The Non-Aggression Principle

[The Reasonable]

Rarely have we had a thread totally devoted to the concept of the non-aggression principle, which states that one can do anything that does not involve physical force or coercion over another.

Do you agree with it? Do you think it is an adequate way to base our laws off of? Or do you think that it doesn't cover all of the ways that people can be harmed indirectly?

And, if you disagree with it, what should constitute a legal or illegal act? What are its implications for libertarianism, the ideology that most promotes it?

[Ainin]

What's your opinion?

[The Reasonable]

What's your opinion?

It's flawed, because it only focuses on direct physical harm.

[CVT Temp]

My problem with the principle is that it is too black-and-white in how it defines aggression and harm. Many libertarians are against environmental regulations because they do not see releasing toxic aerosol compounds as aggressive. Libertarians do not view a society-wide racial discrimination in hiring practices as a form of harm or aggression. They see all violence as physical aggression or as aggression against private property. Another problem is that destruction or violation of private property may sometimes lead to less harm than the "non-aggression" of respecting private property. (e.g. Consider someone stealing food in order to feed their otherwise starving child. More generally, consider taxation which can be used to fund socially necessary projects that no individual has the economics of scale to personally fund.)

[Lunatic Goofballs]

I like to tackle people.

[Ainin]

I like to tackle people.

We know

[The Reasonable]

My problem with the principle is that it is too black-and-white in how it defines aggression and harm. Many libertarians are against environmental regulations because they do not see releasing toxic aerosol compounds as aggressive. Libertarians do not view a society-wide racial discrimination in hiring practices as a form of harm or aggression. They see all violence as physical aggression or as aggression against private property. Another problem is that destruction or violation of private property may sometimes lead to less harm than the "non-aggression" of respecting private property. (e.g. Consider someone stealing food in order to feed their otherwise starving child. More generally, consider taxation which can be used to fund socially necessary projects that no individual has the economics of scale to personally fund.)

All very true points. So what would be a better basis for our laws than the NAP?

[CVT Temp]

All very true points. So what would be a better basis for our laws than the NAP?

I'm a bit of a pragmatic rule-utilitarian, but the harm minimization principle is a form of the non-aggression principle which takes most of my criticisms into account.

[The Reasonable]

All very true points. So what would be a better basis for our laws than the NAP?

I'm a bit of a pragmatic rule-utilitarian, but the harm minimization principle is a form of the non-aggression principle which takes most of my criticisms into account.

Pretty much. As soon as I saw how the non-aggression principle doesn't cover all the indirect ways that people could be harmed, my libertarian beliefs went right out the window with it.

Utilitarianism is perhaps the best philosophy to have, I think.

[CVT Temp]

Utilitarianism is perhaps the best philosophy to have, I think.

It can sometimes give results that our intuitions aren't comfortable with, though.

[The Reasonable]

Utilitarianism is perhaps the best philosophy to have, I think.

It can sometimes give results that our intuitions aren't comfortable with, though.

Such as?

And what's the difference between it and rule-utilitarianism? And I have no problems with the harm reduction principle.

[Vetalia]

The non-aggression principle is good as a basis for legislation but isn't a means to an end in and of itself. Beyond that point, it requires individuals to make decisions regarding the extent and nature of harm.

[CVT Temp]

Such as?

There may be contexts in which it is acceptable or even right to kill a perfectly innocent person for the greater good.

And what's the difference between it and rule-utilitarianism? And I have no problems with the harm reduction principle.

Act utilitarianism says that we should look at each individual action in terms of maximizing the greater good. Rule-utilitarianism is about designing a set of rules-of-thumb which, when followed, tend to maximize the greater good most of the time. Rule utilitarianism is a little bit more conservative and is quite a bit more manageable than act utilitarianism. Rule utilitarianism is also perfectly comfortable with occasionally disobeying some of the rules if in those particular instances you can very readily show that following the rule would cause more harm than good. In general, however, rule utilitarians are more hesitant to throw out a general principle if it works most of the time, because throwing it out on occasion undermines its effectiveness as a general principle, and that undermining is itself a consequence which must be taken into account.

[The Reasonable]

Such as?

There may be contexts in which it is acceptable or even right to kill a perfectly innocent person for the greater good.

And what's the difference between it and rule-utilitarianism? And I have no problems with the harm reduction principle.

Act utilitarianism says that we should look at each individual action in terms of maximizing the greater good. Rule-utilitarianism is about designing a set of rules-of-thumb which, when followed, tend to maximize the greater good most of the time. Rule utilitarianism is a little bit more conservative and is quite a bit more manageable than act utilitarianism. Rule utilitarianism is also perfectly comfortable with occasionally disobeying some of the rules if in those particular instances you can very readily show that following the rule would cause more harm than good. In general, however, rule utilitarians are more hesitant to throw out a general principle if it works most of the time, because throwing it out on occasion undermines its effectiveness as a general principle, and that undermining is itself a consequence which must be taken into account.

