Non-Aggression Principle and Animals

[LovePrevails]

I'm not even making a case that eating animals is unethical yet, I'm just pointing out that these particular arguments don't work

I may be wrong, but I believe Jeffrey Tucker is on this Sunday and they are trying to keep content somewhat geared to questions that he knows about/is expert in/ etc. Though I would be very interested to hear the conversation when it occurs.

good point sir, perhaps Wednesday!

That's why it got thumbed down. You used an ad homonym argument to "refute" a hypothesis.

 

Dear sir, this is not an ad hominem, because I followed it with reasoning

 

it is only an ad hominem if I said "that is a crap argument" in place of any reasoning

 

Saying "if we allow gay marriage it won't lead to people marrying animals, thats a slippery slope argument you dolt"

 

is not an ad homimem, but:

 

"if we allow gay marriage it won't lead to people marrying animals you dolt" is

[Hannibal]

I'm not even making a case that eating animals is unethical yet, I'm just pointing out that these particular arguments don't work

good point sir, perhaps Wednesday!

 

Dear sir, this is not an ad hominem, because I followed it with reasoning

 

it is only an ad hominem if I said "that is a crap argument" in place of any reasoning

 

Saying "if we allow gay marriage it won't lead to people marrying animals, thats a slippery slope argument you dolt"

 

is not an ad homimem, but:

 

"if we allow gay marriage it won't lead to people marrying animals you dolt" is

 

I'd even go so far as to say that neither are ad hominem, in the spirit of the meaning. It's not really useful to equate an insult to an ad hominem. The logical fallacy of an ad hominem is that one uses an attack against the person in order to attempt to attack the argument. Insulting a person for the purpose of causing insult is not really an ad hominem in that sense. Saying that an argument is stupid, in order to express the idea that that argument is, in fact, stupid isn;t ad hominem either. Saying that a person is a silly fat stupid face, and therefore his argument is wrong, is ad hominem.

[fridolutin]

Lets not put any species at all on top. Lets instead look at the genesis of rights, and reasoning behind moral principles, from which we derive rights, to start with.

 

 

When we discuss about animals, the word we use to designate non human creatures is non inclusive and it is as if they where just animated objects. Therefore to be inclusive we should use the word beings which includes all living creatures. 

 

The language we use is a reflection of what we are. 

 

By changing our words we might begin to be more conscious about the importance of those other creatures, and maybe stop acting in a destructive manner. 

The other important change is done by stepping down to the lower level of inferiority after the forced position of superiority we imposed on other beings for so long. 

Doing this voluntarily keeps time and events to force us to adopt it in a more violent and suffering manner. It is said, joyous retreat bears fortune,  for those who choose by themselves to lower their position and share their surplus.

 

It doesn’t mean acting with living creatures the way we acted with humans, it means giving them the opportunity to live accordingly to their true nature in their dedicated environment.

 

When I mention destructive manners, it is usually related to another oriental parable who states : Community in the clan, misfortune.  The exaggeration of our modern ways of consuming and living is clearly destructive and unsustainable. It can only be maintained at the expense of nature, the slavery and misery of a majority of living creatures to which we negate the rights to their basic needs so we can perpetuate our consuming of superfluities. 

[PatrickC]

It doesn’t mean acting with living creatures the way we acted with humans, it means giving them the opportunity to live accordingly to their true nature in their dedicated environment.

 

I've said this a few times on this topic over the years. Humans need to learn how to apply this to themselves firstly and not least with the little people (children). Applying one sided moral theories with creatures that cannot reciprocate, is a distraction at best and in outright detriment of the real lives of many humans at worst..

 

Learning compassion for others will bring compassion for animals. Avoiding this fact will be to our detriment ultimately.

 

This recent video with Stefan discussing the reasons for environmentalism, goes a long way (indirectly) in deconstructing this rather unhealthy attitude we have with ourselves.

 

[Mister Mister]

This is a very interesting topic that tends to pop up here and always stirs up a lot of emotion.  Here are some thoughts.
 

  Stef has made a point about how the progress of morality in society tends to do with the expansion of personhood, or the extension of empathy.  Reptiles are concerned only about their immediate survival and procreation, they don't even take care of their children.  This still remains with us in the form of psychopaths.  A key feature in the evolution of mammals is the family structure and the ability to empathize.  But even in many animal societies we see strict hierarchies and in-fighting, and usually little regard for the fate of other species.  We seem to have inherited these traits and only recently begun to grow out of them.

