/ancap/ - Anarcho-Capitalism

because it is moral

because it encourages others to act in a NAP way, what gives you bigger possibilities than infringing NAP

Many often accuse ethics of being devoid of substance; a purely subjective study. The fact is that they have failed to examine what ethics genuinely is.

Ethics, properly considered, is the study of conflict in human relationships. Think about it; if you aren't involved in conflict with anybody, then there isn't any legitimate objection to your behavior. Ethical action is interpersonal behavior which does not generate conflict, and unethical action is that which does. Conflict is a physical event which is objectively observable, and responsibility for conflict is objective and inter-subjectively verifiable. Thus, a properly-formulated study of ethics concerns real-world events and has very real implications.

The Non-Aggression Principle is extrapolated from ethical concepts and is a useful heuristic for identifying ethical and non-ethical action, and for determining responsibility where conflict has occurred.

>Why should I care about NAP?

Because if you don't feel like studying ethics directly, it's the most useful tool you have for pursuing conflict-free, and thus more efficient, interpersonal relationships.

>>775

There are reasons, yes. As >>777 pointed, it serves as a extremely helpful standard for legitimate and illegitimate activity. I don't always agree with the NAP but it has its positives. It essentially states that coercion and violence is unacceptable without consent and that individuals are not to place unwanted aggression against other people. It's a somewhat golden rule, something we can identify in many religious and non-religious ethos: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.

>>777

Is the NAP about ethics really? I see it as a basis for a law system and as you said for conflict resolution. But that not ethics for me.

Imagine a person that sees someone the street getting hit by a car and instead of calling for an ambulance he decides he wants to stick around and write a poem about the situation and the death of the victim. That is an immoral person although they do not violate the NAP. There shouldn't be law to condemn them but I do condemn them. I would want nothing to do with such a person. I would be willing to loose money in order to avoid having to interact with such a person. That hatred that I have towards such "immoral" people is subjective of course.

>>793

>Imagine a person that sees someone the street getting hit by a car and instead of calling for an ambulance he decides he wants to stick around and write a poem about the situation and the death of the victim.

>That is an immoral person although they do not violate the NAP.

Prove it. In what way are their actions immoral? How are you able to establish a moral imperative? If you can establish that they have a moral obligation to help, then where, objectively, does that obligation end? Is it immoral of you to fail to purchase a radio scanner and spend your time listening for accidents? Is it immoral for you to have a life outside of saving people? After all, that is precisely what the poet in your example is doing, in principle; he is choosing to act upon his own preferences, rather than providing value to a person who would likely appreciate it.

The person has done nothing to initiate a conflict; they are thus acting upon consistent normative premises and therefore "have the right" of the actions they have chosen.

>There shouldn't be law to condemn them but I do condemn them. I would want nothing to do with such a person. I would be willing to loose money in order to avoid having to interact with such a person. That hatred that I have towards such "immoral" people is subjective of course.

All of this is right and fine.

Missed this part earlier:

>>793

>I see it as a basis for a law system and as you said for conflict resolution. But that not ethics for me.

Ethics is the study of normative claims; that is, of "ought" statements. It is the study of how humans should behave. Since any set of propositions must be consistent with each other to be valid, no system of ethics which prescribes contradictory normative propositions can be valid. Thus, a system of ethics must involve a collection of normative propositions which avoid situations of conflicting human action. That is to say, a proper body of ethics must avoid interpersonal conflict, and resolve conflict where it arises.

However, ethics is simply a study; a consistent method resulting in a body of knowledge regarding normative propositions. Law is a collection of customs which put ethical insights into practice. It is simply ethics in action, and arguments claiming the need for law rest upon this definition; mankind is said to be prone to conflict, and law is offered as a practice which resolves or avoids this tendency to the greatest degree possible.

>>788

Oftentimes the "Zero-Aggression Principle" is better. Never escalating and attempting to de-escalate the situation always leads to better results.