is no victim....then it is a form of aggression for a person to use force, OR law on a citizen, ...............to prohibit or force the citizen to preform an action.
Click to expand...

I can't say that I followed that 100%. I understand the concept of negative and positive rights, but I'm not certain that the Constitution is the foundation of a system of ethics and morality. After all the Constitution is supposed to be capable of change. And it has been changed as new ideas of morality have evolved.

So while I recognize that the Constitution has it's place, it is also "above" the foundation of morals and ethics, though it may contain elements included in the foundation of morals and ethics.
 
There is no absolute principle, no matter how noble and good, that someone can't find exceptions or conundrums for it.



Especially if their goal is mockery.
 
trollarc said:
The only reason he would be there is aggression (forcing a country to use weapons). Also, the only reason he would have the know-how is aggression (training to launch and program weapons).
Considering each of those are against his values, his being on scene with sufficient knowledge is unlikely.
Click to expand...

Again, we're back to the problem of information....Maybe you're right, or maybe there is another explanation you hadn't thought of.

Perhaps he is just a programmer that designs airborne systems that deliver humanitarian aid into poor countries and his system was adapted later to guide nukes. Given the flight time of a nuke it's not impossible that he might be the only one in a place to help. Perhaps the system can be reprogrammed via the mobile launchers limited radio range and Jay just happens to be the only one with knowledge in range.

The point here is not to scrutinize the scenarios that I give to find the flaws to avoid answering the question, the real question is, is there the possibility that you would have to sacrifice a certain number of people to save a greater number and not have aggressed against anyone in the circumstances that led up to that scenario? Would you be justified in non-action even if that non action leads to the death of a much greater number of people?
 
Goshin said:
There is no absolute principle, no matter how noble and good, that someone can't find exceptions or conundrums for it.



Especially if their goal is mockery.
Click to expand...

Are you accusing me of mocking NAP?
 
csbrown28 said:
Again, we're back to the problem of information....Maybe you're right, or maybe there is another explanation you hadn't thought of.

Perhaps he is just a programmer that designs airborne systems that deliver humanitarian aid into poor countries and his system was adapted later to guide nukes. Given the flight time of a nuke it's not impossible that he might be the only one in a place to help. Perhaps the system can be reprogrammed via the mobile launchers limited radio range and Jay just happens to be the only one with knowledge in range.

The point here is not to scrutinize the scenarios that I give to find the flaws to avoid answering the question, the real question is, is there the possibility that you would have to sacrifice a certain number of people to save a greater number and not have aggressed against anyone in the circumstances that led up to that scenario? Would you be justified in non-action even if that non action leads to the death of a much greater number of people?
Click to expand...

So a bunch of people will die due to heart disease, and you are the president. Do you go on TV and tell people not to eat fast food and to exercise?
Keep in mind your answer is irrelevant because this person has nothing to do with your situation, personality, or aptitude.
 
csbrown28 said:
I can't say that I followed that 100%. I understand the concept of negative and positive rights, but I'm not certain that the Constitution is the foundation of a system of ethics and morality. After all the Constitution is supposed to be capable of change. And it has been changed as new ideas of morality have evolved.

So while I recognize that the Constitution has it's place, it is also "above" the foundation of morals and ethics, though it may contain elements included in the foundation of morals and ethics.
Click to expand...


government is not moral....it if was it could dictate ,smoking, drinking, porn, among others things.

the constitution embodies the founding principles of America, which are in the declaration of independence.

the constitution creates FEDERALISM, and with the bill of rights, it places restrictions on the federal government.
 
trollarc said:
So a bunch of people will die due to heart disease, and you are the president. Do you go on TV and tell people not to eat fast food and to exercise?
Keep in mind your answer is irrelevant because this person has nothing to do with your situation, personality, or aptitude.
Click to expand...


I'd like to ask you for a better example. There are acute causes of death and there are gradual causes of death that can have other causes and contributing factors. It's pretty hard to say that eating fast food is the only reason that someone got heart disease. But if it could be shown that fast food could be linked directly to heart disease, like asbestos is linked to lung cancer, then I would advocate eliminating fast food the same way we have eliminated asbestos.

But in an genuine attempt to answer the question under the auspices under which I think you've asked it, I would simply say that habits that cause some people measurable harm over long periods of time should be acknowledged. These kinds of problems are societal and have very real social and economic consequences and as such changes in culture are often the best solution. In some cases (like seatbelts) a law may be necessary, in others public awareness campaigns and certain positive perks (like at work I save on my health insurance if I don't smoke) are good ideas.

I'm not sure what my being President has to do with anything, you'll need to explain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom