I’m interpreting it literally. You are interpreting it selectively.
Enabling is not the same thing as causing. Enabling a crime is not a crime, otherwise the builder of a gun would be liable for whatever actions the gun was ever used for.
No, I don’t think taxpayers are aggressors. They are forced at gunpoint to give money to an evil organization. I’ve been the one saying all along that you shouldn’t blame someone in that situation!
In your moral system, however, the fact that someone is threatened, tortured, forced, etc. doesn’t matter. Does that clarify my last post?
But most taxpayers pay their taxes willing. They believe in the government and look down on people who don’t pay taxes.
Your logic demands that anyone who payes their taxes because they want to, and not because they are afraid of the government, be treated as an aggressor.
I say that all tax payers are guiltless, regardless of mindset.
Interpreting the NAP literally is silly! Think about this: if I give someone some poisoned food and then walk away, I’m not forcing them to do anything and I’m not being aggressive. Under your literal interpretation, I didn’t do anything wrong.
So, while you wouldn’t punish me, and you wouldn’t punish individuals who voluntarily gave money, weapons, and intel to the Nazi regime (knowing full well who the Nazis were), you would punish someone who was coerced into committing a crime? Why is your system is a good system that you expect anyone to subscribe to?
edit: Yep, without abusing markup, you can’t say the plural of “nazi”.
edit2: Can’t type at all.
You aren’t using an accurate definition of aggression then. It is not limited to personal violence. It includes all forms of property damage, theft, fraud, and coercion.
You caused personal harm and violated the NAP.
But I’m not causing personal harm, under you previous logic. I didn’t force him to eat it.
Thats like saying that committing fraud is not a crime, because I didn’t force you to believe my lies.
I agree, but I don’t see how that is consistent with your literal interpretation of the NAP.
If your system doesn’t punish individuals who knowingly and voluntarily give money, weaponry, and intel to the Nazi war machine, but does punish individuals who are threatened/tortured into committing a crime, I really don’t see why anyone else would want to subscribe to it.
Because they don’t believe tax payers are aggressors.
Ego
For the sake of making progess and coming to some kind of agreement, I invite this as a strategy: How about you tell Jon and I what you think we should believe and why, and then we can tell you what we think you should believe and why.
I’m becoming more and more confused as to what exactly your views are, Jon. In the following scenarios, tell me if Person1 would be punished under your moral system:
- Person1 hates Person2, so he pulls out a gun and shoots him.
- Person3 hates Person2, so Person3 holds a chainsaw to Person1’s genitals and coerces him into shooting Person2.
- Person1 voluntarily gives weaponry and funding to a giant murderous gang. This gang is actively killing and torturing millions of innocent people.
- Person 3 is a member of said gang, and threatens to kill Person1 if Person1 doesn’t give the gang weaponry and funding.
edit: can’t type
Stephen Forde, people should not be held responsible for their actions if those actions were taken under coercion. The coercer should be held responsible.
How much coercion is necessary to let someone off the hook? Threatening to confiscate a dollar, demolish their house, confiscation of life savings, a slap in the face, amputation of a limb, or execution. At what point does it become ok, and why? It is more the why that I’m interested in. Also, why should people not be held responsible for their actions if those actions were taken under coercion? What is the argument and line of reasoning leading to this conclusion? This is where the focus of our debate should be. By focusing here we will probably come to some agreement. If we just keep repeating our positions, we won’t get anywhere. And its also more interesting. That’s what I think anyway.
I do not see how coercion can justify further coercion. You misunderstood my first statement about free will in which they still have free will, even under threat of death. Why you may ask? Their actions do not depend on a physical causal agents. In the case you are being held under threat of death to kill yourself, assuming there only exists two outcomes: 1. You kill another, to save yourself or 2. You do not kill the other, and you are then killed. Outcome 2 would be the only moral outcome of this situation since Outcome 1 initiates further aggression against an outside party.
Why bring in the bystander, Smith, into this problem? If Jones forces you to kill him, you can refuse at the expense of your own life. The ultimate causal agent of the aggression of the bystander Smith whom your forced to kill is found within you because you have free will. Physical events aren’t a definitive causal agent in mental actions where the aggression against Smith started. They may influence your actions, but they do not determine them.
Then maybe its time to abandon your strategy of imagining new scenarios to try to trick me into agreeing with you.
I have already concretely defined my beliefs.
Oh well…
Instead of asking “why not punish them?”, I’ll ask you, “why punish them?”.
The purpose of punishment is to prevent and rectify evil and reckless choices. That’s why no one wants to punish freak accidents.
If a man holds a chainsaw to a married woman’s neck and says, “you will have sex with me and you will act like you’re enjoying it”, her compliance doesn’t mean that she is unfaithful to her husband! It serves no purpose to stigmatize her as such.
Using your logic in a legal system is even worse; not only is it unfair, but it grants immunity to aggresors who take hostages and employ human shields (and thus incourages those actions).
can’t type
double post
Well, do you think you could answer them? I’m not trying to trick you into anything, I’m trying to get you to see your inconsistencies.
I don’t think so either.
I don’t see what I misunderstood. I was just asking Ego for an elaboration of his position because I’m trying to understand the principles he is applying to the hypothetical situations.
I don’t think that the question is one of whether or not the coerced party should be punished. I think its a matter of who and whether or not the victim has the right to punish.
This raises the following questions. Who may decide to punish or not? What is the standard by which “evil and reckless” are determined?What punishment is suitable for the evil and reckless choice?