Non-aggression Principle (and other dogmas)

General philosophy message board for Discussion and debate on other philosophical issues not directly related to veganism. Metaphysics, religion, theist vs. atheist debates, politics, general science discussion, etc.
User avatar
Lay Vegan
Senior Member
Posts: 355
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2017 8:05 pm
Diet: Vegan

Re: Non-aggression Principle (and other dogmas)

Post by Lay Vegan »

I don't want to stray too far from the OP (as not to confuse newcomers to the thread) so I would like to clarify that it is NAP's incompatibility with consequentialist ethics, concerned with harm and well-being, that makes it so difficult for me to subscribe to such a principle.

mkm wrote: Mon Jun 04, 2018 10:07 am I agree with you said, but it wasn't my question. I know that consequentialism and deontology differ, that's why I proposed a particular deontological system with the rule (maxim?) "maximizing good outcomes". In my view that way you frame deontological system to be basically the consequentialism. brimstoneSalad identified the point of my question well (though still said that your explanation is ok, while it kind of missed the point), pointing out that such system may not be "proper" deontological one. Is it so?

Sorry, I kind of rambled in bit in that response. In terms of such a maxim “maximize goodness of outcomes,” I don’t think Kant would’ve accepted this, given that what it means to achieve the “greatest good” in each situation requires detailed evaluation of the consequences, which deontology vehemently rejects. Categorical imperatives denote unconditional requirement and are designed to be ends in themselves. Imperatives generally command that we make specific moral decisions that do not vary according to the situation or context. However, the maxim you proposed would involve any number of means taken to reach its end, each of which would absolutely vary according the situation. Said maxim is not designed to be an end in itself; it’s designed to be a means to an end, and thus would not be a valid maxim.

I don’t think any ends-based maxim can work within a deontological framework. However, “maximize goodness of outcomes” would work fine within the the framework of rule-consequentialism.

mkm wrote: Mon Jun 04, 2018 10:07 am The problem is: when the sum of benefits outweigh the harms?
The benefits outweigh the harm when the outcome results in the greatest amount of well-being (and least amount of suffering) that is practicable.
mkm wrote: Mon Jun 04, 2018 10:07 am Do we even can compare them? Why or why not? For example, if I like listening to loud music, but my neighbor values silence, how do we weigh harms and benefits?
Harms can’t all be perfectly quantified, like trying to figure out whether hurting your or my feelings leads to more overall harm.

However, in the scenario you’ve provided, if person A gets pleasure from listening to music at high volumes, but person B values silence and is afflicted with discomfort, the moral decision would be to simply close the windows or utilize earphones. Thus, person A still gets pleasure from his loud music, and person B gets pleasure from silence. i.e., well-being has been maximized.

In a similar scenario; let’s say person A cannot afford to purchase earphones. The most rational decision would simply be to turn the music down. It may negatively the amount of pleasure he receives, but the benefits outweighs the harm because person B will be “less harmed” by a quieter noise. This scenario will still lead to a “greater good.”
User avatar
PsYcHo
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1166
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 10:24 pm
Diet: Pescetarian

Re: Non-aggression Principle (and other dogmas)

Post by PsYcHo »

Lay Vegan wrote: Fri May 18, 2018 2:59 am If a knife-wielding maniac thrusts his way into my home, and threatens to kill my family and me, why should I adhere to such a rule?

just responding to op now. My internet sucks at the moment, so I'll address any already addressed points later.

According to the NAP, once you violate it (the NAP), the use of force is totally acceptable. So it is acceptable to use deadly force to deal with such a maniac.

The non-aggresion priciple is not meant to be a pacifist priciple.

It's meant to be a variation of the golden rule. Do unto others, as you would have others do unto you. Once you violate that sacred rule, however, there is no obligation to "turn the other cheek". Once someone uses agression, the NAP is void. So if someone attacks you, (a peaceful person) you can retaliate with force up to and including death.

