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

Moral Theory of Non-aggression

<< < (2/6) > >>

Mike26:
Magnanimous, I agree with everything u just said except for the use of the word obligated. If instead we use the word responsible for, I believe that would be honest. 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.

Magnaniman:
If my neighbor is intentionally and malevolently starving his or her kids, I will do something about it.  Obligation is the right word.

This is the sort of situation that really puts the NAP to the test.  When people address concerns like this by talking about police alternatives, like dispute resolution businesses, it's a cop out (pun intended).  What will those groups actually do when faced with a genuinely horrible situation?

There are always going to be awful people.  I believe in anarchy largely because I don't want awful people to wield more power than anyone else.  I think that, by building a healthy society, we can decrease the amount of awful people quite significantly, but, to be clear, there are situations where a group of people has to go regulate by busting down some doors, maybe shooting someone, and then setting things right.

Granted, the way that our government is doing that now is quite heinous.  However, when a SWAT team busts into some dude's house and releases half a dozen imprisoned pre-teen girls who have been subjected to unspeakable horrors, I'm totally okay with that.  I recognize that not all police actions are that noble, that there are many grey areas, and that they don't do a good job of finding non-violent solutions, but some people must simply be stopped from doing what they're doing.  Then, what do you do with those awful people once they've been caught?

I recognize the threat, there, of succumbing to mob justice and the possibility of sliding into some sort of Salem-style witch hunt.  I think that the way of life we're talking about decreases the likelihood of situations like that from occurring, but there are times when inaction and pacifism are unconscionable.

In discussions about the NAP, we talk about self defense a lot, but very rarely do we talk about what should be done when we find out that someone else has violated the NAP in the past.  To live by this principle, after its acceptance to the degree that we live in a voluntary society, there is an obligation to adhere to the NAP.  Some transgressions are minor, but, for grievous offenses, there need to be stronger measures than an embargo.

Owl:

--- Quote from: Mike26 on June 19, 2016, 04:12:55 PM ---I disagree parents have ownership of their children. They have responsibility for the child, but not ownership of him/her.

--- End quote ---

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.

Owl:

--- Quote from: Mike26 on June 20, 2016, 10:26:32 PM ---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.

--- End quote ---

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.

Mike26:
People don't grant other people rights, positive or negative. All people innately have all the same rights. And morality is a facade. Check out Adam's link on NVC in another post.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page