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

©2025 Poal.co

1.2K

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

Eating meat per se isn't wrong, it's needlessly killing animals is wrong.

"Aggression" is defined as initiating or threatening any forcible interference with an individual or individual's property.

Initiating any forcible interference with an individual

Slaughtering an animal is forcible interference.

[–] • 0 pt

Most cows could not live in the wild... they are a fully domesticated. On a traditional farm setting we give them a full life that is largely free of stress and absent the dangers of the wild. All things must come to an end and when they do eating what remains is not a sin. There is an ethical and moral way to raise, slaughter and eat livestock. Sadly this way is not the norm in America anymore. Industrial agriculture is full of ethical transgressions but this does not make the entire practice of eating meat an ethical transgression.