A famous philosopher once said "Don't start no shit there won't be no shit."
Alcohol may have been a factor.

Taxation is theft.
mkm
Full Member
Posts: 105
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 4:51 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Non-aggression Principle (and other dogmas)

Post by mkm »

Lay Vegan wrote: Wed Jun 06, 2018 8:33 pm Categorical imperatives denote unconditional requirement and are designed to be ends in themselves. Imperatives generally command that we make specific moral decisions that do not vary according to the situation or context. However, the maxim you proposed would involve any number of means taken to reach its end, each of which would absolutely vary according the situation. Said maxim is not designed to be an end in itself; it’s designed to be a means to an end, and thus would not be a valid maxim.
"to maximize good" sounds very like the end in itself. Of course, I need to think what does it mean to do good in any given situation, but the same is true with a maxim "don't tell lies". Many imperatives which fly as "legitimate" could be criticized in the way you have criticized it.
Lay Vegan wrote: Wed Jun 06, 2018 8:33 pm The benefits outweigh the harm when the outcome results in the greatest amount of well-being (and least amount of suffering) that is practicable.
That's just reformulation that is as clear as the previous one. How do you measure well being against suffering?
Lay Vegan wrote: Wed Jun 06, 2018 8:33 pm Harms can’t all be perfectly quantified, like trying to figure out whether hurting your or my feelings leads to more overall harm.
Do you agree that it is the problem with consequentialism?
Lay Vegan wrote: Wed Jun 06, 2018 8:33 pm However, in the scenario you’ve provided, if person A gets pleasure from listening to music at high volumes, but person B values silence and is afflicted with discomfort, the moral decision would be to simply close the windows or utilize earphones. Thus, person A still gets pleasure from his loud music, and person B gets pleasure from silence. i.e., well-being has been maximized.
I know that there are some resolutions to the conflict, my question is whose well-being/suffering is more important. Eventually, would we force person A to buy earphones (it's not high volume anymore, one is just closer to the speaker :D ), or would we advice B to deal with it?
Lay Vegan wrote: Wed Jun 06, 2018 8:33 pm In a similar scenario; let’s say person A cannot afford to purchase earphones. The most rational decision would simply be to turn the music down. It may negatively the amount of pleasure he receives, but the benefits outweighs the harm because person B will be “less harmed” by a quieter noise. This scenario will still lead to a “greater good.”
How can you say that less harm from noise > pleasure from high volume? Why not the other way around? What if, let's say, high volume for A is nearly orgasmic?
User avatar
Lay Vegan
Senior Member
Posts: 355
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2017 8:05 pm
Diet: Vegan

Re: Non-aggression Principle (and other dogmas)

Post by Lay Vegan »

mkm wrote: Thu Jun 07, 2018 7:47 am "to maximize good" sounds very like the end in itself. Of course, I need to think what does it mean to do good in any given situation, but the same is true with a maxim "don't tell lies". Many imperatives which fly as "legitimate" could be criticized in the way you have criticized it.
Not quite. The maxim “don’t tell lies” is entirely means-based. It simply denotes the moral imperative never to tell lies. Ever. Regardless of the situation. Obeying this duty does not require a detailed analysis of any given situation. And it shouldn’t, since Kantian deontology creates rules based on universifiability, not situational outcomes.

However, the maxim “maximize goodness of outcomes” requires analysis of the consequences of moral decisions (in order to decide which acts produce the most good) but Kant himself has denied that the consequences of an act contribute to the moral worth of that act. Kant would probably reject your proposed maxim out of belief that it would lead to contradictions, due to the inability to identify consistent means. E.g., “sometimes tell the truth to maximize good, sometimes don’t tell the truth to maximize good.” This produces inconsistent means, and thus wouldn’t work as a categorical imperative. Imperitives are absolute; there can be no exceptions, nor can they overridden by other moral considerations.