 

  In the evolution of humanity, we have seen people go from only having concern for their tribe, or race, to an entire country.  Of course, the country is arbitrarily defined by violent rulers, but still I would argue that people have empathy for a greater diversity of human beings.  And it is only very recent that we are starting to talk about empathy between the genders.  One of the most important aspects of this show is that it emphasizes the inclusion of children with regards to morality.

 Anyway, my point is, that I can very easily see that at some point in the evolution of consciousness, we might encourage empathy for all animals and have a conversation about applying the NAP to them.  Already, I think many people would object to hitting a dog or a cat, animals with which we easily empathize.  I don't really feel that having a pet or even an animal which you milk or collect eggs from is cruel, as a lot of these animals would be easy prey for mountain lions or be subject to harsh elements without human protection.  Personally I haven't eaten meat in about 4 years, and the thought of it, the sight of it, especially the smell of it has begun to sicken me.  But I don't impose this preference on others, because I really feel that people have to come first.  This whole discussion is pointless if we don't talk about human rights.  Some of my hippy friends were circulating a story on FB about how India has extended personhood to dolphins, and made it illegal to hold them in captivity.  I made the point that it was nice, but we still have some pretty serious problems with thinking it is okay to hold HUMANS in captivity, which should be more obvious except that culture is generally insane.

 Sorry for the rant, just some thoughts on the subject.

[Hannibal]

 

Lets not put any species at all on top. Lets instead look at the genesis of rights, and reasoning behind moral principles, from which we derive rights, to start with.

 

 

When we discuss about animals, the word we use to designate non human creatures is non inclusive and it is as if they where just animated objects. Therefore to be inclusive we should use the word beings which includes all living creatures. 

 

The language we use is a reflection of what we are. 

 

By changing our words we might begin to be more conscious about the importance of those other creatures, and maybe stop acting in a destructive manner. 

The other important change is done by stepping down to the lower level of inferiority after the forced position of superiority we imposed on other beings for so long. 

Doing this voluntarily keeps time and events to force us to adopt it in a more violent and suffering manner. It is said, joyous retreat bears fortune,  for those who choose by themselves to lower their position and share their surplus.

 

It doesn’t mean acting with living creatures the way we acted with humans, it means giving them the opportunity to live accordingly to their true nature in their dedicated environment.

 

When I mention destructive manners, it is usually related to another oriental parable who states : Community in the clan, misfortune.  The exaggeration of our modern ways of consuming and living is clearly destructive and unsustainable. It can only be maintained at the expense of nature, the slavery and misery of a majority of living creatures to which we negate the rights to their basic needs so we can perpetuate our consuming of superfluities. 

 

 

When we use the word 'animals' we're making the distinction between different types of being based on a particular trait, which is man's ability to reason in a world of free choices, rather than pure instinct. This is the single thing that sets us apart from animals. The fact that you're even objecting to use use of the word 'animal' is astonishing to me. 

 

You can dodge the real questions here as long as you like (you even quoted it), but all of this meaningless and entirely subjective and emotional fuzzy talk about being nice to animals, saving the planet, etc, is entirely worthless as long as you refuse to introduce any objectivity into your reasoning (or lack thereof).

 

The thread is about the applicability of NAP to animals, and all anyone here seems to have to say is "oh, i like fluffy bunny rabbits, and it would make me happy to see them live their lives as equals, with their own zebra crossings so they don't get run over crossing the motorway. So OBVIOUSLY the NAP applies to animals". Can anyone prove how we even arrive at a principle of non aggression among men? before we even talk about animals? Because all i've seen in this thread is a determination to avoid considering what morality really is, and where it comes from, with a frightening persistence in ascribing almost religious pronouncements with regards to animal rights, with zero attempt to reason the argument from any kind of  first principles.

 

Saying that "humans are destructive and inconsiderate of nature, and this is bad, therefore animals have rights", is bollocks. Excuse my french.

[LovePrevails]

I've said this a few times on this topic over the years. Humans need to learn how to apply this to themselves firstly and not least with the little people (children). Applying one sided moral theories with creatures that cannot reciprocate, is a distraction at best and in outright detriment of the real lives of many humans at worst..

