You must be logged in.
You must be logged in.
Do arguments for the NAP really matter?
Ive been thinking lately that there isn’t just one true way to “prove” the NAP. Ive been reading “Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand” and it got me thinking that no matter how you slice it there are several ways to arrive at the NAP and in the end does it really matter which road you take to get there? I think not. Just curios what everyones thoughts on the subject were.
I think it needs a purely a priori logical proof, which argumentation ethics provides.
If you can find flaws in all of the different generally accepted ways of thinking that are used to justify other ways to live, but that violate the NAP, then I think you have done a great service to the cause of liberty. Deciding which route to the NAP is the one, true, objective way to get there may be of immense personal interest to some, but unless there are greater implications that arise from the process itself, then I would agree with you that debating why we agree that 2+2=4 is likely less important than agreeing at least that 2+2 does in fact equal 4 in the first place and that we can base other decisions off of the basic logical formula.
I was actually thinking in terms of mathematics as well. On several occasions there is always more than one way to arrive at a proof or theorem, but the underying math is all still true.
Perhaps individually, we’ll all be fond of the particular path that proved the NAP to us.
For me, Rothbard’s argument based on the nature of man, is the argument that resonates with me for a natural right to not be aggressed against. Not that there aren’t others, but so far, they all seem to have something in common with Rothbard’s.
This makes the most sense to me, I rushed my question so my comment about Objectivism is out of context slightly. I was reading the book i mentioned then i came across the section on the initiation of force, and it reminded me of the article on Wikipedia that references several different arguments in favor of the NAP and i thought “well this is just one more to add to the list”. Some Objectivists though believe that their road to the NAP is the only true way but i figured in the end why does it matter how you arrive, just as long as you do in fact arrive? Thanks for your response!
No. The NAP is a leap of faith, and there’s nothing wrong with that. Among academic philosophers, proofs of the NAP get less respect than proofs of the existence of God. The latter get respect only because so many historical philosophers took them seriously, not because they meet the standards of “proof” that philosophers expect these days. Proofs of the NAP aren’t old enough to be respected for this reason.
Any “proof” of the NAP must start from one or more axioms, i..e. starting points that are taken as true without proof.
Those who accept the axiom that “all moral principles must apply equally to all people at all times” will be able to rigorously “prove” the NAP.
But no amount of shouting about their “proof” will ever convince those who start from an alternative axiom such as “Might makes right” or “Divine Right of Kings” or “A specified book contains the inspired word of a god”.
“Proofs” of the NAP serve to comfort those who support freedom, by providing justification for what freedom-lovers already believe. Sadly, these “proofs” will never seem convincing to those outside of the liberty movement.
