• 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?

csbrown28

csbrown28

DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
3,102
Reaction score
1,604
Location
NW Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
TeleKat said:
This would be a start.

NAP: The Non-Aggression Principle
Click to expand...

I'm often confused by NAP.....

For those that adhere to NAP, would you agree that the purpose of ethics is to make this world a better place by the results of the actions taken.

With that I ask a simple question....

Is property always more valuable than life?

In other words if I had to take, occupy, destroy, move or use your property without your permission to save 1 or many lives, would that be considered using force against you and would you be justified in using force against me to prevent me from taking, occupying, destroying, moving or using your property without your permission? If I asked and you said no, would that make any difference?

Now I was vague on purpose because I get the feeling, perhaps mistakenly (I invite correction/ clarification on all points), that consequences don't matter, so if it's 1 person or a thousand, whether it's death or minor inconvenience facing the would-be aggressor, it makes no difference.

The conclusion that I come to when considering the NAP, is that it's a moral/ ethical system with the goal of better outcomes for the individual, sometimes at the cost of the health, safety, and well-being of other individuals and society at large.
 
The NAP does not say property is more valuable than life. Dreaming up some crazy situation that has pretty much no real basis in reality and absolutely no background to it does not change that. It's intellectually dishonest and it mocks the NAP as a legitimate moral principle.

What item is needed to save these "thousands of people"? Can it be found elsewhere? Are there alternatives? Can the person who owns the item in question be persuaded? Can he/she be bribed? Can it be bought? Loaned? Is there a way to duplicate it? These are all questions that need to be asked. Real-life situations are not as simple and black/white as you want them to be.
 
TeleKat said:
The NAP does not say property is more valuable than life. Dreaming up some crazy situation that has pretty much no real basis in reality and absolutely no background to it does not change that. It's intellectually dishonest and it mocks the NAP as a legitimate moral principle.

What item is needed to save these "thousands of people"? Can it be found elsewhere? Are there alternatives? Can the person who owns the item in question be persuaded? Can he/she be bribed? Can it be bought? Loaned? Is there a way to duplicate it? These are all questions that need to be asked. Real-life situations are not as simple and black/white as you want them to be.
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to be snarky or disprove NAP with the OP....It was a legitimate question. I admit that I'm somewhat ignorant of NAP and how it's applied. As the discussion goes on I will test NAP (or my understanding of it) with questions and look forward to hearing the answers.

Now in all fairness, your response is what I was trying to establish, so your saying that the application of NAP context does matter?
 
csbrown28 said:
I'm often confused by NAP.....

For those that adhere to NAP, would you agree that the purpose of ethics is to make this world a better place by the results of the actions taken.

With that I ask a simple question....

Is property always more valuable than life?

In other words if I had to take, occupy, destroy, move or use your property without your permission to save 1 or many lives, would that be considered using force against you and would you be justified in using force against me to prevent me from takings, occupying, destroying, moving or using your property without your permission? If I asked and you said no, would that make any difference?

Now I was vague on purpose because I get the feeling, perhaps mistakenly (I invite correction/ clarification on all points), that consequences don't matter, so if it's 1 person or a thousand, whether it's death or minor inconvenience facing the would-be aggressor, it makes no difference.

The conclusion that I come to when considering the NAP, is that it's a moral/ ethical system with the goal of better outcomes for the individual, sometimes at the cost of the health, safety, and well-being of other individuals and society at large.
Click to expand...

Personally I would say that there is certainly an inborn propensity to non aggression that is almost certainly genetic, it is not a good principal to follow in many cases and is a prescription for chaos and war, if implemented by society.
 
csbrown28 said:
I'm not trying to be snarky or disprove NAP with the OP....It was a legitimate question. I admit that I'm somewhat ignorant of NAP and how it's applied. As the discussion goes on I will test NAP (or my understanding of it) with questions and look forward to hearing the answers.

Now in all fairness, your response is what I was trying to establish, so your saying that the application of NAP context does matter?
Click to expand...

