The Non-Aggression Principle Is a Flawed Moral Position

What is a flawed moral position? My argument is normative and reliant on the human capability to reason right from wrong. The criticisms of NAP that I provide below will essentially all be trying to argue that NAP can strongly interfere with the ability of humans to prosper and thrive by placing unfair restrictions on individuals. 1. The Utilitarian Critique Imagine a sinking ship, and a few life boats. On board, there are several highly obese individuals. The crew is thrown overboard and 4 of these obese individuals weighing 500 lbs. quickly swim to 2 lifeboats with a weight capacity of 1000 lbs. each. The obese individuals climb aboard, and start rowing away from the crew in the water who will drown or freeze in a short time. However, you were out hunting on a nearby island and witness this event and have a clear shot at the innocent obese rowers. Under the non-aggression principle, using force here is inherently unjust since the obese rowers technically are not aggressing against anyone. By shooting a single fatty, you could make room for 4 individuals (assuming 125 lbs. crew members), and by shooting all of the fatties you would be saving 16 lives. Granted that you have shot 4, the net benefit in terms of lives saved would be 12. That's 12 families who now have a loved one home safe, in the balance of things. Additionally, the situation could be made even more unbalanced either by increasing the number of fatties, lowering the average crew member weight, or even giving the fatties cancer or AIDs that would kill them within weeks of arrival on the shore. The fact is, under the dogmatic NAP you are not allowed to save lives in this event. This should be considered a glaring error in the NAP due to the fact that if you can save more lives with little inconvenience to yourself, you should do so. You should act to produce the largest net benefit to those involved. Saving lives is good. 2. The Appeal to Basic Necessities You and your family have plane crashed in the desert. Luckily, you have all survived but are burnt and scared. After walking for days, you approach a house with enough food and water to feed your family for at least a few days. Unfortunately, you have no money and the owner refuses to sell. Negotiations fail, and the landowner kicks you off his property. Given that the owner has not aggressed against those in dire need, the NAP would not justify breaking into the house and stealing food. This would seem to be another pitfall in the principle since human life is more important than the relatively small amount of food the man would have had to spare. An exception to NAP clearly must be made in life or death scenarios. Another case would be an attempt to enforce a 'good samaritan' law. Say you are a lifeguard walking to work in the summer, and on the way you spot a little girl unconscious with her father trying to attract attention. He notices you in your uniform, and pleads for you to help. Unfortunately, you know if you are late for work one more time you risk being fired and turn your back on the father and child. Infuriated, the father threatens to beat you if you do not perform CPR. Common moral sense and reason would support the father's actions due to the much higher importance of human life over a summer job. 3. The Unjust Society You are a serf in a medieval feudal land. For as long as you have known, your family has been impoverished by a feudal lord along with 20 or 30 other families. You farm the Lord's land in exchange for protection and to pay for the lease, but there is no chance at social advancement and the situation is effectively slavery even though you could walk away at any point. However, peasant anger has reared its head towards the Lord's luxurious estate in recent times. The Lord becomes aware of this, and in response claims that he has never aggressed against the peasants and that the peasants have no right to his property. Unsatisfied, the oppressed peasants threaten the use of force against their Lord and demand half of his possessions. I would argue that the peasants are morally correct in their actions here, given that the economic system being used was exploitative in nature and denied the peasants any chance at social advancement or education. When such a rigid social order is in place, it is only fair that the peasants are given some start up capital to make a positive change in this setting. This should not be interpreted as a socialist argument saying that the poor have a right to rob a rich man simply because he is rich. The situation is entirely different here in that this is the peasant's only conceivable way up the social ladder, and that a change in the system towards perhaps a more market-based economy will create a fairer playing field and greater happiness and net benefit. 4. Suicide and Accidents Our moral reasoning would tell us that saving lives is generally a good thing. However, the restrictions that NAP places on the use of force can interfere with this principle significantly. For example, if a mentally ill individual tries to jump off a roof and you restrain him, this would appear to be a violation of the NAP. Perhaps Con believes that a grown adult should have the right to choose for themselves whether to live or die, but does NAP not apply to children or people suffering from mental illnesses? Additionally, in the case of an oncoming train coming quickly towards an unaware woman, would it be wrong to push her away if there was no time to warn her? If pushing in this case can be moral due to the train being the aggressor, does this mean we are now allowed to use aggression towards the victim to "stop" the aggression in all aggressive acts? 4. What is Aggression? This one is particularly relevant towards wars, because countries rarely just outright attack another. One example I would like to bring up is Fort Sumter during the American Civil War, because each side claimed that the other aggressed first. After SC seceded, the rebels seized federal property in under the premise that the North should have no more control over their newly freed state, the North send troops to Ft. Sumter to reinforce the position. Interpreting this as an act of aggression against their newly independent state, southern forces attacked and the Civil War began. Another example would be the role of economic sanctions, which libertarians tend to agree that businesses have a right to refuse serve to individuals. However, these types of sanctions can greatly damage the welfare of families more than a minor attack on property, like a kicked-in fence would as a result of those sanctions. Say, for example, that we get into an argument over a woman and as a result you don't allow me or my family into your store. Additionally, given your popularity a few other stores in the area follow suit and close their doors to me. Now I need to drive much further to pick up basic necessities, yet this is not considered aggression but rather "practicing a right" in the libertarian view. If in anger I were to kick in your fence, under this logic the act would be a blatant act of aggression that would demand compensation. All I am saying here is that the definition of aggression is often quite ambiguous, especially in times of war - but also in the economic realm. In reality, a strong economic embargo hurts a group of people much more than minor property damage. The view that economic sanctions are not a form of aggression is a dubious that needs to seriously undergo a re-examination. Conclusion What I have sought to do here is appeal to moral reasoning, as reasoning is the main tool we have to make sense of this world as human beings. I believe some reasoning is better than others, and I welcome Con to provide his own take on both aggression and how his morality justifies the persistence of NAP in even the more dire circumstances. The inability of the NAP to draw contextual distinctions is a major flaw.