 

Learning compassion for others will bring compassion for animals. Avoiding this fact will be to our detriment ultimately.

 

Xelent you act as though both these goals cannot be pursued at once, that is just nonsense, blame shifting and passing the buck onto future generations.

 

Improving the world for animals is very easy. DON'T BUY DEAD ONES.

 

Everyone can do this and it creates market incentives that make the business of making animals suffer less easy.

 

You can pursue peaceful parenting at the same time. The fact is this is something that can be acted upon in day to day life,

like peaceful parenting, focus on what you can change.

 

if you don't want to give up meat at least buy game, monetizing factory farming is the height of carelessness.

[LovePrevails]

Again I get thumbs down instead of a reposte to my arguments, that is so immature.

 

If there were parents on the forum who hit their kids that is exactly what they'd do every time someone made an anti-spanking post.

 

Grow up people.

[PatrickC]

Xelent you act as though both these goals cannot be pursued at once, that is just nonsense, blame shifting and passing the buck onto future generations.

 

LovePrevails, you have mischaracterised my position and then made some rather absurd claims thereafter (as above).

[LovePrevails]

LovePrevails, you have mischaracterised my position and then made some rather absurd claims thereafter (as above).

then I apologise, please correct me in these two cases

[fridolutin]

When we use the word 'animals' we're making the distinction between different types of being based on a particular trait, which is man's ability to reason in a world of free choices, rather than pure instinct.

 

 

 

We now have learned with science, that the difference between man and the so called animals are not as evident we thought previously. Those animated als are capable of reasoned choices and are not only instinctual as you say. It would be wise to include man as an animal like all other creatures and stop to place him on a throne. This infatuated man is blinded by his high position is sick from the superman syndrome. 

 

 

Because all i've seen in this thread is a determination to avoid considering what morality really is, and where it comes from, with a frightening persistence in ascribing almost religious pronouncements with regards to animal rights, with zero attempt to reason the argument from any kind of  first principles.

 

 

Morality is a man made principle absent in nature and therefore unfit to solve any problems humankind encounters with other beings. The artificial manmade solutions are always a temporary patch on a leaking barrage unable to contain the flow it tries to stop. The only thing it does is to amplify the suffering for living creatures.  

Saying that "humans are destructive and inconsiderate of nature, and this is bad, therefore animals have rights", is bollocks. Excuse my french.

 

 

 

What I say about humans being destructive  is not only that it is bad for nature, I say it is bad for man not to consider nature and other living creatures as essential for his own equilibrium which includes his health Taoist philosophy, from which are taken the few phrases I used previously, speaks of the unconscious man as responsible for his own suffering. Community in the clan is that self centered man with a narrow view of things, digging his own grave with tailor made moral suit to content his pride but unfit for reality. 

 

This assertion is clearly sustained by the actual failure of modernity based on techno science and propaganda.  

[Hannibal]

 

 

 

We now have learned with science, that the difference between man and the so called animals are not as evident we thought previously. Those animated als are capable of reasoned choices and are not only instinctual as you say. It would be wise to include man as an animal like all other creatures and stop to place him on a throne. This infatuated man is blinded by his high position is sick from the superman syndrome. 

 

 

 

 

Morality is a man made principle absent in nature and therefore unfit to solve any problems humankind encounters with other beings. The artificial manmade solutions are always a temporary patch on a leaking barrage unable to contain the flow it tries to stop. The only thing it does is to amplify the suffering for living creatures.  

 

What I say about humans being destructive  is not only that it is bad for nature, I say it is bad for man not to consider nature and other living creatures as essential for his own equilibrium which includes his health Taoist philosophy, from which are taken the few phrases I used previously, speaks of the unconscious man as responsible for his own suffering. Community in the clan is that self centered man with a narrow view of things, digging his own grave with tailor made moral suit to content his pride but unfit for reality. 

 

This assertion is clearly sustained by the actual failure of modernity based on techno science and propaganda.  

 

 

So you're arguing for rights, while contending that morality isn't useful when determining rights.

You're really going to have to explain how you reason what rights are and how they are applied (as i've repeatedly asked) because now it sounds like you're just making it up as you go along.

[LovePrevails]

any talk of rights etc. is not necessarily productive

 

I think we should just focus on the empirical reality that purchasing meat (especially factory farmed) causes a great deal of unnecessary suffering

 

it seems to be a bit callous to do this on a very regular basis, a little cruel

 

the cost benefit analysis is like years of suffering for 20 or 30 minutes of enjoyment, why is this necessary?