In addition, your maxim would be incompatible within the second part of the Categorical Imperative;
Kant wrote:An action is permissible if and only if the agent does not treat any rational being merely as a means.
In a scenario where killing 1 prisoner to save 19 others would lead to a maximizing of the goodness of outcomes, CI 2 would not deem this act permissible, as you are using the death of a rational person as a means to an end; (the greater good).

mkm wrote: Thu Jun 07, 2018 7:47 am Do you agree that it is the problem with consequentialism?
Within some variations, yes. I didn’t claim consequentialism is a perfect ethical system; it’s just the most rational one.
mkm wrote: Thu Jun 07, 2018 7:47 am I know that there are some resolutions to the conflict, my question is whose well-being/suffering is more important. Eventually, would we force person A to buy earphones (it's not high volume anymore, one is just closer to the speaker :D ), or would we advice B to deal with it?

This depends on the capacity of the pleasure or well-being. Person A might like loud music for the sake of it, but person B may suffer from noise sensitivity and extreme anxiety. In this case, I’m more concerned with harm the music inflicts on B than I am with the "harm" of making person A listen to loud music on earphones. Especially if there isn't much of a difference in harm of making them wear earphones (why can't the music on earphones get just as ridiculously noisy?)

mkm wrote: Thu Jun 07, 2018 7:47 am How can you say that less harm from noise > pleasure from high volume? Why not the other way around? What if, let's say, high volume for A is nearly orgasmic?
The difference in pleasure of listening to loud music via earphones is probably not comparable to the act of blasting loud music on speakers and disturbing B’s sleep pattern (which will harm their productivity and mental health).

If A claims loud music is nearly orgasmic, and somehow more pleasureful than listening to loud music on headphones, would the difference in pleasure be "worse" than the harm induced on B, who suffers from noise sensitivity and has trouble falling asleep at night?
User avatar
Lay Vegan
Senior Member
Posts: 355
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2017 8:05 pm
Diet: Vegan

Re: Non-aggression Principle (and other dogmas)

Post by Lay Vegan »

PsYcHo wrote: Wed Jun 06, 2018 9:20 pm According to the NAP, once you violate it (the NAP), the use of force is totally acceptable. So it is acceptable to use deadly force to deal with such a maniac.
Thanks for this clarification.
PsYcHo wrote: Wed Jun 06, 2018 9:20 pm Once someone uses agression, the NAP is void. So if someone attacks you, (a peaceful person) you can retaliate with force up to and including death.
Which "kind" of aggression? If a masked person thrusts his way into my home with the intention to steal valuables, is it permissible to murder him? Would the act of home invasion totally void NAP?
mkm
Full Member
Posts: 105
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 4:51 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Non-aggression Principle (and other dogmas)

Post by mkm »

Lay Vegan wrote: Fri Jun 08, 2018 8:37 am Not quite. The maxim “don’t tell lies” is entirely means-based. It simply denotes the moral imperative never to tell lies. Ever. Regardless of the situation. Obeying this duty does not require a detailed analysis of any given situation. And it shouldn’t, since Kantian deontology creates rules based on universifiability, not situational outcomes.
So... According to your words, it can't be a proper maxim. That said, you still need to take under consideration current situation to be able to tell the truth.
Lay Vegan wrote: Fri Jun 08, 2018 8:37 am However, the maxim “maximize goodness of outcomes” requires analysis of the consequences of moral decisions (in order to decide which acts produce the most good) but Kant himself has denied that the consequences of an act contribute to the moral worth of that act. Kant would probably reject your proposed maxim out of belief that it would lead to contradictions, due to the inability to identify consistent means. E.g., “sometimes tell the truth to maximize good, sometimes don’t tell the truth to maximize good.” This produces inconsistent means, and thus wouldn’t work as a categorical imperative. Imperitives are absolute; there can be no exceptions, nor can they overridden by other moral considerations.
Sometimes one can encounter inability to identify which answer is true, which puts "don't tell lies" in the same position.
Lay Vegan wrote: Fri Jun 08, 2018 8:37 am In addition, your maxim would be incompatible within the second part of the Categorical Imperative;
Kant wrote:An action is permissible if and only if the agent does not treat any rational being merely as a means.
In a scenario where killing 1 prisoner to save 19 others would lead to a maximizing of the goodness of outcomes, CI 2 would not deem this act permissible, as you are using the death of a rational person as a means to an end; (the greater good).
I can imagine a situation in which someone tells the truth in order to obtain some goal, which would make someone a mean to an end. Does it render the maxim "don't tell lies" improper?
Also, why killing 1 to save 19 would maximize the goodness? Would you even want to live in a world in which you can be sacrificed in that way? I don't, and I see such solutions to moral dilemmas unconvincing.

