SonofWill

Thanks. That seems to be a good thread, although I think it's a bit scattershot and consists more of shoot-from-the-hip opinions, instead of well-thought-out arguments. That's absolutely a good approach, however the moral issue is something that affects each of us on a primal, mostly-unconscious level. How can we approach the ecology of our planet rationally, when we can't even think straight or properly process emotions? I've actually met and talked with Nora Gedgaudas on several occasions. But from my own research on nutrition, I've come to understand the Paleo diet as more of a fad, promoted mostly be people selling a wide range of products, opposed to nutritional scientists. If I may, I'd like to reccomend a youtube channel "Nutrition Facts" run by Michael Greger, M.D., who puts all of his work out for free. http://www.nutritionfacts.org - I think that's a better place to find the "truth" about veganism http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNaFYdtsphA Sentience is where to draw the line. A sentient creature that can feel. Neurons + central nervous system, at least from a neurophysiological standpoint, is the necessary precursor for sentience. Given that, you could argue about *degrees* of sentience, but any scientist worth his/her weight will tell you that at least potentially, a brain is what gives rise to consciousness/sentience. And since slaughtering/subjugating a sentient creature is unnecessary violence, it is forbidden by the NAP. In terms of applying the NAP to non-sentient life, that is an easy answer - to treat our environments "non-aggressively", we need to basically become guardians of our planet. While we are animals, and come from the Earth, it is certainly our destiny to advance beyond our humble abode and spread out amongst the stars. In that context, we will eventually be able to regulate a system of environmental interaction which optimizes its health, while not sacrificing any well-being of our own. Until then, we have to minimize our footprints. No it's not pain which is the problem. It's subjugation/obliteration of another creature's free will. I am arguing that there is every neuro-physiological basis to conclude that animals are sentient, and therefore possess free will. We can't even adequately explain consciousness, it's a bizarre phenomenon that really shouldn't even exist, when considering the universe subjectively (Uh oh, I'm starting to wax metaphysical!) But there it is - whatever the case, it is much safer - and logical - to assume that they are conscious, and so their freedom should be just as protected under the NAP as a human's freedom. I forgot to clarify in the opening statement - eating meat is not inherently wrong - if the creature is dead, or if the creature knowingly gave its life, that would certainly not violate the NAP. Humans are animals, and rationality isn't the same as consciousness/free will. See my response above. Yes I think this makes perfect sense, thanks for the clarification.

Slaughtering animals for meat consumption is a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle.The NAP fundamentally forbids all forms of unjustified violence. The reason why most Libertarians still eat meat is (at least in 99% of situations) because they don't really think about it. It's just a learned behavior, and it's something that almost everyone does. But if you DO think about it... well, that's where this thread came from! Everyone is different, holding different principles sacred. So this is intended for Libertarians, since we all agree upon the foundational importance of the Non-Aggression Principle. However, currently this principle is being selectively applied, with all other species besides Man to be exempt from its application. There is no logic and no principle behind this exemption.The main reason, I believe, why humans are starting from this heavily-biased perspective of "man vs other species" is because of religion, which ironically, is mostly shunned by the Libertarian community. Christianity was hammered into our societal psyches for countless generations. Circumcision is an example - even as religion's direct power melted into the shadows over the 20th century, several barbaric vestiges remained as tradition. These are societal traditions which, like cockroaches, scatter when illuminated. Neither logic nor untampered conscience could ever condone such acts.Pain is a psychological reaction from a central nervous system. Plants don't have central nervous systems, therefore they do not feel pain. (If this seems offensively obvious, bear with me, because very often I hear the argument that eating plants is just as violent as eating animals) If you can't hurt a plant, the NAP shouldn't cover it. But animals are physiologically defined, in part, by the presence of a central nervous system. In terms of the known/biologically-established physiological requirements for both cognition and the experience of pain, humans are no different than any other animal.The NAP has nothing to do with classifying species, but is intended to be a guiding beacon of human behavior. Don't be unnecessarily violent. Simple as that. If we do not include other species under the NAP, then it becomes useless as a guiding principle, because we are still intimately linked to our environments and every species therein. Neglecting all but one is quite insane, and will lead to inevitable destruction. This is the current perspective of the Libertarian community, and it has to change.Nutritionally speaking, there is no requirement to eat animal-based foods. We no longer live in times of famine. Theoretically, everyone can easily thrive on a plant-based diet. Practically, only people living in 3rd-world conditions actually require supplementing their diets with animal-based foods. Geographical region is irrelevant with electricity-based technology. (Greenhouses, indoor heating, moisture traps, dried seeds, etc.) That's mostly besides the point, since we are talking about principles here, not the practical elements involved in implementing them. But suffice to say, we in modern societies don't need animal-based foods to survive, neither theoretically nor practically.Since there is no justification, it is a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle.Thanks for reading, and I'd appreciate if people would make sure they understand the arguments before replying. If you disagree with something, please be clear as to why you believe so.Cheers!