Civil Disobedience and Voluntary Punishment

Thanks, Pro, for your recent rebutalls. Now, for my rebuttals of round 3: Objective Morality Is Intent a Reality? Pro's argument here is that, even if I did prove that a God existed, it does not prove that this God has a mind, or that this God made intentions towards our created universe. However, this can be easily proven false. Not only is there a causal argument for the necessary existence of some kind of being that is eternal, but there is a causal argument that this being has intentions. Intentions can have two outcomes- accidental and intentional. For example. I can intend to grab a cup off the table, and if that action is completed, it was an intended action. However, I can also intend to grab a cup, but I may accidentally bump it off the table. In both scenarios, the events necessarily lead back to some intention. Now, and accidental outcome can never lead to an intentional outcome. So, if the universe came into existence without intention, in order to have a consistent construction of reality, my opponent must then concede that he himself has no intentions- he is merely an accidental collocation of atoms, and this debate itself is entirely meaningless. However, if we accept that people can intend outcomes, we must trace that causal chain of intentions back to the original intention- the act of creation from the first mover. So yes, intent is necessarily a reality, unless my opponent states that it isn't, and then must concede that this entire debate is meaningless. Since I do contend that I have intentions, I would win by default. Longing for the Simple Life. Pro states that I argued that because a human is more complex than an ant, then we were intended to exist more than an ant. This is not what I argued. I stated that because humans have the capacity to recognize that they exist, because humans have self-awareness, this shows that humans have more value than do ants. This is not to say that ants, or any creature of existence, don't have value. The Non-Aggression Principle Pro argues that taxation shows why the NAP isn't a good principle. He states that, because taxation has provided benefits, that consequence is superior to the force imposed on citizens by the state. You could apply this same logic and say that it is okay to steal from the rich, as long as you use the money for good means. You can't commit an evil for good outcomes- morality isn't a balance scale. A superior method of societal funding would be through voluntary means, where everyone in society freely chose to put money together to make roads, public education, etc. My opponent makes arguments, like the seatbelt law, to show that its okay to force people to help themselves. Will this method result in fewer people dying? Yes, probably. Does that make it morally righteous? No, as I already explained throught the stealing of the rich analog. Also, by this same logic, if I put a gun to your head, and force you to give money to charity, then the ends justify the means. However, initiating force on someone IS wrong, because people have a high degree of value and they have certain rights that it is immoral to cross. My opponent stated that if someone is drowning in a pool, the state ought to force those people to save the person. No. Sure, there are things that people ought to do, like tell the truth, help others, be polite, etc. but we can't force people to do those things. Nor should we punish people who fail to do things. Punishment is only justifiable when one person initiates violence on another. The NAP may even apply to personal property, where if you steal from me, that violates my existence and may cause me the pain of starvation, so punishment may also be justifiable. Pro asks how I explain the dissonance, between my moral theory desiring that people ought to do good, and how that I argued against the state mandating force among people who don't do good. But he's setting up a construct that I didn't make. Yes, human flourishing is good, but it has to be achieved through good means. It has to be done in a way that doesn't require violence to do so, which is what my opponent advocates. Pro thinks he's easily defeated the NAP by stating that, in the case of fraud, it is necessary to punish the one who committed fraud on another. This is incorrect. Fraud is indeed not causing force, and respectively, it would be wrong to punish those who commit fraud. So, even thought it's immoral behavior on the part of the fraud, it's not violent immoral behavior that deserves punishment. The manipulated person made a voluntary exchange for the painting. My opponent is arguing for something inherently contrary to the flourishing of society. He argues that the NAP is not a good principle; that it is morally permissible to initiate violence on innocent people. Once you allow the conclusion that violence is permissible, so long as you can justify the consequence, anything becomes moral. This is the second time my opponent has made an argument where the logical conclusion is inconsistent and contradictory. Risks Again, my opponent attempts to argue against the NAP, and continues to make arguments that don't defeat it. Yes, there are risks that people take. This doesn't destroy the NAP. If I choose to drive, I recognize that there is a possibility that an accident can happen. Its possible I could cause harm to someone. However, I am not intending to cause harm. Also, if some accident were to occur, and given that I made the choice to drive knowing the possible consequences, then I must also accept punishment for those consequences. If I harm someone, even accidentally, I owe them recompense. Now, the retribution will be different given the intent of the person. If I murder someone, or if while hunting I accidentally kill a fellow hunter, the just punishment for each instance will be different. But this is my entire point- punishment is only justifiable IF and only IF the NAP is violated. If you want to fly a plane, it is morally permissible to do so, as long as you recognize you have the duty to submit to punishment for acts of intentional or accidental force. If you are peacefully protesting a law that transgresses the NAP, then it would be immoral to be punished, because the government would be initiating unjustified force on peaceful dissenters. Areas of Possible Overlap Pro and I seem to both agree with two corollary statements: It is morally wrong to give an unworthy punishment, and it is not morally wrong to give a worthy punishment. I have argued that the only justification for punishment is if and only if the non-initiation of force is applied. Pro advocates that it is morally permissible to enact force on anyone, so long as a consequence can be justified. Objective Morality I have stated my objective moral theory. Pro has continually evaded doing so. However, looking at all of his arguments, he seems to base his morals on the consequentialist theory. Given that Pro only has one round left to provide his measuring tool for how he justifies consequentialism. I beg him to do so, for the sake of the validity of his arguments. Now, this theory is plagued with the fallacy of circular reasoning, so I am curious to see how he justifies the position. Now, for the last time, I want to stress the severity of morality in this debate. My opponent is making a moral claim. Depending on which moral theory he prescribes to, the defense of that moral claim will be different. Under Kant's categorical imperative, you cannot use people as means to and end. So, if my opponent argues that it is moral to force people to wear a seatbelt, this is morally incorrect, according to Kantism. Under Divine Command Theory, morality is what God says it is. If God commands against forcing people to make decisions, then his consequentialist arguments would also be incorrect. If my opponent continues to abstain from putting forth a moral theory to show how me measures the validity of his claim, then all of his arguments are necessarily invalid.