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

©2025 Poal.co

180

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).
[–] • 2 pts

Why would the NAP apply to non-humans?

[–] • 0 pt

Because there's no trait in animals that if applied to a human would make it okay to deny the NAP to the human.

Rephrased: If the NAP applies to humans, but not to animals, there must be some difference between the two that enabled you to make this distinction. Name this difference.

[–] • 1 pt

Humans are human. Animals are not. What do I win?

[–] • 0 pt

So, the difference is species? Say blacks and asians were different species. Can blacks deny the NAP to asians?