- NAP assumes non-aggression is a primary objective. any other objective that contains an aggressive option is condemned by NAP. Even if the objective of sustaining one’s own a a loved one’s life.
- Nap cannot distinguish between non-aggressive options, or aggression options. Once you’ve reduced your options to mere nonaggressive or aggressive options, NAP will not tell you what to choose. “Self”-Interest never loses its effectiveness to distinguish
- nap does not take into account self defense proportionality. murdering a thief.
- nap doesnt account for passive action. should a mother feed her child
- nap doesnt account for the duration of self defense. once an act of aggression has been committed, using force would no longer be self defense. once i have killed someone, you no longer have any justification to act to inhibit me. “self”- interest on the other hand is only concerned with how past action helps predict future action, so a past murderer all else equal is more likely to murder in the future, giving the actor incentive to restrict the murderer’s actions. can i murder a murder? “self” interest may allow for aggression as a deterrent for unwanted action.
- nap is preaching to the choir. aggressors for the most part act in their self interest. “self”- interest can help convince would be aggressors by showing that aggression carries with it high cost and that these costs are unlikely to exceed any benefit. nap is powerless. Most of those who already adopt non-aggression do so in their “self”- interest.
- Nap is a religion. A morality by declaration. It can only be imposed with a state and law. Otherwise you must explicity contract to abide by NAP which only makes sense if its in both party’s “self” interest.
- If non-aggression is profitable people will explicitly contract to do so. It is the profit motive that sustains non-aggression if it applies. It is the cooperation of symbiotic people thru “self”-interest that can deter unwanted aggression.
- NAP doesnt apply to non-human animals. This arbitrary reasoning makes no sense without invoking self-interest. “Self”-Interest requires reciprocation via mutually beneficial trade . You wont aggress against another if they provide benefit to you. This is why it is possible to conduct mutually beneficial trade with intelligent creatures, which explains why NAP may apply.
- non-aggression and the lifeboat senario or where you tilt the self-interest to the extreme, a million vs 10000, the lifeboat senario gains validity when there exists another moral theory that can resolve ANY lifeboat senario. also making extreme self-interest hypotheticals shows that there exists a lower standard of self-interest that one would aggress in response to. proving that NAP is not a principle by the intermediate value theorem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate_value_theorem
“Churchill: “Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?” Socialite: “My goodness, Mr. Churchill… Well, I suppose… we would have to discuss terms, of course… ”
Churchill: “Would you sleep with me for five pounds?”
Socialite: “Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!” Churchill: “Madam, we’ve already established that. Now we are haggling about the price”
- if you had a gun to your head giving you the choice to kill a old person with down syndrome or die. which would you choose? if you abide by nap its obvious. or if the guy had the cure for your dying family in exchange for murder
- you want freedom because you believe you can better determine your own “self” interest. if someone could better determine your “self” interest you should be opposed to losing your freedom
- preferences change. you can aggress against someone for their own good, while at the time they may not agree to it, they may certainly prefer it after the fact. this aggression is easily preferable after the fact. suicide
- making too many rules on property and enforcing with aggression, woman with aids, assailant running from defender, preggy woman smoke drugs
- if i force someone to murder you and you kill him is that aggression? since defense is a response to aggression?
- defense in a populated area. taking a shot puts others at risk. risk is aggression
- punishment is aggression, and if its not revenge isnt aggression.
- nap criticism: intent, how specific intent is to aggression?
- nap implies legitimate cases of bonafide altruism of the meta self
- shooting a gun in the house endangers innocent people and is therefore aggression. therefore you cannot use a gun to defend your home. in other words nap doesnt deal with negligence. especially when its gross negligence
- preemptive self-defense and nap?