3 ms·

I can't understand people, who reject Non-Aggression Axiom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_pr

I can't understand people, who reject Non-Aggression Axiom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle).

_delirium 16y ago
In my case, I reject armchair deontological ethics in favor of ethics that have at least some grounding in science and empirical examination of the world, so the non-aggression axiom fails for the same reason that Kant's ethics and Christian ethics fail.
- anonymoushn 16y ago
  Can you explain when "ethics that have at least some grounding in science and empirical examination of the world" conflict with the non-agression axiom?
  - _delirium 16y ago
    They may or may not conflict; I just reject it as an axiom. It's possible that there are good reasons to support a society structured around a non-aggression principle, though. (I don't have a fully worked-out ethical theory, but I'm intrigued by the stuff Sam Harris is doing to try to reduce the gap between ethical theorizing and science.)
    - anonymoushn 16y ago
      Oh, that seems like a pretty reasonable approach to things. Thanks.
- tzs 16y ago
  Can you give examples of ethics that have some grounding in science and empirical examination of the world?
Sharlin 16y ago
From a consequentialist viewpoint, any deontological rule is just a heuristic, useful in many contexts at least as a first approximation, but decidedly not without exceptions. Anyone who has really gotten their hands dirty delving into the human morality should have realized that it is way too complex a beast to be able to be reduced to simply categorical rules.
- michaelchisari 16y ago
  Or, in other words, "for all complex problems, there is an answer that is simple, easy, and wrong."
  - billswift 16y ago
    There are wrong answers available for anything. That does not mean there are not answers that are simple, easy, and right. You might find Epstein's Simple Rules for a Complex World worth reading. http://www.amazon.com/Simple-Rules-Complex-Richard-Epstein/dp/0674808215/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1302972838&sr=8-1 http://www.amazon.com/Simple-Rules-Complex-Richard-Epstein/d...

I can't understand people, who reject Non-Aggression Axiom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle).

_delirium 16y ago

In my case, I reject armchair deontological ethics in favor of ethics that have at least some grounding in science and empirical examination of the world, so the non-aggression axiom fails for the same reason that Kant's ethics and Christian ethics fail.

anonymoushn 16y ago
Can you explain when "ethics that have at least some grounding in science and empirical examination of the world" conflict with the non-agression axiom?
- _delirium 16y ago
  They may or may not conflict; I just reject it as an axiom. It's possible that there are good reasons to support a society structured around a non-aggression principle, though. (I don't have a fully worked-out ethical theory, but I'm intrigued by the stuff Sam Harris is doing to try to reduce the gap between ethical theorizing and science.)
  - anonymoushn 16y ago
    Oh, that seems like a pretty reasonable approach to things. Thanks.
tzs 16y ago
Can you give examples of ethics that have some grounding in science and empirical examination of the world?

Sharlin 16y ago

From a consequentialist viewpoint, any deontological rule is just a heuristic, useful in many contexts at least as a first approximation, but decidedly not without exceptions. Anyone who has really gotten their hands dirty delving into the human morality should have realized that it is way too complex a beast to be able to be reduced to simply categorical rules.

michaelchisari 16y ago
Or, in other words, "for all complex problems, there is an answer that is simple, easy, and wrong."
- billswift 16y ago
  There are wrong answers available for anything. That does not mean there are not answers that are simple, easy, and right. You might find Epstein's Simple Rules for a Complex World worth reading. http://www.amazon.com/Simple-Rules-Complex-Richard-Epstein/dp/0674808215/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1302972838&sr=8-1 http://www.amazon.com/Simple-Rules-Complex-Richard-Epstein/d...