Why do we even bother so much with what Kant said? Deontology doesn't start and end with Kant.
Lay Vegan wrote: Fri Jun 08, 2018 8:37 am Within some variations, yes. I didn’t claim consequentialism is a perfect ethical system; it’s just the most rational one.
For me right now it looks very ad hoc. There are some benefits of establishing clear rules. Considering that most of ethical and legal systems are mixes of deontology and consequentialism makes me think, that paradoxically it could more rational approach, than "pure" consequentialism.
Lay Vegan wrote: Fri Jun 08, 2018 8:37 am This depends on the capacity of the pleasure or well-being. (...)
That's the problem. If it depends, it's hard to make consistently good decisions, and it's not even a serious conflict. Even if you see the outcomes you can't be sure whether given decision was right or wrong, because you have no insight into all possible outcomes.
User avatar
PsYcHo
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1166
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 10:24 pm
Diet: Pescetarian

Re: Non-aggression Principle (and other dogmas)

Post by PsYcHo »

Lay Vegan wrote: Fri Jun 08, 2018 9:18 am
PsYcHo wrote: Wed Jun 06, 2018 9:20 pm Once someone uses agression, the NAP is void. So if someone attacks you, (a peaceful person) you can retaliate with force up to and including death.
Which "kind" of aggression? If a masked person thrusts his way into my home with the intention to steal valuables, is it permissible to murder him? Would the act of home invasion totally void NAP?
Sorry for the late reply, but if you're still interested..

If a masked person thrusts his (or her ;) ) way into your home, they have violated your personal space with obviously ill intent. If you would like, you could ask the nice masked person exactly what their intentions are, and decide how to react based upon their response. But by the very act of being agressive (forcefully breaking into your home), they have voided the NAP, and yes, you could kill them. ( I don't consider killing in self defense murder, but six of one, half a dozen of another...)

Now if someone say, stole your television, and you see them running down the street with it, that is a different story, and one which many Libertarians debate themselves.
Alcohol may have been a factor.

Taxation is theft.
User avatar
Lay Vegan
Senior Member
Posts: 355
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2017 8:05 pm
Diet: Vegan

Re: Non-aggression Principle (and other dogmas)

Post by Lay Vegan »

Thanks for the reply.
PsYcHo wrote: Sat Jun 30, 2018 11:46 pm Now if someone say, stole your television, and you see them running down the street with it, that is a different story, and one which many Libertarians debate themselves.
This was where my concern lay with my question. If the thief were to violate my private property, does this completely void NAP? Even if his intent were clearly to steal my TV or wallet, could I kill him?

Let’s say I catch the intruder just as he’s darting down my driveway with my TV in his arm. Can I drag him back onto my property and shoot and kill him? Who would be the real “aggressor?” Following NAP, he would be, since it was totally voided when he choose to step onto my property without permission. However, I imagine a lot of people would see a problem with this.

