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

©2025 Poal.co

1.1K

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

It's not a good hypothetical. You're counting on empathy towards people because they're human but in the hypothetical they're not human.

[–] • 0 pt

It's a good hypothetical because it's making you realize "species" isn't a good reason to deny the NAP to some creature.

Here's it another way: Could Luke deny Yoda the NAP because they're not the same species?

[–] • 0 pt

it's making you realize "species" isn't a good reason to deny the NAP to some creature.

By redefining species. Which makes the original point moot.

And I assume if Yoda were real you'd say he's closer to human than animal.

[–] • 0 pt

Ivan, come on. I haven't redefined species. I posed a hypothetical. Hypotheticals are valid questions. You're dodging/avoiding giving me an answer because...