Context always matters. There are always alternatives to force, which is something to bear in mind when discussing the NAP.
 
joG said:
Personally I would say that there is certainly an inborn propensity to non aggression that is almost certainly genetic, it is not a good principal to follow in many cases and is a prescription for chaos and war, if implemented by society.
Click to expand...

Let me get this straight. Upholding a moral philosophy that condemns the initiation of force will lead to war?
 
TeleKat said:
Let me get this straight. Upholding a moral philosophy that condemns the initiation of force will lead to war?
Click to expand...

And a general break down of social order. That is quite certain. All society depends on implied force.
 
TeleKat said:
Context always matters. There are always alternatives to force, which is something to bear in mind when discussing the NAP.
Click to expand...

Ok so some specific scenarios...

How about we start with a common and well known dilemma....

There is a runaway trolley barrelling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You do not have the ability to operate the lever in a way that would cause the trolley to derail without loss of life (for example, holding the lever in an intermediate position so that the trolley goes between the two sets of tracks, or pulling the lever after the front wheels pass the switch, but before the rear wheels do). You have two options: (1) Do nothing, and the trolley kills the five people on the main track. (2) Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person. Which is the correct choice?
Click to expand...

Now if you prefer there are a million ways to spin this problem and I can, if you insist put it into real world terms, but for the sake of ease, the problem metaphorically represents dilemmas in the real world.
--------------------------------

What if you owned a construction company, you are contractually obligated to finish a job and the last day to finish is today. You have just enough time if you work through the night. About 1/2 way through the day a child falls into a deep well and you find out has only hours to live. Assuming that your's is the only equipment that is available in time, do you finish the job or violate your contract to save the child?

Now, given your first response I'm going to assume that we can agree that the childs life is worth more than finishing the job (I hope). If the other party sued you for breach of contract, should the law make an exception given the circumstances?

-------------------------------

Does NAP prevent people from trying to save people who wish to end their lives?

------------------------------

How does NAP deal with pollution?

Acute effects from pollution are easy to identify and intuitive to solve, but what about less obvious cases, where cumulitive pollution causes serious problems, like fertilizer runoff into water supplies. I mean there's no way to show that a particular farmers fertilizer caused a problem, would to be just to make a rule preventing runoff from all farmers in the affected area?

------------------------------
 
csbrown28 said:
Ok so some specific scenarios...

How about we start with a common and well known dilemma....

Railroad dilemna
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I'm as hazy on the NAP as you are but I do think it's a bit unfair to expect an answer on a dilemma such as the railroad one when no moral code really has a satisfactory answer.
 
joG said:
And a general break down of social order. That is quite certain. All society depends on implied force.
Click to expand...

This is a fundamental truth that some choose to ignore. Humanity is nowhere near able as a whole to voluntarily regulate itself and no law or principal isn't compromised over time as people seek advantage. The promise of the NAP depends on adherence to the NAP which frankly isn't within human nature.

It's a utopian pipe dream
 
tacomancer said:
This is a fundamental truth that some choose to ignore. Humanity is nowhere near able as a whole to voluntarily regulate itself and no law or principal isn't compromised over time as people seek advantage. The promise of the NAP depends on adherence to the NAP which frankly isn't within human nature.

It's a utopian pipe dream
Click to expand...

That is about it.
 
Nilly said:
I'm as hazy on the NAP as you are but I do think it's a bit unfair to expect an answer on a dilemma such as the railroad one when no moral code really has a satisfactory answer.
Click to expand...

There isn't a perfect answer, but it can be argued there is a better answer.
 
joG said:
And a general break down of social order. That is quite certain. All society depends on implied force.
Click to expand...

Ok. So, in your opinion, violence is needed for society to function?
 
csbrown28 said:
Ok so some specific scenarios...

How about we start with a common and well known dilemma....



Now if you prefer there are a million ways to spin this problem and I can, if you insist put it into real world terms, but for the sake of ease, the problem metaphorically represents dilemmas in the real world.
--------------------------------

What if you owned a construction company, you are contractually obligated to finish a job and the last day to finish is today. You have just enough time if you work through the night. About 1/2 way through the day a child falls into a deep well and you find out has only hours to live. Assuming that your's is the only equipment that is available in time, do you finish the job or violate your contract to save the child?