 

just because the animals can't speak up for themselves doesn't make their pain any less real

 

I say this as someone who ate meat for most of his life, I'm glad i stopped. I've never looked back. I think it's an excellent lifestyle choice.

[Hannibal]

any talk of rights etc. is not necessarily productive

 

I think we should just focus on the empirical reality that purchasing meat (especially factory farmed) causes a great deal of unnecessary suffering

 

it seems to be a bit callous to do this on a very regular basis, a little cruel

 

the cost benefit analysis is like years of suffering for 20 or 30 minutes of enjoyment, why is this necessary?

 

just because the animals can't speak up for themselves doesn't make their pain any less real

 

I say this as someone who ate meat for most of his life, I'm glad i stopped. I've never looked back. I think it's an excellent lifestyle choice.

 

What on earth are you talking about?! The OP asked if the NAP applies to non-human animals, not whether it pleases you or not to eat animals.

[LovePrevails]

What on earth are you talking about?! The OP asked if the NAP applies to non-human animals, not whether it pleases you or not to eat animals.

 

Nice side stepping the point of my post there which was the suffering of animals and the fact that there is a direct line of cause and effect 

between the action of buying meat and causing unnecessary suffering to animals on a particularly dreadful scale

 

this is something I see the meat eaters do a lot in the debate on animals on this forum,

they want to switch attention from the suffering they are responsible for to calling you not liking animals suffering a subjective preference 

like a preference for ice cream of a particular flavour

 

well yes, it doesn't please me that people eat animals

it also doesn't please me that people hit children

 

but it's not really about whether it pleases me or not it's about the suffering these actions cause (one no less real than the other)

are you familiar with logic? do you know what an argument by analogy is?

the child doesn't want to be hit, the animal doesn't want to be locked in a cage its whole life

the fact the child can later reason has absolutely no relevance to the question at hand, no bearing on the question whatsoever

 

this is just the god/state "of the gaps argument"

How does this particular thing happen in anarchy? oh you don't know? well then  anarchy clearly doesn't work

Oh look we've found one "gap" - a distinction between humans an animals -  capacity to reason - that's a really convenient factor to make it ok to cause them suffering so we can enjoy eating them, even though it is irrelevant to measure the suffering that is being caused. Omnomnom.

 

you eat, shit, piss, have sex, propagate yourself, 

the animals eat, shit, piss, have sex, propagate themselves,

 

people have a developed capacity to reason (although  I often question that capacity on this issue)

animals have a more limited capacity to do so, however, it has no bearing on the question of suffering and whether they have clear preferences. They do have clear preferences.

 

I wish meat eaters would just be intellectually honest and say "I know my diet causes unnecessary suffering to animals, but I just don't really care about that. I want to eat them anyway so that's what I do, quite regardless of whether they suffer or not." That would be far more intellectually honest than all this post-fact rationalizing to avoid the issue, i could respect that and say - fair enough, that's your value judgment, lets move on.

[fridolutin]

So you're arguing for rights, while contending that morality isn't useful when determining rights.

You're really going to have to explain how you reason what rights are and how they are applied (as i've repeatedly asked) because now it sounds like you're just making it up as you go along.

 

 I dont argue for rights other than those nature gave the living creatures in the natural world.Those rights arent some as we understand them with a conditioned mind. They are the expression of efficiency when a living creature acts accordingly to the flow and unsustainability when going against.

 

  Like I said, man made morals are a degenerated form of what naturally exists, perfected by millions of year adpating to what is available with no use of forcing anything..

[PatrickC]

this is just the god/state "of the gaps argument"

How does this particular thing happen in anarchy? oh you don't know? well then  anarchy clearly doesn't work

Oh look we've found one "gap" - a distinction between humans an animals -  capacity to reason - that's a really convenient factor to make it ok to cause them suffering so we can enjoy eating them, even though it is irrelevant to measure the suffering that is being caused. Omnomnom.

 

If you are going to create a consistent moral theory which includes both animals and humans, then you are going to need to hold those same humans and animals to the same moral theory. Since we know that a lion's survival is dependent on killing other animals. As humans we are unlikely to reason with them in this regard.

