Lifeboat Scenarios and the Non-Aggression Principle

Loading...

Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon
Upgrade to the latest Flash Player for improved playback performance. Upgrade now or more info.
1,734
Loading...
Alert icon
Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon

Uploaded by on Aug 24, 2008

My take on lifeboat scenarios and the non-aggression Principle. Digs a little into the epistemology of ethics and context.

  • likes, 3 dislikes

Link to this comment:

Share to:

Uploader Comments (XOmniverse)

  • "The justification for this is that some amount of liberty and property are required for everyone's well being." This is a utilitarian justification for the NAP. There is a deontological justification as well.

  • Give me a rational ground for the existence of duty. In other words, why do I have a DUTY to respect the NAP?

  • Either you are are aware of the origin of the idea and person that coined the term, Garrett Hardin, or you are not. I suggest you look into it and post an appology.

  • Wikipedia says he was born in 1915. I'm fairly certain that lifeboat scenarios (even if they weren't called that by earlier philosophers) existed and were discussed long before he existed.

  • Be honest, "lifeboat theory" obviously was meant to be applied to non-white people. Just say what you mean and don't be a pussy.

  • You're ridiculous. How the hell did you manage to play the race card in response to a video that never mentions race or even has any racist implications?

see all

All Comments (61)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • An ethical theory must apply to every context. The first test of validity, is logical consistency.

  • Enjoy your day in the sun, don't waste time with objectivism. By the time you have a developed this irrational theory your day in the sun will be over like everyone elses. If you feel the need to convince yourself that your collective wealth is not a matter of military aggression, political and economic manipulation and racial alliances then you are not being honest.

  • DackBev you are an honest man.

    Why not just ask: Is it ethical to be unethical? You can't talk your way around it whatever your definition of ethical behaviour is. By the way there is no such thing as objectivism. Why are the "poor countries", for the most part, non-European? Don't you think that this is a way for "white people to rationalize the reasons for their concentration of wealth despite being a minority on earth?"

  • You don't look tough enough to take me on. Don't flatter yourself. You'd be the first to die. If you really believed your philosophy then you better start working out.

Loading...
Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more