Would you be so kind as to provide some examples of both?

[CVT Temp]

Would you be so kind as to provide some examples of both?

The trolley problem. Rule utilitarians would tend to give the standard responses, whereas act utilitarians would be more prone to give the response that it's okay to push the fat man onto the tracks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

[The Reasonable]

Would you be so kind as to provide some examples of both?

The trolley problem. Rule utilitarians would tend to give the standard responses, whereas act utilitarians would be more prone to give the response that it's okay to push the fat man onto the tracks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

I guess. What would be some good rules for "rule utilitarianism" though?

[Neo Art]

All very true points. So what would be a better basis for our laws than the NAP?

A democratically elected legislature that examines the current social system and passes laws reflecting the values of its electorate, in order to help preserve all aspects of society, and then said laws are enforced by a democratically elected executive.

shocking I know.

[The Reasonable]

All very true points. So what would be a better basis for our laws than the NAP?

A democratically elected legislature that examines the current social system and passes laws reflecting the values of its electorate, in order to help preserve all aspects of society, and then said laws are enforced by a democratically elected executive.

shocking I know.

I take it then that you believe that laws against, say, abortion in Latin America are legitimate? After all, they were passed by a democratically elected legislature, and reflects the values of its (overwhelmingly Catholic) electorate.

I take it then that you believe that laws against gay marriage in most of the world are legitimate? After all, they were passed by a democratically elected legislature in many cases, and reflects the values of its (overwhelmingly religious) electorate.

[Neo Art]

A democratically elected legislature that examines the current social system and passes laws reflecting the values of its electorate, in order to help preserve all aspects of society, and then said laws are enforced by a democratically elected executive.

shocking I know.

I take it then that you believe that laws against, say, abortion in Latin America are legitimate? After all, they were passed by a democratically elected legislature, and reflects the values of its (overwhelmingly Catholic) electorate.

I take it then that you believe that laws against gay marriage in most of the world are legitimate? After all, they were passed by a democratically elected legislature in many cases, and reflects the values of its (overwhelmingly religious) electorate.

In this, the next episode of my multiple part series "everything worth saying has been said already", here we go:

Here's the thing. Adults do not deal in absolutes. You know who does? Children. Children deal in absolutes. Adults are better than that. We're more capable than that. We're more understanding of nuances.

. . .

And if you (the general "you") choose to attack my position not because you believe it WRONG, but because I didn't put enough disclaimers to clearly indicate that I wasn't speaking in black and white hard lined absolutes, and expected the person on the other end of the conversation to be able to read my words in the context of being an adult in polite society...you're right, I didn't. Because I expected the person on the other end of the conversation to be able to read my words in the context of being an adult in a polite society.

And if you (again, general "you") are bothered by this, and would prefer I don't treat you like, well, you know, and adult, and would prefer I add all these little disclamers, lest you get confused and interpret my statements in full absolutes, like we're fucking children, then alright, I suppose I can oblidge.

But I contend that says a whole lot more about you than it does about me.

[Neo Art]

Amusingly, I almost did go back and add "but limited by a set of fundamental right to ensure that the system doesn't turn into a tyranny of the majority" but then thought "no, nobody could be THAT pedantic, it's not worth the effort to go back and edit it"

Thank you, NSG, for never failing to constantly let me down.

[Rainbows and Rivers]

Rarely have we had a thread totally devoted to the concept of the non-aggression principle, which states that one can do anything that does not involve physical force or coercion over another.

Do you agree with it? Do you think it is an adequate way to base our laws off of? Or do you think that it doesn't cover all of the ways that people can be harmed indirectly?

I think that if you're not wearing your seat belt, the government should absolutely be able to make you do so. This violates the non-aggression principle but results in nothing but good.

[Novigloria]

sir if you could let us simply vote it would save a hell of time

[Alyekra]

As a libertarian, something about the NAP seems ...off to me, but I can't place what it is.

[Trollgaard]

Rarely have we had a thread totally devoted to the concept of the non-aggression principle, which states that one can do anything that does not involve physical force or coercion over another.

Do you agree with it? Do you think it is an adequate way to base our laws off of? Or do you think that it doesn't cover all of the ways that people can be harmed indirectly?

I think that if you're not wearing your seat belt, the government should absolutely be able to make you do so. This violates the non-aggression principle but results in nothing but good.

Why? If someone doesn't want to wear a seatbelt why should somebody make them?

[Salandriagado]

I think that if you're not wearing your seat belt, the government should absolutely be able to make you do so. This violates the non-aggression principle but results in nothing but good.

Why? If someone doesn't want to wear a seatbelt why should somebody make them?

Because not wearing a seatbelt tends to kill the person sitting in front of you.