Controversial Moral Judgments

Cannibalism for the Sake of Survival

Perhaps you might say that cannibalism in cases of extreme survival is justified because 'moral laws don't apply when one's own life is hanging by a thread.' However, you would be mistaken. No matter how appealing the idea that any act in a survival situation is justified, in the grand scheme of things, it is not. According to the moral law of nature, as opposed to "might makes right", which you can read about more

here

, it is not about whether you survive or not, but only about what you do, or rather how you act. Let's say you find yourself on a deserted island with no source of food, along with one other person. As time slowly passes, you're both dying of hunger. If you want to survive, the only just decision would be to do everything you can together to survive, without resorting to violence against each other. In other words, you don't have the right to survive or improve your general health at the expense of someone else's suffering, or by committing violence against others. The only moral way to survive by consuming another person's body would be if you did not contribute to their death by applying force or being accomplice in some sort of coercion. This is also the only moral way to be a cannibal, carnist or a carnivore in general.

Animal Exploitation

Since animals are conscious beings with their own life experiences, who are capable of suffering and feeling pain, killing animals implies a violation of the principle of non-aggression. It is also immoral to take parts of their bodies or products of their bodily functions or labor, such as milk, eggs, honey, wool, or leather, as it constitutes theft because it is a form of taking without consent. The key difference between using someone else's possessions morally or immorally is consent. Animals do not show signs of consent when attempts are made to take their lives; instead, they exhibit strong signs of dissent, which is evidence that killing animals is an act of violence and therefore immoral.

Butchers, or rather people that slaughter animals, bear the greatest moral responsibility for killing animals because they are the ones that directly commit the physical violence. Everyone else involved in the chain of animal product production, including consumers, who demand and finance animal slaughter, are accomplices and engage in indirect immoral actions. Those interested in getting more info about animal exploitation, along with solutions to the problem, are invited to read

this text

. For more sources of information on this topic, you can visit the Vegan Society website.

Pets - Adoption, Food, Sterilization

I understand that it's difficult, but try to imagine a situation in which you are a vegan living in the countryside. Let's say you are open to socializing with both people and animals, and are friendly and willing to help those in need. Sometimes, an animal comes by; you get to know them, share some of your food with them and they enjoy it, so they decide to visit often or stay with you for a while. Perhaps you would gladly welcome them into your home, but you respect their need for freedom, so they have the option to come and go freely. If they are injured, and you have the means, you nurse them and help them recover. This is a scenario in which you respect your friend's sovereignty, don't cross their boundaries, and don't take responsibility for their life decisions. When the act of opening the doors to guests turns into closing them within the house, when we start feeding them with the remains of other dead animals, or when we take responsibility for the suffering they experience from life by giving birth and, as a result, decide to take away their reproductive function, then it is a sign that we have veered off the path of justice despite seemingly good intentions. The idea that a zoo is an immoral creation is becoming more prevalent, and it is often not because of the conditions in which the animals there live. Let's take the example of a zoo that genuinely cares about the well-being of animals. The argument that they are better off there than in the wild because there are no predators and they have guaranteed food and maybe even a natural living environment, does not justify controlling and restricting the movement of these animals. Also, the fact that these animals have grown accustomed to these conditions and may not know any different is not a justification for breeding more animals under human control to maintain zoo populations. None of the mentioned reasons would justify the lack of consent. However, when it comes to pets, many people who would say that they don't support the concept of a zoo would still advocate for adopting and sterilizing animals, even though there is no moral difference between these two concepts.

Agreement

An agreement between conscious beings is about giving mutual consent regarding mutual obligations within their relationship, which can include a way of resolving conflicts. Any agreement can be composed of arbitrary obligations, rules, and methods for resolving issues that arise. Therefore, everything that happens between participants in the agreement, which is in accordance with the agreement, automatically becomes moral, regardless of whether it aligns with basic moral principles or not. The way in which moral principles dominate the agreement is by requiring consent. In other words, no matter what the agreement is, each participant has the right to discontinue if there are no unresolved conflicts. An immoral agreement is one that requires participants to be bound by it even when they no longer agree with it or contains inescapable conflict cases. Exiting such a relationship is moral, and it is acceptable to defend oneself with force. All other agreements are moral. Agreements can also be evaluated as reasonable or unreasonable based on how well the rules defined by the participants align with moral principles. It is natural to expect that anyone who seeks to be just will avoid involvement in unreasonable or immoral agreements. So, breaking an agreement is not immoral, but depending on the defined rules for conflict resolution, the use of physical force can be justified, even when it would not be in a situation without an agreement. Because of all this, the agreement must be explicit. Anything that is not explicitly defined in the agreement is subject to the rules of moral law, which we previously analyzed. For example, if the consensual agreement between an employer and an employee states that if the employee is late for work, 10% of their daily wage will be deducted, then if this happens, it is acceptable to deduct that 10% from the employee. After resolving that conflict, the employee has the right to leave the agreement if their consent regarding the rules has changed. By refusing to participate in unreasonable agreements, self-respect is built, and there is a convergence towards making such agreements a rarity. Today, unreasonable agreements are prevalent, primarily due to a lack of courage and self-esteem among workers, as well as the materialistic mindset of employers. The situation can also be reversed, which often occurs when starting a business when the employer is the one that is in a more challenging situation. In any case, both parties are required for such an unreasonable agreement to be established.

