Messages

1

The Philosophy of Freedom/Libertarianism/Doctrine of free will / Re: Moral Theory of Non-aggression

« on: June 24, 2016, 09:07:51 PM »

I've reconsidered calling dependent children the property of their parents, even if only from a philosophical perspective. The fact they are human beings mean they cannot be the property of any other human being without violating the moral theory above and the NAP. Thank you for driving that point home.

However, because the child's existence is the consequence of the parents' actions and because it is completely dependent on others for survival, I'll just say that the parents are obligated to provide for the child in order to avoid causing harm.

2

The Philosophy of Freedom/Libertarianism/Doctrine of free will / Re: Moral Theory of Non-aggression

« on: June 21, 2016, 05:06:49 PM »

Mike26: If people do have innate rights as you say, then morality and ethics is not a facade. What I'm trying to do is use the non-aggression principle to identify these innate rights.

Magnaniman: It is impossible to create a moral theory of positive rights and obligations which may account for all situations, but I think it's possible to create a moral theory of negative rights which may describe those actions which one person must never take against another person. This is ultimately the point of the NAP. It doesn't prescribe correct action in any given situation, it only restricts what action is permissible in any given situation.

The reason I brought up the "starving your own child" counter-argument to the NAP and my own moral theory is because it does present the issue of the obvious obligation of a parent to care for the child within the framework of a moral philosophy which actively denounces positive rights. Any help in this area from libertarian philosophers would be very much appreciated.

Also, morality and ethics are restraints on guttural instincts which allow us to live good lives (where good is defined by adherence to a given moral theory). I disagree that the only true morality is survival because acting only in the interest of personal survival removes any ethical constraints from our actions. The NAP is an example of an ethical code which restricts certain actions from all interactions as a universal principle. As such, the foundation of Libertarian ethics is not based on survival but based on mutual respect for self-ownership.

(sorry for typos, I wrote this and immediately had to leave before checking for spelling)

3

The Philosophy of Freedom/Libertarianism/Doctrine of free will / Re: Moral Theory of Non-aggression

« on: June 21, 2016, 03:05:21 AM »

Obligation implies a demand is being imposed. If a demand is being imposed, then there is a threat of punishment if the demand isn't met satisfactorily.

This is exactly why it is dangerous to grant positive rights to anyone, including children. We must find a way to describe the moral responsibility of parents to care for their children without calling on "obligatory action." The way I have described it, parents are only obligated to provide because it is the only way to avoid harming a person who is helplessly dependent on them. Making excuses for positive rights, moral duties, and obligatory action can be a slippery slope.

4

The Philosophy of Freedom/Libertarianism/Doctrine of free will / Re: Moral Theory of Non-aggression

« on: June 21, 2016, 02:56:51 AM »

I disagree parents have ownership of their children. They have responsibility for the child, but not ownership of him/her.

Yeah, admittedly it's a little weird. My dilemma here is that I don't really think there are positive rights. By that I mean that no person has the moral right to the goods or services of another person. To say that a child has a right to the resources of the parents would be opening up that philosophical can of worms because this would acknowledge the presence of at least one such positive right, which in turn might validate paternalistic government policies and the whole nine yards.

The NAP implies that there are no positive rights, so we are tasked with describing why it is we must care for our children without a positive right on the part of the child.

Libertarian ethics is founded in the notion of self-ownership and the property rights which follow, so I'm trying to explain parental responsibility through libertarian property theory rather than by just claiming that the child has a positive right. Ultimately, I'm saying that since the child is literally the product of the parents, it belongs to them; it is their child. Since the child is a human being, it has all the negative rights described by the above moral theory. However, it's complete and utter dependency means that if someone doesn't care for it, it will die. Therefore, neglect would result in a violation of the moral theory and the responsibility simply falls on the parents because they created the child in the first place.

Also because of the way this works, the responsibility of the parents to provide for the child diminishes as the child becomes more independent. You can see how children are difficult to fit into a theory with no positive rights.

5

The Philosophy of Freedom/Libertarianism/Doctrine of free will / Re: Moral Theory of Non-aggression

« on: June 19, 2016, 03:27:43 PM »

Neglect would be permissible here for the same reason destroying your own property is permissible, though polluting your own property so badly that it begins to obstruct your neighbor's ability to access and use their own property is considered morally wrong. Though it should be noted that it's the adverse affects of the pollution suffered by the neighbor which would make the act immoral.

The neglect of a child would be different. The child is considered the property of the parents via the consequence of their actions (sex), is also a human being, and is totally dependent on others for survival. So the parents essentially own a fully dependent human being and choosing to neglect it would inflict harm upon it, which violates the theory. The only reason the parents are required to act in this case is because this odd combination of dependency and human ownership causes a moral obligation. This is how paternalism in government policies imposes obligations on tax payers. The difference here is that a sound argument can be made for a parent owning their dependent child, while no decent argument can be made for a community owning an adult.

As for the name, I was wondering about that. The theory only describes action that is wrong. So would it be better to call it an "Immoral Theory?"

6

The Philosophy of Freedom/Libertarianism/Doctrine of free will / Moral Theory of Non-aggression

« on: June 19, 2016, 12:48:23 AM »

Hello there. Libertarianism is a movement based on an ideological principle, namely the Non-aggression Principle (NAP). I decided that the NAP could be expanded from a moral principle into a full-fledged moral theory in order to make it more robust and less ambiguous. Maybe it's not necessary, but I think it does help to break the NAP down into more direct, simple components. I'd like to show you all what I've come up with and ask for your opinions. And I would also like to hear your thoughts on defining property from the perspective of moral philosophy.

Non-aggression Principle: It is immoral to initiate force upon a person without consent.


Moral Theory of Non-aggression

An action is morally wrong if:

• it is the initial violence or threat of violence upon a person
• it obstructs without consent a peaceful individual's capacity to use their property as they see fit
• it facilitates, enables, or causes a non-consensual exchange of value
• it exerts greater than the minimum required force to provide adequate defense

The Moral Theory of Non-aggression (MTNA) only describes what is morally wrong to do. That is to say that if an action may be described by MTNA, it is immoral, and all other actions, which cannot be described by MTNA, are either permissible or morally right. MTNA assumes impartiality so that no person is implicitly better or worse than others, and each person’s interests weigh equally. I wish to stress that MTNA does not prescribe any obligatory actions which must be committed for this is not its purpose. Essentially, MTNA only describes immorality and does not define what is morally right, nor does it make any attempt.

Thanks for any suggestions or criticisms.

7

North Carolina / Re: North Carolina State Organization

« on: June 18, 2016, 12:18:13 PM »

Hey there. My name is Chase; I live in Wake County. I'd love to help out any way I can. If it matters, I'm 22 years old.

Please email me at wcm@keemail.me if you would like my help.