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...