Be Nice part I

So...let's return now to the non-aggression principle and why we should all try to follow it.

I can't prove that the non-aggression principle is true for all cases, but we can make an effort and I think we can come close. More importantly, I think that not agreeing with the non-aggression principle is an untenable position. So, I approach this more from the point of view that the NAP is the best moral rule available and positions that disagree with this assertion are likely irrational. I'm waiting for a good criticism or alternate position to come along. Let's explore some of the common criticisms of the NAP.

First, I'd like to point out that I think there is a spectrum of possible belief in the NAP. One could hold that it is always true that the NAP is moral and leads to moral behavior. One could hold that while the NAP is generally true, there is some enumerated list of exceptions that can be determined by other meaningful moral ideas. One could also hold that there is no inherent truth at all that the NAP is a good or moral idea. There may be other ways to view the NAP as well.

For those that would like to say there is no truth to the idea that aggression against innocents is by it's very nature wrong, I'd like to say that society can safely preclude you from further discussion on the concept of morality. This is a fringe view, and would sometimes be considered insane. It would be difficult to have a society at all if there was no restraint when it came to the harming of innocents. Assuming you did have such a society, I believe it is almost self-evident that such a society would have less happy people, less people getting what they want, more people getting harmed, and would by it's very nature be less moral. Morality is about what one "ought" to do, and what one "ought" to do relates to what one wants, and while we can't exactly weigh the desires of one against the desires of another, I do feel it is safe to say that a society where less people are getting less of what they want is less moral. There is more to say on this, but for now I'll just say that I find this position to be untenable.

Consequentialist crtiticism - This criticism is basically saying the NAP can't be right because it says do not kill 1 person even if that murder saves a million people.

I think the defenses to this criticism are perfectly adequate.
A) I would agree that the consequences of advocating the rule are superior to advocating that other individuals attempt to calculate each of their own actions to determine whether aggression or non-aggression would lead to better consequences.
B) There is no objective means by which we can tell, or anything even approaching consensus, as to what the "right" thing to do in such a consequential scenario is. Some people might claim that it's obvious we should trade 1 life for a million, but I deny that it is so simple. Who is the 1? That's relevant. More importantly, how can the consequentialist be sure of the actual outcome? In a real world situation, like say tax the rich to feed the poor; what are the unintended consequences of such a policy? Who can even fully understand what the complete consequences are?

And where do we draw the line? Is it right to kill 1 person to save 2? To save 3? There is no consensus, that's for certain.

The consequentialist will often agree that aggression in general is wrong, but assert that sometimes the ends justify the means. To that I can't help but wonder how anyone can determine what ends justify what means?

Stay tuned for more...

Goodness is not a zero-sum concept

It is not necessarily the case that in order for one person to get what they want, that another individual or group of people must lose out on what they want.

In economics and game theory, this is called non-zero-sum.

In some instances one might find people with desires in direct conflict. For instance you and I might want the exact same apple. We can't both possess the exact same apple.
More often though, we'll just both want an apple and unless we are toddlers the particular apple won't matter much. Should there be a way for both of us to have an apple, that is better for the whole group (me and you) than us fighting over the initial apple.

I'm almost done building up my basic premises now...I think the next post I'll jump to why we should all agree with the non-aggression principle.

A few propostitions or assertions to get us going...

Let's assume, with good reason I feel, that there is no moral giver. I leave it to others to prove that this is not the case. Until that proof arrives, we'll move on with this basic assumption.

Along the same lines, I propose that for all people capable of comprehending the questions, if we ask them about the relative goodness of a sufficiently large enough set of possible moral hypothetical situations we will end up with a different set of answers for every single person.

Such a set of questions might start with:
Is it right (or moral or good) to kill 1 person to save 2?
Is it right to kill 1 person to save 3?
...
Is it right to kill 1 person to save 100,000,000?
...
If you only could save either your child or your spouse, who would you save?
...and so on.

So long as we ask enough questions of all people surveyed, we'll never get the exact same set of answers...or at least I contend it is so unlikely to be possible for a sufficiently large set of questions as to not be worth considering as being meaningful.

Another way of putting this, might just be to say that "goodness" is subjective. Everybody wants something different and it is almost by definition that what a person wants is the same things as that which is "good" in their opinion.

Let's call that basic assertion 1 (ignoring the zero assertion that there is no god): "The goodness of any particular desire is subjective"

Next, let's define an "ideal world" to be the world in which an individual had everything they wanted. This is the maximum "goodness" any individual could ever hope to have in their world. Your perfect wold is different from mine, and almost certainly all other person's perfect worlds as well. We'll call this assertion 2: ideal world = maximum subjective goodness

Third, let's assume that for a sufficiently large set of individuals, it is not possible to have all persons achieve 100% of what they want. It might not even be possible with as few as 2 people, depending on the first 2 people in the set. This is the Rolling Stones assertion...you can't always get what you want. Assertion 3: conflict is inevitable. I feel safe in this assertion so long as I can point to any other individual in existence that doesn't want exactly what I do.

Now that we have established that:
1) goodness is subjective
2) ideal world = maximum subjective goodness
3) conflict is inevitable

I propose that given these things, the "best" world we can hope to achieve is the one where the most people get the most of what they want. Or, rather the "best" possible world is the one where we maximize the goodness for us all. We can't all have everything we want, but how can we all get the most possible?

I'll blather on about that idea in a future post.

Morality, Ethics, and Good

I won't be writing a complete philosophical treatise on these issues, but once again I think these are important terms to define before we move on.

I reference Wikipedia for definitions a lot not because it is authoritative, but because it at least gives definitions I find useful and it gives citations to much more complete essays, books, and other references on the issue in question.

So, in case you don't understand what I mean when using terms like morality, ethics, or good; start by clicking the links.

These definitions aren't always complete, but they give us a starting point.

In the begining the blog was without form and void

I don't expect to have a large following, but I'll treat this as a conversation with someone I don't know.

The first thing to do is establish a common universe of discourse.

In order to understand all the other things I may choose to talk about it's important that the reader understand my starting definitions and positions.

Much of what I believe comes from the non-aggression principle. This principle can be summed up with this definition: the initiation of physical force, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property, is inherently illegitimate.

I'll address some of the possible criticisms of the non-aggression principle as a moral tool in later posts and I'll explain more about why I find the non-aggression principle to be so useful and fundamental when it comes to thinking about morality and politics and other issues.

Next, I'd like to introduce the reader to the idea of natural rights. I'll need to explain this a little more than some other ideas or definitions, as I don't hold that a creator endowed us all with certain rights, rather I think we can derive certain natural rights from reason alone, more like Kant tries to do (not that I'm saying Kant is authoritative or correct, just more along the lines of where I come from). Natural rights will almost certainly need a post or two on it's own in order to discuss.

Once we establish what I think these two concepts mean, then it will be easier to discuss nearly all things moral and political.

Other issues and ideas we'll need to define and discuss further include: peak oil and fiat money. It's only after we have some understanding of what these things are that we will be able to discuss why I think these two things are so very important to where we (the world) are now and where we will be in the not to distant future.

This set of concepts should keep me busy for a while. Stay tuned.