Now, given your first response I'm going to assume that we can agree that the childs life is worth more than finishing the job (I hope). If the other party sued you for breach of contract, should the law make an exception given the circumstances?

-------------------------------

Does NAP prevent people from trying to save people who wish to end their lives?

------------------------------

How does NAP deal with pollution?

Acute effects from pollution are easy to identify and intuitive to solve, but what about less obvious cases, where cumulitive pollution causes serious problems, like fertilizer runoff into water supplies. I mean there's no way to show that a particular farmers fertilizer caused a problem, would to be just to make a rule preventing runoff from all farmers in the affected area?

------------------------------
Click to expand...
From what I'm seeing, NAP doesn't address any of those scenarios, nor does it attempt to. So it's the wrong tool for the job. If you're looking for a more all-encompassing moral philosophy, utilitarianism and Kantianism are two main ones. Utilitarianism says to save the five people even if one has to die (maximize the good, minimize the bad, all war decisions are based on this), and Kantianism says screw your contract and save the child (it would not be universally acceptable for people to always let others die in order to preserve their material goods.)
 
TeleKat said:
Ok. So, in your opinion, violence is needed for society to function?
Click to expand...

Of course. That is a well establishedfact in social science. In economics policing is a classical public good.
 
tacomancer said:
This is a fundamental truth that some choose to ignore. Humanity is nowhere near able as a whole to voluntarily regulate itself and no law or principal isn't compromised over time as people seek advantage. The promise of the NAP depends on adherence to the NAP which frankly isn't within human nature.

It's a utopian pipe dream
Click to expand...

There is really no such thing as an governmental principle that will be maintained. If your goal is to control the size of government over the long hail then you will fail. It's not a question of if the government will gain more power, but exactly how they will go about doing it. In the past it was more obvious when the government was abusing their citizens, but today the western governments abuse their people under the excuse that it is for the good of the people. Nothing has really changed in the old and the new, except that the government has gotten smarter at reaching the same ends.
 
joG said:
Personally I would say that there is certainly an inborn propensity to non aggression that is almost certainly genetic, it is not a good principal to follow in many cases and is a prescription for chaos and war, if implemented by society.
Click to expand...

Peace is war. war is peace. Same old nonsense as always.
 
csbrown28 said:
Ok so some specific scenarios...

How about we start with a common and well known dilemma....



Now if you prefer there are a million ways to spin this problem and I can, if you insist put it into real world terms, but for the sake of ease, the problem metaphorically represents dilemmas in the real world.
--------------------------------

What if you owned a construction company, you are contractually obligated to finish a job and the last day to finish is today. You have just enough time if you work through the night. About 1/2 way through the day a child falls into a deep well and you find out has only hours to live. Assuming that your's is the only equipment that is available in time, do you finish the job or violate your contract to save the child?

Now, given your first response I'm going to assume that we can agree that the childs life is worth more than finishing the job (I hope). If the other party sued you for breach of contract, should the law make an exception given the circumstances?

-------------------------------

Does NAP prevent people from trying to save people who wish to end their lives?

------------------------------

How does NAP deal with pollution?

Acute effects from pollution are easy to identify and intuitive to solve, but what about less obvious cases, where cumulitive pollution causes serious problems, like fertilizer runoff into water supplies. I mean there's no way to show that a particular farmers fertilizer caused a problem, would to be just to make a rule preventing runoff from all farmers in the affected area?

------------------------------
Click to expand...

Ok, if we're going to have an intelligent discussion about the NAP then you can't throw a bunch of weird situations at me and expect me to have the ultimate solution to all of them.

I'll answer the construction example, since that at least has some modicum of reality in it. Breaking contractual agreement does not initiate violent force against someone. It cannot be compared to punching someone in the face or taking their stuff. Besides, no one in their right mind would persecute you for delaying your job to save the life of a child.

