Defending the Non-Aggression Principle

Reply

capitalist replied on Thu, Dec 10 2009 5:21 PM

rated by 0 users

wilderness:

capitalist:

justifying theft...

up is down; glad you attempted "to show the problem", thus, it's a problem.  If that's your attempt, then we agree, so, why you incline to get emotional about this tug of war in your own making, is undoubtedly complicated.  Implying a connection was your original post and once you venture into this type of thought experiment, then you instantly put yourself on the side of doublespeak.  But in fact you stated originally, "which seems to be a silly conclusion." that it is wrong for a person to break into a person's cabin, correct?  So if it is a problem but you state it's not a problem by it being a "silly conclusion", really?

Generally speaking, breaking into a cabin is obviously "wrong", yes. However, there are certain hypothetical scenarios in which its 'wrong-ness' is contestable. If I get lost in the woods, fear for my life, sneak into an empty cabin (without the owner's permission) to use his phone and call for help - is that wrong according to the non-aggression principle.

Reply

wilderness replied on Thu, Dec 10 2009 5:24 PM

rated by 0 users

capitalist:

I am looking for ways to justify the non-aggression principle in hypothetical "lifeboat" situations because that is a common method of attack. Does the NAP apply in such scenarios?

The logical fallacy of isolation usurps lifeboat situations.  What are good to make a point are Crusoe models but they are assertions, not problems to be solved, as far as I know.  People incline to make interpretations of the lifeboat situations introducing generalizations, usually preconceivably.  Lifeboat situations are good intellectual exercises but don't meet general reality.

capitalist:

Or is it more flexible than that, allowing for occasional instances of aggression-initiation if one's life is one the line?

Before it even goes this far or maybe you are changing the scenario (ridding the cabin example), which is fine.  I don't see a problem with that to improve the dialogue.  If you are not, then the scenario is still stuck in a whether you are saying 'just(ice) is stealing' or 'there is actually a problem with 'just(ice) is stealing'.  I think these are valid inquiries or you are staging the event, ie. performing a Crusoe model, which isn't a problem to be solved but rather an assertion by you.

Reply

laminustacitus replied on Thu, Dec 10 2009 9:49 PM

rated by 0 users

Marko:

capitalist:

But, according to the logic of this answer, it would be right for someone who is hungry and without money to steal bread as long as he pays the baker back at another time. This is utilitarian and violates the non-aggression principle.

I think a utilitarian would actually say that the hungry man can steal bread wheter he intends to pay back the baker or not.

It need not be considered "utilitarian"; really, all that the argument is stating is that human life is the most valuable moral principle. In fact, St. Thomas Aquinas made such an argument apart of his philosophy of natural law far before the advent of modern utilitarian ethics.

Reply

capitalist replied on Thu, Dec 10 2009 10:05 PM

rated by 0 users

laminustacitus:

It need not be considered "utilitarian"; really, all that the argument is stating is that human life is the most valuable moral principle. In fact, St. Thomas Aquinas made such an argument apart of his philosophy of natural law far before the advent of modern utilitarian ethics.

So would you consider it right/ethical to steal x for the purpose of saving a life?

Reply

laminustacitus replied on Thu, Dec 10 2009 11:05 PM

rated by 0 users

capitalist:

laminustacitus:

It need not be considered "utilitarian"; really, all that the argument is stating is that human life is the most valuable moral principle. In fact, St. Thomas Aquinas made such an argument apart of his philosophy of natural law far before the advent of modern utilitarian ethics.

So would you consider it right/ethical to steal x for the purpose of saving a life?

Of course, human life is the most precious, and sacred end of society. The purpose of property is to mollify the ills of life, it does not exist for its own end, rather it must be utilized toward the end of benefiting, and improving the human condition. I would like to emphasize that trespassing upon property rights in order to save a life should never be taken lightly, it should only be done in a situation of dire need, and it should be done with the solemn knowledge that the need for such an act is tragic per se. 

Reply

nirgrahamUK replied on Fri, Dec 11 2009 6:44 AM

rated by 0 users

laminustacitus:

Of course, human life is the most precious, and sacred end of society

curious, can you point to where are you getting this from?

Reply

scineram replied on Fri, Dec 11 2009 7:47 AM

rated by 0 users

We hold this truth to be self evident.

Reply

Marko replied on Fri, Dec 11 2009 8:01 AM

rated by 0 users

capitalist:

laminustacitus:

It need not be considered "utilitarian"; really, all that the argument is stating is that human life is the most valuable moral principle. In fact, St. Thomas Aquinas made such an argument apart of his philosophy of natural law far before the advent of modern utilitarian ethics.

So would you consider it right/ethical to steal x for the purpose of saving a life?

Not enough information.

Reply

nirgrahamUK replied on Fri, Dec 11 2009 8:02 AM

rated by 0 users

presumably you would like enough information so as to be able to make an inter-personal comparison of utility?

Reply

Marko replied on Fri, Dec 11 2009 8:12 AM

rated by 0 users

No. That is the last thing I would do.

Reply

nirgrahamUK replied on Fri, Dec 11 2009 8:24 AM

rated by 0 users

indeed, so you do not want to establish that the person for whom the item would be taken, is in dire life threatening need of the item (and so it has particularly high utility for him) and that conversely the item is of a trivial 'low utility' to the rightful owner, something along the lines of a mere cabin, or bandage..... have i got you all wrong?

