Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

122

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

The NAP is an ethical stance that aggression is inherently wrong. "Aggression" is defined as initiating or threatening any forcible interference with an individual or individual's property.

So, libertarians and anarcho-capitalists will say that the NAP applies to humans.

Does it apply to animals?

If not, name the trait.

If so, go vegan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle The NAP is an ethical stance that aggression is inherently wrong. "Aggression" is defined as initiating or threatening any forcible interference with an individual or individual's property. So, libertarians and anarcho-capitalists will say that the NAP applies to humans. Does it apply to animals? If not, name the trait. If so, go vegan.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (35).
[–] • 0 pt (edited )

Animals don't comprehend morality, so I don't judge the morality of their actions.

If a retarded human didn't comprehend morality, I wouldn't judge the morality of his actions. Say a retard hits me, but he didn't comprehend that hitting people isn't good, can I justifiably be mad at him?

Edit: I don't know if "animals don't comprehend morality" is true. https://www.livescience.com/24802-animals-have-morals-book.html

So, for sake of argument, say they do. Vegans are against needless killing. These animals aren't needlessly killing.

[–] • 3 pts

Looks like a trait to me.

Does not eating things that comprehend morality sound good?

[–] • 0 pt

What about creatures that don't comprehend morality? Say a retard doesn't comprehend morality, can I eat the retard?

[–] • 0 pt

Go for it - but of course we have the law providing additional disincentive there.

Species extinction is something quite different. But animal rights/suffering is an extremely low priority for me while the world is full of human rights abuses and human suffering. An extreme case of putting the cart before the horse.

[–] • 1 pt

Animals don't comprehend morality, so I don't judge the morality of their actions.

And there's the problem. You can't have a pact with something that does not understand what a pact is. If they are not going to hold up their end, even if it is because they are simply cannot, I have no obligation to pretend there is a pact.

Altruism is not self-interest.

[–] • 0 pt

If a retard can't enter this pact, does the NAP not apply to the retard?