Cheating in a Romantic Relationship

When we talk about cheating in a romantic relationship, everyone has their subjective interpretation of that term, which is expected because, according to moral law, everyone is the sole owner of their body and has the right to do whatever they wish with it, including having any interaction with another consenting and uncoerced being. So, cheating as such is not subject to objective moral principles, but since a romantic relationship is often composed of different agreements, it can fall under one of them. If partners have agreed on what constitutes cheating and there is an explicit agreement that cheating is not allowed, as well as the partners' consent to the defined consequences, then if cheating occurs, carrying out the agreed-upon consequences is a moral act. In reality, it often happens that people do not discuss this topic with each other, most often incorrectly assuming that what they consider to be cheating in a relationship is identical to what their partner considers to be cheating as well. As a result, there is no explicit agreement, and when unfaithfulness occurs, it leads not only to hurt feelings but also to deep conflicts arising from a lack of communication, a lack of knowledge, or a misunderstanding of one's partner. In the absence of an agreement, only moral principles are applicable, sometimes resulting in emotional and immoral reactions to unfaithfulness that lead to someone being victimized. One thing that comes with experience in emotional relationships is the awareness of the importance of discussing this topic and forming explicit agreements to build trust on clear foundations. For more on trust, I invite you to read

this text

.

Prostitution

Prostitution is the exchange of sexual services for money or some other service. Since everyone is the sole owner of their body, if there is no coercion or consent violation, this action is moral, and, therefore, both the provider and the recipient of sexual services are not doing anything immoral. In other words, neither the provider nor the recipient are victims in this interaction. The situation is such that there are no victims unless a third party is involved because some agreement has been violated. Forcing someone into prostitution against their consent is, of course, like in the case of any other action, an immoral act.

Psychological Abuse

During the

analysis

, we discussed the threat of physical force and demonstrated why it is a direct harmful action, on the basis of which it is immoral, and why it is acceptable to defend oneself against it using force. If we now eliminate that case and other direct actions of physical harm, such as property damage, and reduce psychological abuse to shouting, cursing, insulting, and belittling, we can consider cases in which this actually constitutes violence and cases in which it does not. Assuming that there was no explicit agreement allowing or disallowing shouting and belittling someone, and considering that the person being belittled does not consent to it, the only remaining factor in determining whether this treatment is immoral and whether it is acceptable to use physical force to defend oneself from it is the presence or absence of coercion. If the person being belittled is physically forced to endure such treatment, meaning they have no physical ability to get away, then shouting and belittling are direct or indirect harmful actions. Some simple examples would be:

• A man has locked the door of his apartment, is shouting at a woman, and refuses to give her the key.
• A man is shouting at a woman inside her apartment, and she tells him to leave, but he refuses.

In such situations, the victim or someone defending the victim has the right to respond with physical force. Otherwise, when there is no force compelling them, every person is free to terminate existing agreements or to remove themselves from unhealthy frameworks and relationships with which they do not agree, thereby having the opportunity to prevent further harm. A free person chooses whether to remain in such an environment and is responsible for the consequences that follow as long as the situation does not involve coercion. Some simple examples would be:

• A man is shouting at a woman in his apartment, and she endures it repeatedly instead of preventing the harm in the short term, leaving the situation, or ending the relationship in the long term, in cases where he wouldn't physically prevent her from leaving or mistreat her because of leaving.
• A man is shouting at a woman inside her apartment, and she endures it repeatedly instead of preventing the harm in the short term by demanding that he leaves the space or ending the relationship in the long term, in cases where he wouldn't resist leaving the apartment or use force to stay inside.

In such situations, the person being belittled does not have the right to respond with physical force, nor does anyone coming to that person's defense. This is not said with the intent of trivializing or making psychological harm irrelevant. It is undoubtedly a significant factor worthy of consideration that adds weight to the situation. However, without coercion, it is the choice of the person being belittled to remain in toxic environments, often due to a lack of courage or self-esteem. The steps to get out of such a situation affect the development of courage and self-esteem, which ultimately provide a greater guarantee that we won't get stuck in an unhealthy environment. Additionally, by refusing to coexist with such individuals, we send a clear signal to them that they need to change if they want to cultivate any meaningful relationships. With the development of self-esteem, toxic individuals who refuse to change will be condemned to eternal loneliness, which is actually the situation they deserve.

