The best moral rules

I was discussing morality again the other day with someone and my wife asked me to make another post about the matter. So...I've included some of my thoughts and comments below:

I'll lay it out for you in as simple terms as I can. Volumes have been written on the issue, but I'll try to sum up in a few lines.

1. Individuals all want and value different things. Everyone thinks something different is "good" from their point of view.

2. Society is made up of individuals

3. Morality deals with how one ought to behave in the context of a society

4. Rights deal with how one should expect to be treated under the moral rules of the society


5. A moral rule, to be of interest to any given individual, should be one that they want to see society follow because it helps them in their own self interests, whatever they may be. in this way, people will be moral out of self-interest despite the fact that everyone has different self interests and values. Advocating morality is good for the individual and the society.

6. The non-aggression principle - to not use force against others and their property is an optimum moral rule because it meets the self interest of everyone (except for those who by definition wish to cause harm itself - serial killers, rapists, child molesters...these people are not self interested in following this rule, but they can't be part of any moral society).

If you as an individual do not have to worry about others harming you or your property then you are objectively better off in whatever your arbitrary goals may be...thus, it is in your interest to be in a society with this moral standard no matter who you are (again, excepting for people who by definition wish to cause harm). This is as universal as a moral gets. most people, by definition, OUGHT to want this moral rule. It is objectively true for nearly everyone. That's not arrogant, that's a fact.

How to I judge the "rightness" of the non-aggression principle? Via my subjective values and wants as mentioned in item #1, just like everyone else. The great thing about the non-aggression principle is that it ought to be followed by all non-violent people all over the world because it will serve their self interests and values, no matter how subjective or different from mine they may be. This is why I consider this to be the best moral rule. It is true no matter your subjective views of the world or what you want.


7. Any moral rule that advocates the use of force against some innocent* subset of individuals is poor because it begins to run contrary to the interests of more and more individuals, both those having force used against them and those using the force. Any such rule will, by definition, reduce the both the potential size of a society and the potential opportunity for individuals to pursue what they want. Why would an individual want to follow or advocate a moral rule that is clearly contrary to their own self interests or subjective values? This is why most other moral rules are lesser than the one I'm advocating.

* innocent in this context means that they haven't violated #6. They are not, and have not, used force or fraud against others or their property.

9. Given a large, and inclusive, moral society that is following the non-aggression principle there is no reason that people can't or won't freely band together in order to pursue things like education, medical care, cars, and pretty toe nails. These are all arbitrary ends as covered in #1. All of these ends, and all other non-violent ends of all other people, can be pursued in relative safety under the non-aggression principle. You can freely help your community and family and so can everyone else if they want to...or I can live like a hermit if I want to.

10. It is true that some people may fail and it is true that by use of force some people, may some times, achieve more of what they want at the expense of what others want but there is no objective way to measure your arbitrary wants and desires against those of another and the introduction of force against innocents to achieve any given arbitrary end has removed you from what most people would universally (by their own subjective standards) agree is moral* and put you in the subset of people that want to use violence for arbitrary means (rapists, killers, molestors)

*moral here means that all non-violent people everyone can recognize that they are better off in a society with the non-aggression principle...that they ought to advocate for it. (this doesn't mean that people might not perceive they are better off with other rules, only that objectively they are better off with THIS rule than without it).


In sum: Since morality deals with how one ought to act in a society, and it is true that for all non-violent ends, an individual would be objectively better off with this the non-aggression rule in place than without it, then it should follow that this rule is objectively true for all non-violent ends.

We all should attempt to follow the non-aggression principle.

This is not a thesis, but I tried to cover the jist of things.