Yeah, and if he never pays for the door, then he’s a criminal.
From this, wouldn’t it follow that a hungry man with no money would be just in stealing a loaf of bread and than paying the baker back at some other time?
If you believe it right to do something that you believe is always wrong, then clearly you don’t really believe it is always wrong.
There are only two possibilities, either:
A. The NAP and its associated ethical principles (such as the proportionality and homesteading) allow for exceptions and flexible interpretations, or
B. They do not allow for exceptions and flexible interpretations.
If A, then they are only guidelines, not absolute principles. If B, the results by turns defy common sense and by turns are utterly monstrous and horrific. Objective ethical theorists (shall we call them “central ethical planners”?) can keep adding more and more new provisions to avoid such shocking results: proportionality, upgrades to Lockean homesteading, Block’s idea that a child becomes an adult when he or she leaves home, “two eyes for a eye,” allowance/outlawing of free banking or patent or copyrights, etc. But at some point we might ask when the creation of such centrally-planned[ok we’ll say suggested] ethical content becomes too much.
With each new addition the content becomes more and more controversial, and why not allow for realize that the free market to will produce the best results?
Moreover, let us remember the lesson of Hasnas, that the letter of the law means nothing; interpretation of the law means everything. If we accept this, then it doesn’t seem to matter to the vision of society that there is something called the NAP, if private courts and arbiters are going to be the ones interpreting it.
If the man were in dire threat of dying of hunger, then yes.
Depends. If they come to that agreement after the first time, yeah. If they don’t, he’s just a lousy thief.
Would Rothbard break into a cabin, of whose owner he is certain would under no circumstanes be OK with that, if it meant the difference between the life and death of someone other than himself?
Would it be immoral for Rothbard to watch a stranger bleed out to death, if he were in a posession of a bandage and knew how to tie it but chose not to?
i dont know whether would be immoral or not.
i dont know whether he was immoral in real life. maybe he stole stuff. i doubt it. i’m sure you can find a better way to gain insight than asking me questions about how another human being would behave.
it would only be immoral if he had some obligations through prior title-transfers to deliver such services; or at least he would have to release his bond. otherwise it would also be immoral if he had been the cause. In all other circumstances he would not be immoral.
So you are a utilitarian, I presume? You justify theft if it saves a man’s life?
It would be an evil thing to do, and to commit evil is immoral. But you are right in that it would be neither just nor unjust.
NAP deals with justice. But morality does not equal justice. Justice is that morality which can be legislated. But there is a part of morality, called goodness (opposite to evil, rather than to injustice) which can not be legislated, but must be left entirely to our conscience. While it is virtually impossible to imagine goodness colliding with justice (ussually they are one and the same) it is possible to construct a theorethical scenario where they do and in such a case it is better to commit an injustice if the injustice is smaller than the demands of goodness and of such a nature that it does not have to be permanent, but can be temporary provided we take responsibility for it and make amends/pay compensation.
Injustice is righted by justice being served. Evil is forgiven when sincere penance is made. Righting an injustice commited by oneself requires no admission of wrong, only the admission that the act was commited and a full acceptance of all the legal consequences. Only forgivness for evil requires admission of guilt.
I don’t think any one person is perfect. The camper may not understand the woods very well, and so being out there in the first place is questionable. The woods are the woods. Prepare for cuts, bears, cold, potentially blowing numerous times to get that fire going, and broken bones. No mommies or daddies around to help. No big brother. If anybody has regular experience camping, even in the northern climate winters, the person knows how to prepare for the worst before-hand. Foresight is a well-cultivated practice to be exercised. Even a person that has been in the woods for numerous years off and on comes across unique challenges, and sometimes upon first entry mistakes are made. Loud sounds, not being too careful, not acclimated yet, etc… First entry (upon each and every entry) can be the most dangerous time.
The woods are a completely different environment than urban life. After awhile even the animals get used the person, and are not as easily spooked because the person begins to blend in more and the actions of the person become more natural to the environment, etc… The person isn’t making sudden odd movements as much. Smells more like the woods. The list goes on.
This is all basic to those that have been in the woods a lot. People that put themselves in desperate situations, by lack of preparation ie. having the necessary supplies, the knowledge of what one is getting into and ready to take on the risk, etc… Obviously in this situation the camper put him or her self into this mess - such people become desperate. How do desperate people operate. Do they become beasts or rise in courage to the occasion. At least in this situation the blame is totally on the camper and not the government. The camper completely f-k up on their own.
I can’t stand mobile phones. I find no use for them. They are another hum-drum that I don’t need.
Wow. A sensible answer…
Indeed. His life saved, owner compensated.
But, according to the logic of this answer, it would be right for someone who is hungry and without money to steal bread as long as he pays the baker back at another time. This is utilitarian and violates the non-aggression principle.
Well then obviously the guy should freeze to death in the woods or whatever in keeping with a philosophical theory.
I think a utilitarian would actually say that the hungry man can steal bread wheter he intends to pay back the baker or not.
What is amazing is the doublespeak that is rampant in society. Right is steal. As the other thread points out Obama is the character in the play that represents war is peace.
Even if “right” was taken out of that post, it’s amazing you call it stealing. Outstanding!
This is exactly my point, I was attempting to show the problem with justifying theft of bread. Read the post again, jackass.
up is down; glad you attempted “to show the problem”, thus, it’s a problem. If that’s your attempt, then we agree, so, why you incline to get emotional about this tug of war in your own making, is undoubtedly complicated. Implying a connection was your original post and once you venture into this type of thought experiment, then you instantly put yourself on the side of doublespeak. But in fact you stated originally, “which seems to be a silly conclusion.” that it is wrong for a person to break into a person’s cabin, correct? So if it is a problem but you state it’s not a problem by it being a “silly conclusion”, really?
I am looking for ways to justify the non-aggression principle in hypothetical “lifeboat” situations because that is a common method of attack. Does the NAP apply in such scenarios? Or is it more flexible than that, allowing for occasional instances of aggression-initiation if one’s life is one the line?