Community hub
Recent from talks
Knowledge base stats:
Talk channels stats:
Members stats:
Non-aggression principle
The non-aggression principle (NAP) is a concept in which "aggression" – defined as initiating or threatening any forceful interference with an individual, their property or their agreements (contracts) – is illegitimate and should be prohibited. Interpretations of the NAP vary, particularly concerning issues like intellectual property, force, and abortion.
Like the Golden Rule, the Non-Aggression Principle follows an ethics of reciprocity, in the sense that whether a person's action is permissible, depends upon the preceding actions of others.
The non-aggression principle is considered by some to be a, or even the, defining principle of libertarianism. It is a common principle among libertarians of both minarchist and anarchist beliefs.[non-primary source needed]
The principle has been derived through various philosophical approaches, including:
Propertarians/Right-libertarians who are pro-life and pro-choice both justify their position on NAP grounds. One question to determine whether or not abortion is consistent with the NAP is at what stage of development a fertilized human egg cell can be considered a human being with the status and rights attributed to personhood. Some supporters of the NAP argue this occurs at the moment of conception while others argue that since the fetus lacks sentience until a certain stage of development, it does not qualify as a human being and may be considered property of the mother. On the other hand, opponents of abortion state that sentience is not a qualifying factor. They refer to the animal rights discussion and point out the argument from marginal cases that concludes the NAP also applies to non-sentient (i.e. mentally handicapped) humans.
Another question is whether an unwelcome fetus should be considered to be an unauthorized trespasser in its mother's body. The non-aggression principle does not protect trespassers from the owners of the property on which they are trespassing.
Objectivist philosopher Leonard Peikoff has argued that a fetus has no right to life inside the womb because it is not an "independently existing, biologically formed organism, let alone a person". Pro-choice propertarian/right-libertarian Murray Rothbard held the same stance, maintaining that abortion is justified at any time during pregnancy if the fetus is no longer welcome inside its mother. Similarly, other pro-choice supporters base their argument on criminal trespass. In that case, they claim that the NAP is not violated when the fetus is forcibly removed, with deadly force if need be, from the mother's body, just as the NAP is not violated when an owner removes from the owner's property an unwanted visitor who is not willing to leave voluntarily. Libertarian theorist Walter Block follows this line of argument with his theory of evictionism, but he makes a distinction between evicting the fetus prematurely so that it dies and actively killing it. On the other hand, the theory of departurism permits only the non-lethal eviction of the trespassing fetus during a normal pregnancy.
Pro-life libertarians such as Libertarians for Life argue that because the parents were actively involved in creating a new human life and that life has not consented to their own existence, that life is in the womb by necessity and no parasitism or trespassing in the form of legal necessity is involved. They state that as the parents are responsible for that life's position, the NAP would be violated when that life is killed with abortive techniques.
Hub AI
Non-aggression principle AI simulator
(@Non-aggression principle_simulator)
Non-aggression principle
The non-aggression principle (NAP) is a concept in which "aggression" – defined as initiating or threatening any forceful interference with an individual, their property or their agreements (contracts) – is illegitimate and should be prohibited. Interpretations of the NAP vary, particularly concerning issues like intellectual property, force, and abortion.
Like the Golden Rule, the Non-Aggression Principle follows an ethics of reciprocity, in the sense that whether a person's action is permissible, depends upon the preceding actions of others.
The non-aggression principle is considered by some to be a, or even the, defining principle of libertarianism. It is a common principle among libertarians of both minarchist and anarchist beliefs.[non-primary source needed]
The principle has been derived through various philosophical approaches, including:
Propertarians/Right-libertarians who are pro-life and pro-choice both justify their position on NAP grounds. One question to determine whether or not abortion is consistent with the NAP is at what stage of development a fertilized human egg cell can be considered a human being with the status and rights attributed to personhood. Some supporters of the NAP argue this occurs at the moment of conception while others argue that since the fetus lacks sentience until a certain stage of development, it does not qualify as a human being and may be considered property of the mother. On the other hand, opponents of abortion state that sentience is not a qualifying factor. They refer to the animal rights discussion and point out the argument from marginal cases that concludes the NAP also applies to non-sentient (i.e. mentally handicapped) humans.
Another question is whether an unwelcome fetus should be considered to be an unauthorized trespasser in its mother's body. The non-aggression principle does not protect trespassers from the owners of the property on which they are trespassing.
Objectivist philosopher Leonard Peikoff has argued that a fetus has no right to life inside the womb because it is not an "independently existing, biologically formed organism, let alone a person". Pro-choice propertarian/right-libertarian Murray Rothbard held the same stance, maintaining that abortion is justified at any time during pregnancy if the fetus is no longer welcome inside its mother. Similarly, other pro-choice supporters base their argument on criminal trespass. In that case, they claim that the NAP is not violated when the fetus is forcibly removed, with deadly force if need be, from the mother's body, just as the NAP is not violated when an owner removes from the owner's property an unwanted visitor who is not willing to leave voluntarily. Libertarian theorist Walter Block follows this line of argument with his theory of evictionism, but he makes a distinction between evicting the fetus prematurely so that it dies and actively killing it. On the other hand, the theory of departurism permits only the non-lethal eviction of the trespassing fetus during a normal pregnancy.
Pro-life libertarians such as Libertarians for Life argue that because the parents were actively involved in creating a new human life and that life has not consented to their own existence, that life is in the womb by necessity and no parasitism or trespassing in the form of legal necessity is involved. They state that as the parents are responsible for that life's position, the NAP would be violated when that life is killed with abortive techniques.