alternative formulation of the non agression principle

[Jean]

I was discussing with feminist friends of a feminist friend, and they were advocating for an obligation for gynecologist to perform abortion even if that's against their conviction.
I was against it because I find it wrong to force people to do things.
I was trying to formulate why I was against it and I came up with an other formulation for the NAP.

I'm very libertarian, but the NAP requires you to define an agression. Is me farting an aggression? Is my loud music an agression? Is me crossing your forest an aggression?

So instead i thought of a new rule:
"If your problem could be solved by me having never existed, then I have to consider participating in finding a solution"

What it means, is that if I build a house, and your problem is wanting a house but not having one, fuck you, cause the house wouldn't exist without me.
If your problem is that there isn't any more land for you to build a house on, then we can start looking for a collective solution, because my non existence would liberate some land for you.
I your problem is that CO2 concentration are going to cause a destruction of our living condition, then every human should participate in finding a solution, because the non existance of every other human would solve the problem.

What do you think? is it better(less ambiguous) than the NAP? please don't discuss the example here, besides for the purpose of undestanding what i mean with my new formulation.

[prognastat]

What if someone is has a problem with someone being gay/having rights and then the gay person never having existed would solve their problem thus implicating them in helping them find a solution?

Seems like it would need more conditions to be more universally viable. Unless of course you disagree that this is a flaw in the design, but I don't.

[Jean]

Someone being gay is so far from the thing I thought could be a problem for someone else, that I didn't think about this flaw.
Having rights is anouther thing, but I'm trying to defines the desmene in which rights exists.

[Jean]

@bigato
my formulation was designed for the case you described (btw, in switzerland, being loud in the train rude during most hours).
Destroying sick people would destroy the risk of getting sick, so it's ok for society to put presure on sick people to wear mask. Same with loud people.
It's intended to define on which subject it's ok to expect people to do something.
About the gay people, it's in fact still valid. It only means that the gay people have to take into account the needs of the disturbed by gay people in the same society as them. Not that gay people should be destroyed according to this principle, but maybe that peoples sex lives could be concidered as a matter that must stay private (just an exemple of way of dealing with it)

[Jean]

What is unclear in the way i write? I'm just meaning that those desmene are those on which a collective solution is legitimate. That's how the formulation is trying to be universal. Not in saying if loudness in train should be forbiden or not.

[Jean]

This is not what I'm talking about.....

[Jason]

I was discussing with feminist friends of a feminist friend, and they were advocating for an obligation for gynecologist to perform abortion even if that's against their conviction.

I am assuming your feminist friend wanted to enforce the obligation through political means.

If this is the case, they are espousing a view of politics that is absolute i.e. the goal of politics is to enforce an overarching ethic.

Most societies do not operate in such a manner, they are pluralistic and view ethics not as an ideal but as a limit, a limit that deals with the allocation of advantages. In these societies, politics is used to solve the problem in the most expedient manner, with the least injury to both sides.

So the answer is really simple: your feminist friend should get an abortion from a doctor who performs one and leave the ones who don't want to perform it alone. Their specific need is fulfilled. Do not impose an absolute that will take away the need (not to perform an abortion) from he other side.

If they want an absolutist society, I would just give them the examples of societies that have operated in such a manner and ask "is this really what you want?"

[Jean]

@Jason
I completely agree with you. You put it in way that help me understand why they couldn't see how bad it was. I tried to explain that it would be like to force prostitute to accept every clients, but they couldn't understand the analogy.

[Jason]

I think its more significant than your prostitute example.

Abortion is a moral issue. There are societies that prohibit the procedure across the board. I am certain that there are doctors in those societies that wish to perform the procedure but can't due to the consequences they will suffer from the state. Your feminist friends want to create a similar society where doctors must perform the procedure. It's the flip side of the same coin. Each one is just as totalitarian as the other.

So with prostitution, the question would be not that a prostitute has to sleep with everyone who is willing to pay her, like it's a customer is always right issue, but "is it fair to a woman who wants to be a prostitute to not be allowed to be a prostitute because the laws of the society in which she lives prohibits it" but falling short of demanding that every woman must be a prostitute. Once you get what you want, that should be the end of the political question. You want to discuss the pure ethics of it, go ahead, but do it under a tree somewhere.

And by the way, that picture you got up looks like you're either taking a piss or you are hung like Secretariat.

[Jean]

Which communist party hung his secretariat?

[Jason]

I'm thinking the question is which one didn't.