Additionally, I don’t see at the violation of property as “inherently wrong” since society is literally predicated on taxation. Taxation allows for our government to enforce the law and build public facilities and programs that benefit greater society. Why condemn this act as inherently wrong when it leads to a functional society? How do you differentiate this from an intersectionalist who uploads equality as "inherently good" despite the many problems that economic systems like communism bring to society? I’d like to hear your thoughts on this.

Also, @mkm brought up an interesting point here;
mkm wrote:I think you can disprove hard propertarianism in libertarian framework, if we assume that for example the rule self-ownership is a part of it. If Bob and Alice use their resources and parts of their bodies to make a baby, then it should be their baby, but on the other hand the baby own itself, and the ownership is exclusive by definition.
So I think it basically even must be pragmatic, as you say.
Sorry if I'm throwing too much at you. :D You seem to be the token libertarian on the forum. :lol:
User avatar
Lay Vegan
Senior Member
Posts: 355
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2017 8:05 pm
Diet: Vegan

Re: Non-aggression Principle (and other dogmas)

Post by Lay Vegan »

mkm wrote: Fri Jun 08, 2018 11:45 am So... According to your words, it can't be a proper maxim. That said, you still need to take under consideration current situation to be able to tell the truth.
You don’t need to consider the situation to decide not to lie. There is only one way not lot lie, that is, by not doing it. And again, you’re not supposed to consider the situational context, since moral laws are to be obeyed in ALL situations and across ALL contexts. If not, then Kant would probably assert that it would result in a “contradiction.”

This article has a pretty in-depth break down of the Categorical Imperative, and goes over universalizable maxims.

http://alexanderpruss.com/1308/Kant1.html
mkm wrote: Fri Jun 08, 2018 11:45 am Also, why killing 1 to save 19 would maximize the goodness? Would you even want to live in a world in which you can be sacrificed in that way? I don't, and I see such solutions to moral dilemmas unconvincing.
Because it maximizes well-being. Ideally, no I wouldn’t want to have to be sacrificed, but I couldn’t deny that 19 people experiencing well-being would result in a better world than only 1 person experiencing well-being.

This is only a hypothetical. I’m using this scenario to explain why your proposed maxim isn’t compatible within Kantian ethics.
mkm wrote: Fri Jun 08, 2018 11:45 am Why do we even bother so much with what Kant said? Deontology doesn't start and end with Kant.
:lol: :lol: I mention Kant because he’s the one of the only deontologists I’ve formally studied (I don’t have a super extensive background in philosophy). He’s a pretty central figure in academia, and probably the biggest influencer of deontological moral theory.
mkm wrote: Fri Jun 08, 2018 11:45 am That's the problem. If it depends, it's hard to make consistently good decisions, and it's not even a serious conflict. Even if you see the outcomes you can't be sure whether given decision was right or wrong, because you have no insight into all possible outcomes.
I concede this can be a problem within some forms of consequentialism. @brimstoneSalad and others on the forum who've studied this extensively may have solutions to this.
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Non-aggression Principle (and other dogmas)

Post by brimstoneSalad »

Lay Vegan wrote: Sun Jul 01, 2018 5:26 pm
mkm wrote: Fri Jun 08, 2018 11:45 am That's the problem. If it depends, it's hard to make consistently good decisions, and it's not even a serious conflict. Even if you see the outcomes you can't be sure whether given decision was right or wrong, because you have no insight into all possible outcomes.
I concede this can be a problem within some forms of consequentialism. @brimstoneSalad and others on the forum who've studied this extensively may have solutions to this.
We have to follow probability, and this is the benefit for many circumstances of rule consequentialism.

Uncertainty doesn't invalidate ethics; there are certainly grey areas where we need more information before acting, but there are huge swaths of decisions that already have overwhelming information that they would be good; e.g. ending animal agriculture.

Some people like deontology because it always gives you a certain answer; much like the draw of religion in having all of the answers. But that's no good if it's just made up answers (not actually credible knowledge) and self-contradictory.
Post Reply