Practical ethics is largely concerned with dispute resolution, since disputes bring to light our incompatible values. When people are living together in harmony, ethics needs little consideration. It is only when individuals disagree that we invoke ethics.
The Non-Aggression Principle is a simple heuristic for judging the behavior of moral agents:
“The non-aggression principle (NAP) is an ethical and moral principle that aims to avoid conflict between individuals by prohibiting crimes like theft and murder. The crimes prohibited by the NAP are behaviors that are malum in se as opposed to behaviors that are prohibited due to laws, social norms, or moral systems. The principle asserts aggression is always an illegitimate encroachment upon another individual’s life, liberty, or property, or attempt to obtain from another via deceit what could not be consensually obtained. Aggression, for the purposes of NAP, is defined as initiating or threatening the use of violence against an individual or legitimately owned property of another.” -Wikipedia
The problem with this principle is that it doesn’t help us handle disputes. It doesn’t help us figure out what to do when people disagree about who is “aggressing”. If I claim my neighbor is trespassing on my land, and she claims I am trespassing on hers, and we both threaten to use violence against each other… whose actions are “legitimate”? Which of us has broken the Non-Aggression Principle? Who is in the right?
“Who’s right?” is an interesting question for a situation like this, because it has a hidden assumption that often goes unnoticed. The question “who’s right?” seems to imply that there is an objective answer, a “true” answer.
The same goes for the idea of “legitimacy”. It purports to provide an objective answer.
The Non-Aggression Principle falls into this same trap.
The problem with claims at objective ethics is that someone can always disagree with you, and then your ethics dissolve into a dispute that your ethics can’t help you resolve.
I prefer to start where the Non-Aggression Principle stops: with the disputes. I assume there will always be disagreements about values. My goal isn’t to convince everyone that my value system is best, but to interact with the universe in an aesthetically pleasing harmony.
I have a deep disdain for threats of violence and the initiation of force, but it’s only a personal preference. I won’t claim that aggression is universally evil, but I do intend to fight aggression. Both in actions and words, I’ve been working to undermine a local terror group that obtains funding through taxation. In 2012, I sailed to the Caribbean on my sailboat named Sovereignty and published an open letter called “Why I’m Leaving America“. Later, I squatted in the forests of Texas in a year long art project called “Occupy the Woods” to call into question the effectiveness of government courts.
We don’t need to pretend to have all the answers. We don’t have to pretend to have special access to the ultimate ethical framework. The illusion of control causes confusion and suffering; embrace subjectivity. Avoid phrases like “X is good” or “we need X”. It’s enough to say “I prefer X” and then work towards X. Or if you find some behavior deplorable, simply announce “I find Y ugly” and then work against Y.
We are powerful people and our preferences change the world.
