The Non-Aggression Principle Is a Flawed Moral Position

Addressing the earlier points: 1. NAP suffers similar pitfalls to other deontological theories. It fails to contextualize, and due to the variability of human experiences it can easily become morally incorrect to follow these maxims regardless of circumstances. Our reasoning would tell us that due to this variability, our morality should be a little more flexible in order to deal with the multitude of scenarios. 2. I have never explicitly endorsed ethical intuitionism, or at least solely relying on intuitions. I prefer to frame my ethical foundations in terms of reason. A) I am somewhat Utilitarian in my beliefs. I feel Utilitarian arguments, especially in the case I selected, tend to make much more sense that an outright refusal to aggress due to faith in an all-encompassing ethical principle. B) I agree with Pro that act and rule tend to have some overlay, but I feel some of his criticisms were a little off base. In reality, acts like gang rape do not produce a "net benefit" because a thousand negative utility points and lifetime of remembering a scarring event, as well as "ripple" effects - really don't make rape a positive utility event in any normal circumstance. Perhaps if raping a woman would give you the disarm code to a bomb the act is justified, but I don't see the act as ever practically creating a net benefit. Regardless, utilitarianism advocates "the right action is the one that directly produces the best balance of happiness (or utility) over unhappiness for all concerned" [1]. That said, there is only one "right" action in Utilitarianism rather than any plus utility action being correct, so raping would need to be the best action out of all choices. Con also brings up the case of potentially harvesting a healthy man for organs to save 5. This is clearly a difficult question, but I really want to get back to the lifeboat case here because it's much more apparent. I don't see the fact that Utilitarianism brings up difficult questions (as any moral philosophy does) as detracting from the lifeboat case that I set out earlier. Instead of confronting this example directly, Con is attacking some of the more ambiguous parts of Utilitarianism. However, there are vast differences in these two cases including one being in an entrenched social institution, carried out by a Doctor who is tied to the Hippocratic Oath, and may carry enormous ripple effects. Contrast this to the lifeboat case where it's a one time experience, and most of us would agree that it is better to save 4 than 1 - on balance. Many utilitarians have a concept of individual rights, but these rights are considered in the context of the greater good. Moreover, once can generally reject Biblical morality while agreeing with principles such as the Golden Rule without inconsistency. C) We need to differentiate between Mill's Utilitarianism and Bentham's. Bentham's utilitarianism was concerned with utility only in the aggregate, so the "utility monster" would have been a pitfall for Bentham, if such a figure exists. Mill, on the other hand, takes into account the spread of utility being equal ("the greatest happiness for the greatest number. ") Second, starving children would tend to derive more utility from a tangible benefit such as $10,000 worth of food than someone who's basic needs have already been satisfied. Physiological needs comprise the base of Maslow's hierarchy pyramid, and this would imply a large value on utility assuming it can go directly towards those who most need it [2]. However, if a particular firm has a massive potential for a scientific break through that could drastically boost utility clearly some resources should be going there. Additionally, Utilitarianism does not demand communism. Nowhere does it say that everyone must enjoy the same standard of living, and while certainly setting up a school in Nigeria is a great feat, educated individuals with the proper resources can make huge benefits. 2A) I strongly believe that ethics should take account of consequences, because the purpose of ethics is to make this world a better place by the results of the actions taken. If you acknowledge your ethical system does not bring about "rosy" or positive consequences (it's not making the world a better place) then it's time to re-examine those ethics. B) I'm not entirely sure how Con is interpreting NAP to mean this. Perhaps Con's interpretation is unique? The NAP is a universal guide i. e. "the non-initation of force is universally preferable" [3]. C) Morality must have roots in practical affairs. Imagine I am hanging from a balcony, and my only option for survival is to swing into Kenyon's two-room apartment on the floor below, breaking one of his windows. The question of how Kenyon will handle this is, in practice, is entirely secondary to immediate concerns. Under NAP, my falling is a non-aggressive act that directly violates no one's rights. However, breaking into the apartment is considered a use of force with no self-defense component and is inherently wrong. It's really a no-win situation in NAP. The idea that I have "no right" to do so demonstrates the general lack of power of rights based statements. In this case it's a clear decision of my "right to life" vs. Kenyon's property rights, but in NAP my action becomes wrong simply because I initiated force. Similarly, saving a man from committing suicide when viewed in terms of human wellbeing is usually right. The question of whether he has a "right" to resist is entirely secondary. Secular ethics focuses on ways to contribute to humanity thriving. The fact that following a certain ethical rule leads consistently to poor consequences is reason enough to abandon it (or at least apply it more selectively. ) The TURN objection was addressed earlier. 3. I'm not sure what Con means when he claims that the land was not acquired legitimately. In many cases, the land was just settled and claimed and later leased out to peasants who worked subsistence farming. Moreover, I doubt it is only those who label themselves "Utilitarians" would believe it's morally correct to kill 1 to save 10. NAP objects. How about kill 1 to save 100? The scale could be tipped even further, and certainly it is with no great happiness that we kill the one, but it is necessary. I don't want this debate to become about Utilitarianism, because as we can see ethical systems that fail to address context fail in many cases to maximize the ability to thrive as human beings, nor does one need to agree with the whole of an ethical framework to agree with some statements in it. To summarize, despite attempts to divert NAP away from those in desperate economic need or those about to throw themselves off a roof, NAP applies universally and as a directly moral matter in what the resolution has spelled out. NAP is not solely about the justified use of force in defense of property rights in this debate, but rather whether the initiation of force is inherently illegitimate when not in self defense. I don't know how else to argue secular morality besides appealing to human well being. In this sense, there are clearly instances were applying NAP would interfere with that premise. [1] Vaughn, "Doing Ethics" p. 83 [2] . http://ideas.blogs.nytimes.com... [3] "Universally Preferable Behavior" p. 54