In a previous thread, I defeated the universal application on the non-agression axiom with a counter-example like this:
You're at the beach and notice a child drowing out in the ocean. No one on the beach is a strong enough swimmer to save the child. However, one of the bystanders has a boat 20 feet away that could easily be used the save the child. However, the owner does not concent to the use of the boat.
In this scenario, it seems obvious that it is ok to use agression to take the boat and go save the child.
Thus, the non-agression axiom is defeated.
Now, allow me to the put the final nail in the coffin of this principle.
Imagine that your loved one is standing on the edge of a bridge. You can grab them by the arm or shirt to pull them back to safety but they have said not to. Obviously, if my wife/girlfriend/mom/dad/sister/friend/ect. were in hat situation and I could pull them back I would do so even though I was using agression against them.
I'm willing to bet you would to.
In the last thread, many hard-core anarchists said that they would just use agression and take the punishment. But by admitting this, they concede that non-agression is not a principle that they feel should be adhered to 100% of the time.
I think that it is time to put non-agression to a rest. Non-agression is false, but don't take that as an endorsement of using agressoion whenever you want. From here, the goal should be to elucidate when agression is ok in non-self-defense scenarios and when it is not. Whether or not he state is a form of non-self-defense agression that is permissible is certainly still debatable.
Maybe you should try an argument that isn't one giant appeal to emotion.
The example is an appeal to your intuition that it is ok to use force in the certain cases.
If you think that agression is ok in the examples, please explain why it is not a violation of the NAP.
No, it is never "ok"(I assume you mean morally right) to infringe on someone's property rights. The ends do not justify the means.
I fail to see how dreaming up scenarios where you would feel comfortable using force against someone undermines the NAP.
nibbler,
Then I assume you would just watch your loved one plummet to their death. If so, just say it.
Copperhead,
All philosophy suffers from this problem of competing intuitions. Are you a sceptic or do you believe we can have knowledge of ethical propositions?
Trianglechoke7: nibbler, Then I assume you would just watch your loved one plummet to their death. If so, just say it. Copperhead, All philosophy suffers from this problem of competing intuitions. Are you a sceptic or do you believe we can have knowledge of ethical propositions?
Again, appeal to emotion. I'll respond when you actually get an argument.
Seriously, you're acting as if the NAP means no one will ever ever never ever never ever violate anyone's property rights. Classic strawman.
Further, you're presuming that the person so taking the boat won't accept the consequences should the owner of the boat do anything about it, and assuming that the owner of the boat WILL do something about it.
I fail to see the point of your ridiculous example, and I would hope that you would refrain from posting such nonsense in the future.
The non-aggression axiom just means it is wrong to agress against others. You have not proven that it was morally OK to do so. However, it is highly doubtful that most courts would give you a very severe punishment for what you did.
At most, 5% of the population would need to stop complying to bring down the government.
In the last thread, many hard-core anarchists said that they would just use agression and take the punishment. But by admitting this, they concede that non-agression is not a principle that they feel should be adhered to 100% of the time. I think that it is time to put non-agression to a rest. Non-agression is false
I think that it is time to put non-agression to a rest. Non-agression is false
I think it's time to put idiotic arguments to a rest. Nothing has been "conceded"; if the non-aggression axiom were not to be adhered to punishment would not be meritted for violating it. All you have shown is that some people prefer punishment due to uncertainty as to whether their action will be viewed as coercion or not over inaction. To which I retort: so what? Come up with a real argument, why don't you, so as to render the title of your thread somewhat less fraudulent?
To darkness I condemn you...
What evidence would constitute proof against NAP?
Trianglechoke7: What evidence would constitute proof against NAP?
I believe that's your job to find. You are, after all, the one who's claiming to have "disproved" the NAP.
I think I have given proof. But according to everyone else, I havn't. So, now I'm asking what exactly YOU think constitues proof against NAP.
It seems to me that you guys are basically argueing like this:
"Just because YOU think that the Gettier problem is a counter-example to the proposition that knowledge=justifies true belief doesn't mean that it is."
When you get to that point, I just don't know what to say.
Logical inconsistency?
How does what you have argued even come close to being analogous to a Gettier problem?
No, all you've given is "People will violate the property rights of others in certain cases, therefore the NAP as an absolute is wrong". You're assuming those who adhere to the NAP as a concept refuse to believe that anyone could ever violate the property rights of another if that person holds to the NAP (strawman), and the form of your argument is a non sequitur.
And since you don't know what to say, it's best that you not say anything at all.
Jon,
I knew someone would say internal inconsistency. But couldn't multiple ethical principles have internal consistency? And since intenal consistency does not equal truth, how would you judge between them? Also, is internal inconsistency the only means of disproving ethical propositions, or are their others?
What I'm doing is analgous to the Gettier problem in that I am making up a hypothetical scenario which your intuition about a concept is challenged by the scenario.
Knight,
I apologize for coming off arrogent in my initial post. Now, can we speak on civil terms?
You have not accurately characterized my arguement.
(1) If NAP is true, then it is never morally right to violate someone's property rights
(2) (Suicide example) is a case in which it is morally right to violate someone's property rights
(3) Therefore, NAP is false
The Gettier problems show that there are counterexamples to a conceptual definition of knowledge, i.e. where one has justified (and this is where the problem arises for the internalist conception of knowledge), true belief but it simply is not knowledge. I guess you could say to an extent both rely on intuitions. However. in the case of pulling back a person trying to kill themselves, against their will, one is indeed aggressing. If one is unsure whether the individual would want to be pulled back but would rather be safe than sorry, they're risking it. There'd be no risk and there'd be no prospect of punishment if the NAP were false. Willingness to take the punishment thus is not inconsistent with it. Personally I'd simply try convince the person not to jump off. If I believed they were of sound mind, I'd not stop them.
Trianglechoke7: Jon, I knew someone would say internal inconsistency. But couldn't multiple ethical principles have internal consistency? And since intenal consistency does not equal truth, how would you judge between them? Also, is internal inconsistency the only means of disproving ethical propositions, or are their others? What I'm doing is analgous to the Gettier problem in that I am making up a hypothetical scenario which your intuition about a concept is challenged by the scenario. Knight, I apologize for coming off arrogent in my initial post. Now, can we speak on civil terms? You have not accurately characterized my arguement. (1) If NAP is true, then it is never morally right to violate someone's property rights (2) (Suicide example) is a case in which it is morally right to violate someone's property rights (3) Therefore, NAP is false
You seem to be skipping over the part where you prove that it's actually morally right to violate someone's property rights. All you've done so far is show that people would likely violate someone's property rights if it meant saving a loved one. That doesn't make it right. Again, the ends don't justify the means.
Trianglechoke7:You have not accurately characterized my arguement.
Please do NOT be so dishonest in the future.
As to your so-recently-proffered nonsense about suicide: Please stop misusing what the NAP is and what morality is. This is why you're getting smacked around.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap