Is the Principle of Non-aggression Biblical?

[schoel]

Principle of non-aggression:

"...a moral stance which asserts that aggression is inherently illegitimate. NAP and property rights are closely linked, since what aggression is depends on what a person's rights are.[1] Aggression, for the purposes of NAP, is defined as the initiation or threatening of violence against a person or legitimately owned property of another. Specifically, any unsolicited actions of others that physically affect an individual’s property or person, no matter if the result of those actions is damaging, beneficial, or neutral to the owner, are considered violent or aggressive when they are against the owner’s free will and interfere with his right to self-determination or the principle of self-ownership."
(Source = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle)



It is my assertion that this principle is implied in the teaching of Jesus throughout the gospels.


Agree or Disagree?
Please describe the reason behind your response.

[steve]

It seems that this principle would not be absolute. I can think of exceptions, when one would be justified (or obligated) to act contrary to the will of another person in controlling his or her person or property, most notably:

1) When the person is a child under your authority, needing restraint or discipline;

2) When the person is a criminal seeking to evade arrest;

3) When the person is acting irrationally, with the potential of harming him/herself.

[Bryan]

I don't accept the definition. It seems to me that the given definition would include not only neutral, but even acts meant to be beneficial, if they have not been expressly approved by the recipient.

[Bryan]

Sorry, I didn't realize what was being discussed precisely until I viewed the link. I was tying it I to pacifism in my head.

I'm not sure the teachings of Jesus would be perfectly aligned with NAP in that if the "property owner" was unaware or not available to give consent, I believe Jesus would have you to care for that man's property and attempt to benefit the man, whereas NAP, as I understand it, would require a "hands off approach", perhaps even to the point of neglect.
I may not be understanding NAP correctly. I generally lean toward Libertarian views.

[schoel]

It seems that this principle would not be absolute. I can think of exceptions, when one would be justified (or obligated) to act contrary to the will of another person in controlling his or her person or property, most notably:

Very few principles are absolute, especially when they concern ethically behavior. For example, lying is wrong, but what about lying to the Nazis when they came for the Jews you are hiding?

I think it is the same with this principle. the NAP stands as a principle in general behavior between adults, with the few exceptions that you listed.

However regarding the third:

3) When the person is acting irrationally, with the potential of harming him/herself.

This exception listed strikes me as having a dangerous ambiguity that would lead to inappropriate intervention. What constitutes "irrational" behavior? What is "harmful"?

Also, even if I'm certain that a behavior or action by another adult is lacking in reason and harmful to them, does that still warrant an exception to the NAP?
Take homosexual activity, alcoholism, recreational drug use or heterosexual promiscuity. I know that it is physically, spiritually and emotionally harmful to the individuals involved in that behavior. I'm also under the impression that participating in that lifestyle has irrationality at its roots. But does that mean that it is ethically acceptable to force them against their will to stop?

[schoel]

I'm not sure the teachings of Jesus would be perfectly aligned with NAP in that if the "property owner" was unaware or not available to give consent, I believe Jesus would have you to care for that man's property and attempt to benefit the man, whereas NAP, as I understand it, would require a "hands off approach", perhaps even to the point of neglect.

The example you give wouldn't be breaking the NAP, in my opinion. This person isn't thieving the property of this other person by stewarding it. Stewarding implies a submission to the actual owner and a commitment to serving the owner instead of oneself. If the owner returned, a proper steward would immediately hand over the keys.

The NAP has at its core a respect for the self ownership of all adults, including that which is a result of the fruit of a person's honest labor.

[steve]

Hi David,

I think that true ethical principles are generally absolute. The principle of loving your neighbor as you love yourself is, in my opinion, absolute. Whether we understand its proper application to a given situation is another matter. Application of principles is the task of ethical thinkers, which includes us all. Compromising those principles, I think, is not ours to do. I cannot imagine a scenario in which it would be wrong to love your neighbor as you love yourself—if you are defining those terms as God does.

[schoel]

The principle of loving your neighbor as you love yourself is, in my opinion, absolute. Whether we understand its proper application to a given situation is another matter. Application of principles is the task of ethical thinkers, which includes us all.

Thanks for clarification.

My earlier statement ...

Very few principles are absolute, especially when they concern ethically behavior. For example, lying is wrong, but what about lying to the Nazis when they came for the Jews you are hiding?

...was attempting to state the same, but clumsily failed.

[Paidion]

Actually David, I don't think you have "clumsily failed". You gave a perfect example of an "exception" to the moral principle of abstaining from lying. Lying to save a life is morally right. Of course one could define "lying" in such a way as to exclude lying to save a life and other such "applications". However that give a very complex face to morality.

Because of the many exceptions, I think moral absolutism is a difficult stand to apply. Personally, I subscribe to Norman Geisler's position, that is, moral hierarchism. In the case of a moral dilemma, where two moral imperatives conflict, then one's moral obligation is to perform the action which takes precedence over the other in the hierarchal arrangement of moral principles. Thus, in the example just given, saving a life takes precedence over telling the truth.

Erwin Lutzer, pastor of Moody Church in Chicago takes a moral absolutist stance. In his book on morality, he indicates that when there are moral conflicts, then one should do "the least of two evils." In the hiding Jews from the Nazis scenario, he would say that if we choose to tell the truth, and the Nazis kill the Jews as a result, then we have sinned for failing to save their lives when we could have. On the other hand if we lie and save their lives, then we have sinned because we have lied. In either case, says Lutzer, we have sinned, and thus need to ask God's forgiveness. One the other hand, moral hierarchalists believe that in the case of moral conflicts, there is always a morally right choice to make while the other choice is morally wrong.

Of course we may ask those who subscribe to hierarchalism, "Who is to judge where moral principles fit into the hierarchy?" Yet a similar problem arises no matter what your moral theory. For Lutzer, the question is "How do we know which is the least of two evils"?

David, if as you affirm

The NAP has at its core a respect for the self ownership of all adults, including that which is a result of the fruit of a person's honest labor.

then it seems rather similar to "the principle of loving your neighbor as you love yourself" that Steve mentioned, and I see no reason to think it isn't absolute. Isn't "respecting the self ownership of all adults" and example of that love for one's neighbour?

It seems to me that the "exceptions" which Steve listed are not really exceptions to the principle of non-agression but rather a case of a higher moral principle taking precedence over it.