Big FREEDOM! Stuff > The Philosophy of Freedom/Libertarianism/Doctrine of free will
Moral Theory of Non-aggression
Magnaniman:
I don't think it's possible to define morality in a way that everyone can adhere to under all circumstances. Your theory must be able to account for ways it can be violated in response to being violated, or it is useless.
As I said before, having children is not a loophole that allows slavery. For the same reason that you own property, you are also responsible for your actions that result in harm, as well. That responsibility creates an obligation that must be enforceable through some means. Government exists because of the legitimate need for determining responsibility and enforcing the resultant obligation. Voluntarism/anarchy are about finding alternatives to government dictatorship to accomplish these ends, not denying the need for them.
Maybe you're talking about some aspect of philosophy that's just going over my head, but it's clear to me that whatever you're suggesting is absolutely flawed if it asserts that people are born into slavery and frees them from responsibility in the event of wrong-doing.
I said this once before, somewhere on here, and elsewhere: The only true morality is survival. That's nature. Any way of life that places anything else above survival will, eventually or immediately, directly result in the death of that way of life, making those beliefs pointless. Survival must be the cornerstone of your assertion of morality from which the rest may follow.
Owl:
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)
Mike26:
Morality is a belief that there is such things as right and wrong/ good and evil. Holding this belief says you are the judge of what is right and wrong, in essence claiming your own unimpeachable authority/ deity.
Saying that survival is the only morality... Are you saying continuing to live is good and discontinuing life is bad? Don't the changing of the seasons debunk this theory? Our planet and it's ecosystems work cyclically with times of birth, growth, production, reproduction, death, and rebirth.
When we assert that we can judge what is good and bad, what makes our judgements more valid than another person's. Even the suggested theory of survival morality fails to be universal as many people and cultures celebrate when things and people die.
As far as trying to enforce responsibilities, that's government by definition. We can try and dress it up nice and put lipstick on it, but it's still a pig.
FreedomIsOurDestiny:
--- Quote from: Owl on June 21, 2016, 05:06:49 PM ---
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.
--- End quote ---
Owl, I agree that the ethics can only be placed on the mutual respect for self-ownership. If it were based on survival, one would be forced to stop a community that voluntarily chose to stop procreation. This would be an obvious infringement on their rights as individuals. Mutual respect would allow for you to speak with them and try to persuade them as long as they were willing to communicate with you.
As far as children, I think calling them property of the parents, even just in infancy, would be a direct violation of the NAP. I think as humans, we have a large capacity for compassion and we understand that we all begin and likely end our lives in a state of dependency on others. I do think it is the parents' right to assume responsibility for the caregiving of their child, but if found in a situation where the parents are incapable or unwilling to provide for the child, they would forfeit that right based on the idea that they have put another human in harm's way. Ideally, another family member, or close friend would be able to assume the responsibilty and in more complicated cases something such as a dispute resolution firm specializing in these matters may be called upon.
Magnaniman:
I didn't say "personal survival." I said "survival." That can encompass many things. It may be the survival of your genetics through your children. It might be the survival of your beliefs. It could just mean the survival of the species. It depends, largely, upon how a person defines the essence of their being.
Also, it does not preclude principled, non-aggressive behavior. In fact, it encourages it through a process called "enlightened self interest." While it may be immediately more advantageous for a person to steal, murder, etc., those sorts of behaviors create a large degree of resentment among others that dramatically threaten the perpetrator's well-being in the long run. So, in the interest of survival, of any sort, the Golden Rule, or some variation upon it (like the NAP), becomes wholly necessary in order to prevent most aggression against oneself.
This way of thinking promotes adaptability, not stagnation. Yes, the seasons change, so people must learn to change with the seasons in order to survive and perpetuate whatever aspects of themselves that they believe are most important. If these defining elements of being do not include defending them, they will die, which, ultimately, makes them irrelevant, in practical terms, to the living.
This is why enforcement of responsibilities is necessary. That is not government, it is survival. For instance, if someone murders my family when I'm not there to defend them, I will immediately reject any sort of principle or moral theory that asserts that they are ethically protected from any sort of reprisal or punishment. I'm not saying that anything I would want to do to that person is necessarily justified, but, in general, the idea that "immoral" actions can only be opposed when they are actively in progress is critically flawed.
The methods of determining and enforcing responsibility are entirely up for debate, but, without some sort of mechanism for justice, there is no possible way for this belief system to sustain itself.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version