Big FREEDOM! Stuff > The Philosophy of Freedom/Libertarianism/Doctrine of free will

Moral Theory of Non-aggression

(1/6) > >>

Owl:
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 defenseThe 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.

Mike26:
I think you have some semantic obstructions in this. Labeling your theory Moral... But then describing that it doesn't speak to what is moral seems contradictory. If instead you incorporated the word Morality into the naming it would alleviate this contradiction.

Also the scope of the theory in incredibly small. How it currently reads, the four points listed are the only immoral actions on earth. What about neglect/ negligence? A person neglects their property (land and natural resources) by negligently dumping/ polluting them. Their waste and pollution then pollutes, destroys, contaminates, and informs the neighboring resources and or population... Just a few thoughts.

Owl:
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?"

Mike26:
Or the theory of non aggression and morality. I disagree parents have ownership of their children. They have responsibility for the child, but not ownership of him/her.

Magnaniman:
The concept of property is derived from ownership of yourself.  If you own yourself, then you also own the products of your time and labor unless agreeing otherwise.

I completely disagree with you about ownership of children.  In fact, I think it's quite the opposite.  If anyone owns anyone, it is children who own some measure of their parents' productivity and attention.  Having children creates an obligation to care for those children because everyone is responsible for their own actions, not because of de facto ownership and dependency.

For instance, if you injured someone in, say, a car accident, you are obligated to make amends by making sure any medical treatment is taken care of and that their needs are taken care of while they heal.  It is the same with children.  You have created a situation in which someone is helpless and unable to take care of themselves, therefore you are obligated to make sure that their needs are met.  Child-rearing is not a loophole that allows someone to create slaves for themselves.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page