You are here

An interesting NAP situation

by Pyotr Malatesta

I was just thinking of an interesting NAP situation...

Bob accepts as a fact, that human life begins at birth, and Bob knows that Amy intends to terminate her pregnancy with the assistance of a medical doctor, Michael. Bob identifies that Michael has violated the NAP, by his intention and preparations to end the life of a human zygote, that Bob calls Amylee. Therefore, Bob interprets that he can offer protection to Amylee on her behalf, from the actions of Amy and Michael, by defending Amylee, by killing Michael.
In this case, Bob believes he is using the NAP as his moral principle, that Michael is initiating aggression against Amylee, and Bob can use deadly force to stop Michael from, with Amy's consent, ejecting Amylee from Amy's womb.

Michael on the other hand, when he is attacked by Bob, believes Bob is initiating aggression on Michael, so Michael believing he is following the NAP, kills Bob in self-defense.

It is possible for both parties who are attempting to kill each other, to both believe that they are using the NAP as a moral guide, in any world where no party has perfect information.

Which is not only an interesting ethical problem, is rather quite amusing....