Let me say something that might help you understand a bit better. The NAP is an absolute principle, but all moral codes must be taken into context. A moral code is there as a guiding principle, not something you have to follow 100% or the whole world will end. You can throw weird, crazy, highly unorthodox examples at me and watch me struggle to live up to your expectation of me having every solution to every moral dillema you could dream up. But that's counterproductive, isn't it? Your train situation, while cleverly thought up, has less than 1% chance of ever happening in your life. Using that example does not discount the NAP as a generally good guiding principle to follow in our daily lives. Don't hurt people, and don't take their stuff. Individual judgement and context is still necessary. It is necessary for every moral code man has ever thought up.
 
Henrin said:
Peace is war. war is peace. Same old nonsense as always.
Click to expand...

Put in those words it would seem so. Of course, no social scientist would ever do that. And Orwell would see through the trickery immediately.
 
Binary_Digit said:
From what I'm seeing, NAP doesn't address any of those scenarios, nor does it attempt to. So it's the wrong tool for the job. If you're looking for a more all-encompassing moral philosophy, utilitarianism and Kantianism are two main ones. Utilitarianism says to save the five people even if one has to die (maximize the good, minimize the bad, all war decisions are based on this), and Kantianism says screw your contract and save the child (it would not be universally acceptable for people to always let others die in order to preserve their material goods.)
Click to expand...

Certainly a person who prescribes to NAP has an ethical standpoint based on their belief that "No one may threaten or commit violence (‘aggress’) against another man’s person or property". All of these scenarios are ethical questions that directly or indirectly relate to the quote I just gave you.
 
joG said:
Put in those words it would seem so. Of course, no social scientist would ever do that. And Orwell would see through the trickery immediately.
Click to expand...

That was your argument though. Your argument was that the NAP principle which is essentially a principle built on peace would somehow lead to chaos and war. There is no real historical or logical basis for your comments at all.
 
csbrown28 said:
I'm often confused by NAP.....

For those that adhere to NAP, would you agree that the purpose of ethics is to make this world a better place by the results of the actions taken.

With that I ask a simple question....

Is property always more valuable than life?

In other words if I had to take, occupy, destroy, move or use your property without your permission to save 1 or many lives, would that be considered using force against you and would you be justified in using force against me to prevent me from taking, occupying, destroying, moving or using your property without your permission? If I asked and you said no, would that make any difference?

Now I was vague on purpose because I get the feeling, perhaps mistakenly (I invite correction/ clarification on all points), that consequences don't matter, so if it's 1 person or a thousand, whether it's death or minor inconvenience facing the would-be aggressor, it makes no difference.

The conclusion that I come to when considering the NAP, is that it's a moral/ ethical system with the goal of better outcomes for the individual, sometimes at the cost of the health, safety, and well-being of other individuals and society at large.
Click to expand...

I tend to think of the NAP as a good basis for the law, but then there is the law! Any of your hypothetical questions are,will be, or are currently being answered in the law.
 
csbrown28 said:
Certainly a person who prescribes to NAP has an ethical standpoint based on their belief that "No one may threaten or commit violence (‘aggress’) against another man’s person or property". All of these scenarios are ethical questions that directly or indirectly relate to the quote I just gave you.
Click to expand...
If you're faced with a decision to A.) Do nothing and let 5 people die or B.) pull a lever and save 5 people while letting one die, where is the aggression in that? That's not aggressive or violent at all, I think.
 
TeleKat said:
Context always matters. There are always alternatives to force, which is something to bear in mind when discussing the NAP.
Click to expand...

This is true. Sometimes the alternative is to allow those willing to use force to do anything they want to anybody. Including not defending yourself, your property, your spouse, your children, your neighbor, your community, targeted victims, your nation, etc. And is NAP a moral decision or immoral decision in such circumstances?
 
tacomancer said:
This is a fundamental truth that some choose to ignore. Humanity is nowhere near able as a whole to voluntarily regulate itself and no law or principal isn't compromised over time as people seek advantage. The promise of the NAP depends on adherence to the NAP which frankly isn't within human nature.

It's a utopian pipe dream
Click to expand...

No. The promise of the NAP does not depend on universal adherence to it, nor does any other moral code. Should you kill people because others do it? Steal because others do it? Just because there are people that don't follow your moral code does not mean it is not worth following.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom