You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: [Philosophy] Is dating or marrying a single mother violating the Non aggression principal (NAP)? Here is my argument for a yes to this question.
hm your argument assumes that the new man has has anything to do with the woman's decision to become a single mother. If that is the case, I agree, he's violating the rules, but if not, he's off the hook, because you give him the responsibility for expectations and behavior on the site of the woman he hasn't had a chance to change when it was relevant. It's like making a person pay for a car accident by someone else because he's using the same road.
I will follow you now.. despite you're Danish!
Thanks for your response.
I am still trying to get my head around if my argument is true or not and need more time to figure it out.
What I could add is that if no men wanted to date a single mother, which they shouldnt, for reasons state in Stefan Molyneux videos, then it would give the woman a strong incentive to only get pregnent with a man that she want to live with raising the child/children.
I understand your argument, but my argument is that if you partner up with a person that clearly have taken seriously bad life decisions, you are promoting that persons actions and genes, which is at least undesirable. Maybe it is not violating the NAP, that is what I am trying to find out, therefore the post.
I see your point. From my perspective, it is a matter of who had what information when. The single mother could have been consistently with her interests while keeping the NAP, for example when her husband wasn't beating her, or not dead or didn't have an affair or she realistically saw a chance of being a good mother without husband (if that's possible).
There are clearly situations where women break the NAP, but I wonder if they are aware of that - or can be aware of that at all. We don't always act reasonably for all sorts of reasons (take hormone problems for example) and so the women who gets herself pregnant although she really shouldn't from a perspective of hindsight or visibly for outsiders can act reasonably within the narrowness of her irrationality.
In this perspective it would be her environment - if existent and aware - to prevent her pregnancy by for example giving her incentives not to become pregnant (personally, I see wealthy individuals having the responsibility to provide this), or - if not existent or aware - the pregnancy happens and we enter a new scenario with a fresh set of possible reasonable actions.
Bottom line: In all cases the women actually isn't really at fault, because
A man later dating that woman has nothing to do with that. It is a completely new scenario for him - unless of course he had his fingers in the situation before.
An almost unrelated example: If I was someone from the deep state I would make the drug dealers add contraceptions to their product. This way, no more crack babies are born.