Freedomain Radio

I recently decided to try my hand at concisely, comprehensively, coherently summarizing UPB. I've written an eight page word document that chews its way from the blank slate of nihilism to the most basic rudiments of anarcho-capitalism. So far it's been a very rewarding exercise. It's been especially useful spelling out the necessity of valuing consistency. I haven't done all that I'd like it to (i.e. point to more of the contradictions in having a state), but I'm happy with what I have so far.

Before I shoot attachment-bearing emails at my philosophy professors, I want to close some gaps in my understanding and holes in my reasoning.

I'm having trouble demonstrating the non-aggression principle through UPB. Due to universality, there are three obvious possibilities:

1. The NAP is moral.
2. The NAP is not moral.
3. Morality has nothing to say about the NAP (in the same way morality has nothing to say about pedicures.)

I buy it on an intuitive level, but I can't seem to prove it explicitly.

Disproving 2 is easy, but I'm not able to disprove 3.

Any suggestions?

What about "reverse and apply"? "Morality has nothing to say about coercion." I mean when it comes to the NAP there really are only two alternatives, or am I wrong? So what does ethics have to say about the initiation of the use of force? If ethics has "something to say" about coercion, then by default it has "something to say" about the opposite position, no?

If morality has nothing to say about non-coercion then it has nothing to say on anything. The key question might be why is anything ever considered moral or immoral? If it has something to do with reciprocity between humans and coercion completely terminates reciprocity, then this is how morality is linked with non-coercion or NAP as the only way to behave morally.

DDFM:

Any suggestions?

The NAP follows logically from the universality of property rights, or rather, they are two sides of the same coin. To say that person X has the right to own and control his property is equivalent to saying that everyone else have the obligation not to enforce X to use that property in a certain way. Ergo, if property rights is valid, the NAP must be valid.

The categories in UPB are disjoint so you don't have to prove it is neutral once you've established the NAP is moral.

DDFM:

I'm having trouble demonstrating the non-aggression principle through UPB. Due to universality, there are three obvious possibilities:

 

1. The NAP is moral.
2. The NAP is not moral.
3. Morality has nothing to say about the NAP (in the same way morality has nothing to say about pedicures.)

...

Disproving 2 is easy, but I'm not able to disprove 3.

 

 

Could you show me how to disprove 2?  Thanks.

 

CoR:

The categories in UPB are disjoint so you don't have to prove it is neutral once you've established the NAP is moral.

 

How does one establish that?

 

 

Inaction is an indifferent state of being. It's neither choosing action, nor choosing not to engage in an action. It's just... being.

However, choosing not to engage in aggression, is a moral choice. It is not a neutral thing to say, "I choose not to engage in violence against you, because it's wrong to do so.".

Since violence/aggression is one of those things that you have to either choose to do, or choose not to do, I don't really see how it could be categorized as neutral to refrain.

The basic positive statement of theory would be something like: "It is right to engage in X behavior.", or, "Anyone who engages in X Behavior, is 'good'", where in this case, "X Behavior", is "refraining from commiting unprovoked acts of violence against other individuals".

We know that a moral rule is only valid if it can be successfully applied to all people at all times and in all places (universality), and if it is logically internally consistent. Since we assume the default "correct" state is goodness for all men, then any action that would be impossible to achieve universally, could not be said to be "required" for men to be good.

This rule is asserting a requirement for "goodness" that is possible for all men, everywhere, at all times. This rule succeeds the validity test then, since refraining from an act of violence is not extraordinarily difficult (even babies can do it), and does not endager the life of the individual in question. Therefore, the NAP is UPB compliant (moral), and anyone who engages in refraining from acts of violence is therefore, "good". 

Does that make sense?

 

 

Deleted original post.

 

Hey, GregG, I'm going to put a little more thought into this, then get back to you (If I don't forget! ). Thanks for your input, though!