Rape is no more an imperative for moral nihilists than drinking 7-up is. So far I’ve stayed away from rape because I estimate it would be a net loss of satisfaction.
That might be more tough of a question than I might give consideration to. I fall back on the rational NAP. I think there are direct actions that are options that do not involve stealing and home invasion. If somebody really felt strongly about all this, then that person could do a sit down and disrupt Congress until they rid the monopolies they coercively hand out. It is the people’s building. So if they came in with coercion to remove the people sitting down disrupting the assemblage, then self-defense could be enacted.
Hey Jacob, I don’t know if you are still reading this since you asked a question about morality and this will lead to basically all out war lol. But since you put out the olive branch I will too. You said you don’t experience anything like morality, I would like to help you see this is not true. Morality is defined as how one should act. There is no universal code written in the stars for man to be sure, but there is a universal morality of sorts. It has to do with goal oriented behavior, when you want something you set about trying to get it. This is setting a goal, and setting a goal leads to morality, a way you “should” act to achieve your goal. All morality means at its base is that man has a sense of planning and acting in a way to achieve his goals. Goal selection is an evolutionary trait and your ancestors were subjected to natures hand in culling the poor goal selections. For example the man that doesn’t act logical is sure to die and so on. The definition of a secular morality, that is a morality that proves the non aggression principle is a evolutionary preferred strategy, has been attempted many times and I suggest you devout many hours to its contemplation. Good luck.
I agree. Lying is not of natural rights. Moral values that are not natural rights are plenty but the morality of natural rights is limited and fosters liberty.
Morality is about simply about good and bad and my signature states what that is. Lying is a moral issue, but a very weak one. Weak enough that it does not need to be conflated to natural rights and thus justice. Whether lying is good or bad depends on the situation. Somebody could lie about another’s business, and this doesn’t mean justice needs to step in, but it could still be bad for that business. So the business would simply have to work harder to overcome the lying.
I am saying that since their wealth was obtained through unjust means, that they therefore should not have claim to it.
I understand the issue is much more complicated than that, I am just saying that their claim to their wealth is pretty weak, IMO. They used government force to obtain it.
Any time you illegalize something you will need an institution that can enforce those rules. And that institution needs to embody FEAR. Fear is a powerful tool of control. I think everyone can see that the anarchist private court system is a weak one because it’s not very scary. I mean…the police are scary. I fear them. The army is scary, I fear it. Private courts and cops aren’t as scary, I don’t really fear them.
You also have to understand that the Natural rights argument in the Constitution explicitly says those rights are granted by our Creator. I don’t think there is a God. So you will need to use force to uphold these rights, not a philosophical argument.
I say that instead of arguing that natural rights exist, we should argue that a system runs more efficiently when everyone is a free to act in their own interests as much as possible without too much coercion at any point. Someone is always going to be trying to use fear to get others to do what they want. It’s part of human nature. You aren’t going to get rid of that by making “natural rights” your central argument. Coercion will always be an effective means of getting what one wants. As long as that’s true, no system is going to be able to completely eradicate it. I studied to be a lawyer for like three years, I’m telling you: laws are just words on a piece of paper unless someone actually has the power to enforce them and enforce them rigorously and harshly.
Hitler and Stalin and Mussolini are all in separate categories in terms of how they violated rights. I’m reading a book called Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg about this, I suggest you check it out. Those three men used different methods of justifying coercion.
But the way I go about achieving my goals may be undesirable to some. Goal setting is inherently logical. “What do I want?” “Ok, this is what I want, how do I get it?” “What’s the most efficient way of getting what I want?” “Ok, I do that now.” Nowhere in this process does morality enter the picture. Morality is a set of subjective values that say what is and is not allowed, not “what do I want and how do I get it?” I think of morals are a more circuitous and unreliable route of making decisions. Logic is a straight line.
For instance, stealing might be the most effective and efficient way for me to get what I want. Or murder might. Consider Ahmadinejad. The simplest way to get rid of him is to kill him. Not to reason with him, not to negotiate but to go in there and get rid of him. This is simple “goal setting and achieving” logic. I leave it to you to decide whether this path is moral or not.
Despite the criticisms that are usually leveled against “immoral” people, they are often the best at getting things done. Think Hitler. He killed six million Jews. Morality didn’t stop him. He got done what he wanted to get done.
Rape isn’t a moral decision. It’s a profit and loss decision. Rape, despite being very high on the power and control and instant gratification meter is also very high on the risk meter. So…it’s just not worth it to me right now. Morality would never stop me from raping someone, simple financial and economics calculations do.
Government may not be necessary, but it is certainly better at getting the job done. This is why we have common law. Think of natural selection. Do you really think we’d be on the path we’re on right now if it wasn’t the most effective one?
Exactly. Reality is the best limit on choice, not morality. Reality is best understood by logical cause and effect. Morality…has no cause and effect, making it useless for our purposes.