Reply

wilderness replied on Fri, Dec 11 2009 8:50 AM

rated by 0 users

Marko:

capitalist:

So would you consider it right/ethical to steal x for the purpose of saving a life?

Not enough information.

exactly!

and also the phrasing of the question.  how can any sensible person answer it.  again right equated with steal.  ethical equated with steal.  who falls for this kind of stuff?

Reply

Marko replied on Fri, Dec 11 2009 9:24 AM

rated by 0 users

I thought you were busting my balls.

No, you are basicaly right, but this "utility" is only important in comparison to a single watershed rating that determines wheter the guy who stole the item is actually going to be in a position where he can pay back double or not. It is not a sophisticated ladder of utility ratings, which is how I understood your inquiry.

But the intention to repay is also important, not just the ability. If the thief does no intend to pay back then he is in a certain sense similar to a thief who steals an item knowing his stealing of it will cause death or other irreparable damage.

Reply

laminustacitus replied on Fri, Dec 11 2009 10:28 AM

rated by 0 users

nirgrahamUK:

laminustacitus:

Of course, human life is the most precious, and sacred end of society

curious, can you point to where are you getting this from?

Honestly, I believe that the statement is self-evident, a principle that should be explicitly understood in every single political idea, but if you really want a source see St. Thomas Aquinas' writings on natural law, though I have not my books with me so I cannot give you a precise citation. 

Reply

capitalist replied on Fri, Dec 11 2009 10:48 AM

rated by 0 users

laminustacitus:

Of course, human life is the most precious, and sacred end of society. The purpose of property is to mollify the ills of life, it does not exist for its own end, rather it must be utilized toward the end of benefiting, and improving the human condition. I would like to emphasize that trespassing upon property rights in order to save a life should never be taken lightly, it should only be done in a situation of dire need, and it should be done with the solemn knowledge that the need for such an act is tragic per se. 

How can you say that this is not utilitarian?

Reply

Wade replied on Fri, Dec 11 2009 11:32 AM

rated by 0 users

capitalist:

I run into this type of argument against the NAP. How would you counter?

A camper is in the woods and gets lost. It is very cold, he is hungry and scared. He finds an empty cabin, breaks in, and uses their phone to call for help. The non-aggression principle holds that it is wrong for that man to break into the cabin on the grounds that the breaking in is an act of aggression towards the cabin's owner, which seems to be a silly conclusion. Any logic that leads to such an absurd conclusion must be flawed.

 

Thanks.

I would not counter.  I would say that the reason that this dilemma exists is because the consequences are not causal and don't necessarily follow the act of employing the means of "breaking and entering another person's property" in order avoid hunger.  Instead the consequences suggested in this forum are ones that involve coercion.  The only foundation being suggested in this thread to the consequences of such an act is a coercive judicial system.  So instead of focusing on the causal consequences of coercion, which seems to me to be one of the primary concerns of libertarianism, the NAP has shifted focus to people breaking into another person's cabin in order avoid hunger.  Such an act is clearly a violation of the NAP, and if the suggested solution to the violation of NAP is coercion, then the NAP is just another legal system determining when it is appropriate to employ the means of force or coercion.

Reply

laminustacitus replied on Fri, Dec 11 2009 12:05 PM

rated by 0 users

capitalist:

laminustacitus:

Of course, human life is the most precious, and sacred end of society. The purpose of property is to mollify the ills of life, it does not exist for its own end, rather it must be utilized toward the end of benefiting, and improving the human condition. I would like to emphasize that trespassing upon property rights in order to save a life should never be taken lightly, it should only be done in a situation of dire need, and it should be done with the solemn knowledge that the need for such an act is tragic per se. 

How can you say that this is not utilitarian?

Because this is the traditional response of the natural law school, to call it utilitarian is simply mistaken because this answer is apart of the natural law tradition dating back from St. Thomas Aquinas. 

Reply

Juan replied on Fri, Dec 11 2009 5:06 PM

rated by 0 users

Of course, human life is the most precious, and sacred end of society.

Reply

Andrew Cain replied on Fri, Dec 11 2009 5:09 PM

rated by 0 users

Juan:

Society doesn't even exist, it can hardly have any 'ends'

Very good point. Perhaps Iam is just using it metaphorically though.

Reply

laminustacitus replied on Fri, Dec 11 2009 5:24 PM

rated by 0 users

Juan:

Of course, human life is the most precious, and sacred end of society.

Society doesn't even exist

Absurd, society does exist, and while it may not be a moral actor, to deny its existence is blind.  Man does not live in a Robinson Crusoe existence, and society, and social realities do have an effect upon him.

Juan:

it can hardly have any 'ends'.

Why do men come together in the division of labor?  What are the ends that men seek when they do this?  When I speak of the "end of society", I speak of the ends that men are seeking when they congregate, and cooperate in the economic order.  Without a doubt, what man seeks first, and foremost is the preservation, and mollification of his life.

Reply

Andrew Cain replied on Fri, Dec 11 2009 5:49 PM

rated by 0 users

laminustacitus:

Absurd, society does exist, and while it may not be a moral actor, to deny its existence is blind.  Man does not live in a Robinson Crusoe existence, and society, and social realities do have an effect upon him.

I think Juan meant to say that an entity which is capable of means/ends called 'society' does not exist. Society is merely a metaphor for a gathering of individuals in a given area.