Search the Community

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!