Ruling over Others

Ruling is managing something according to one's own will. Self-rulership is desirable and the way to develop willpower. Ruling over others who have their own will is crossing others' boundaries. The main mechanism that enables ruling over people today is taxation. Taxation is robbery, i.e. the confiscation of the fruits of others' labor under the threat of the use of physical force. Using taxation as an example, we can see a violation of the principle of non-aggression. Willingly agreeing to be taxed can be either consciously believing in the promises of the one who, under the threat of force, takes resources from you, which seems unreasonable, or consenting to violence. Actively advocating for everyone to be taxed is advocating for violence, i.e. robbery - confiscating from others without their consent. Accepting subsidies from the state is complicity in robbery, i.e. an immoral act. On this topic, I highly recommend reading

this very interesting dialogue

.

Voting during elections for lawmakers, presidents, and other officials is complicity in imposing personal preferences on others through the use of physical force, a general violation of the principle of non-aggression.

You can read more details about the nature of rulership in

this text

.

Disregard for Traffic Rules

Someone has placed a sign at an intersection where you are not allowed to turn left. You cautiously turned left without endangering anyone. At that point, someone around the corner stops you and threatens to use physical force on you unless you give up some money. You would say that this is an obvious violation of the principle of non-aggression unless that someone is wearing a blue suit and a badge. The type of clothing someone wears doesn't change the morality of their action, and in this case, they are a violent aggressor. The truth is that it is not justified to use force or threaten with force if there has been a simple violation of traffic 'rules' established by someone who declared themselves an 'authority,' and no clothing or costume will change that truth. When someone drives aggressively and recklessly, i.e. exerts non-verbal threats of force, it is violence, regardless of whether they might be obeying the rules of an authority. It is then acceptable to defend oneself with force. Traffic signs and their compliance or noncompliance do not affect the rightness of someone's actions. If you're interested in learning more about the nature of threats, you can read about it in

this text

.

COVID - Masks, Lockdowns, and Vaccination

Everyone has the right to set arbitrary conditions on their business premises, and guests, visitors, or customers have the right to decide whether or not to cooperate or make a purchase based on the conditions that have been set. So, the fact that many hospitality and retail establishments require people to wear masks on their premises is not immoral. What is immoral is that 'authorities' are imposing these rules on these businesses under the threat of force. We are enslaved by people who live off the money they robbed us of and who have employed others with that looted money to control us. The money taken from us is used to force us to comply with someone else's will. Brilliant, isn't it? We hear people talking about how they couldn't travel, move freely, or go to the doctor because of the coronavirus. Their minds have been successfully conditioned to blame the virus for this, even though, in reality, it was the 'measures' put in place by rulers that prevented them from exercising their freedom. Lockdown is another such 'measure' that required people, under the threat of force, not to leave their homes. Essentially, with a single word coming from the 'authority,' homes were turned into prisons. In some parts of the world, in addition to the rules limiting freedom, there were physical infringements on bodily autonomy. People were made, under the threat of force, to get vaccinated. When a conscious being sets conditions for others' movement through space that doesn't belong to them and applies force if others don't comply, that is a clear violation of the non-aggression principle. If someone asked for a piece of paper to allow you to cross an imaginary line on the planet, that someone is a bully, regardless of the color of their shirt or who told them to do it. Committing immoral acts at the behest of a third party doesn't make the act or the doer moral. If you're generally interested in vaccines and their real contribution to humanity, I invite you to read

this text

backed by sources. It's often said that people generally don't change, or, for example, that old people can't change in their old age. The 'measures' against the coronavirus have shown us that people can indeed change; they just need sufficient motivation, and it seems that fear served up by 'authorities' is one such motivator.

Negligent Construction

The use of natural resources like water, land, and sunlight is considered a common right, and they are not owned by anyone. Taking these resources away from someone or monopolizing them for oneself is a direct immoral action, and it is justified to defend against such actions using force. When you cut off someone's access to the river water by building a dam upstream for a hydroelectric power plant, it's equally immoral as when, by constructing a building, you prevent someone from accessing the sunlight they previously enjoyed. It doesn't matter if they were using that sunlight for electricity, sunbathing, or sungazing. For more information on ownership, you can read

this text

. Unlike such cases, conditions and methods of construction that objectively don't endanger anyone in the vicinity are the free choice of property owners and builders, and demanding any "permits" from "authorities" is immoral because it's always under the threat of force. The truth is very simple. I don't need anyone's permission to do something moral, and no permit justifies something immoral. I invite you to read

this fascinating dialogue

on this topic.

Throwing Garbage

Every action, no matter how small, that poisons others is an immoral action. Depending on whether littering leads to environmental pollution and the contamination of resources used by conscious beings, the act of littering may or may not violate the principle of non-aggression.

Final Word

The idea of this text was to subject controversial examples to moral judgment through the two moral principles we previously discussed, in the text

linked here

and thereby draw conclusions about the morality of these actions, and by extension, the morality of physically opposing these actions. Hoping that the goal has been achieved and that this text was interesting and thought-provoking, I invite you to write to me via email regarding any identified irregularities or other controversial examples that have come to mind and could be written about. For more controversial moral judgments, I invite you to read the second part of the text, which you can find

here

.