 

However, as I have said previously within this thread. As we become more empathic with each other (humans), a natural empathy will occur with animals. That has certainly been the case for me. Meat eating has indeed evolved into more grass fed organic methods, which is a great start. How the future decides about their meat diets is speculative at best, but I imagine it becoming more empathy led as it is already becoming.

[PatrickC]

Like I said, man made morals are a degenerated form of what naturally exists, perfected by millions of year adpating to what is available with no use of forcing anything..

 

You have a hopelessly sentimental and romantic view of nature. You also do that classic trick of separating man from nature. How do you think Beavers manipulate their environment or predatory animals survive.

 

The very fact that you are able to have the time to think such thoughts today, is because you are no longer concentrating all your mind on hunting, finding food and building shelter. Shelter which regularly got destroyed by nature, in the way of flooding, high winds, forest fires or any number of other natural disasters nature can throw at us. We have mostly conquered the affects of nature these days to our betterment and comfort. But nature is still as powerful and potentially destructive as it always has been and always will be in the future.

 

Like I've mentioned before these kinds of ideas often underscore a deep mistrust and loathing of our own (human) kind. There is frankly no chance of creating a better environment for animals whilst there exists this deep mistrust of ourselves. Trying to understand that mistrust with consistent philosophical principles (and indeed self knowledge), would be a far more productive way of bringing peace to the world for all living things.

[fridolutin]

 

You have a hopelessly sentimental and romantic view of nature. You also do that classic trick of separating man from nature. How do you think Beavers manipulate their environment or predatory animals survive.

 

 

 

I can see your judging my point of view from a different position that doesn’t allow a good interpretation. There is no romance or sentiment in my view, only realism. 

I dont separate man from nature we as humans have done it by creating an artificial environment Im only reading the distance we’ve reached since  our journey away from nature started. 

If you’re asking me questions about predators it could lead to  very disturbing answers for you. 

The very fact that you are able to have the time to think such thoughts today, is because you are no longer concentrating all your mind on hunting, finding food and building shelter. Shelter which regularly got destroyed by nature, in the way of flooding, high winds, forest fires or any number of other natural disasters nature can throw at us. We have mostly conquered the affects of nature these days to our betterment and comfort. But nature is still as powerful and potentially destructive as it always has been and always will be in the future.

 

 

 

There is some demagogy in the depiction of the world you say we’.ve built to ameliorate the natural world, saying its   a more secure environment because we, supposedly, mostly conquered the affects of nature.  

We are far from the mostly conquered nature, as you say. It sounds like the merchant saying his product is the best by saying half truths, using emotional phrases to touch the buyer sensitivity.

 

You should consider the scientific facts saying that the neolithic man was more healthy than the modern man and spent less time than him at work . 

 

Like I've mentioned before these kinds of ideas often underscore a deep mistrust and loathing of our own (human) kind. There is frankly no chance of creating a better environment for animals whilst there exists this deep mistrust of ourselves. Trying to understand that mistrust with consistent philosophical principles (and indeed self knowledge), would be a far more productive way of bringing peace to the world for all living things.

 

 

 

I am far from mistrusting human kind’ I’m saying that many of us are no more humans, that we have mutated to a  form unfit for our nature.  Like a once heirloom plant seed that became, after many manipulations, an hybrid needing special treatments to grow and bear fruits. 

 

And before you write about Hitler and the perfect race that lead to the gazing of many, I’ll tell you I’m not in eugenics and won’t promote actions to reduce the human population. Mother earth will take care of the infection by herself. 

 

I’m trying, if you read some of the texts I’ve posted, to bring consistent philosophical principles to the argument I bring about the mutant man we became, with solutions to reconnect with our true self.

[PatrickC]

None of that made sense at all.. except you still seemingly loathe human kind and proved my point rather well.

[LovePrevails]

If you are going to create a consistent moral theory which includes both animals and humans, then you are going to need to hold those same humans and animals to the same moral theory. Since we know that a lion's survival is dependent on killing other animals. As humans we are unlikely to reason with them in this regard.

 

it's completely consistent.

 

Stef: "someone with an IQ of 30 is not criminally responsible for aggressive actions and so you can't be bound by something you do not understand."

 

But, if someone kills someone with an IQ of 30 we do consider this a violation of the nonagression principle.

 

what logically follows is:

 

if perpetrator understands NAP & victim understands NAP  -> NAP Applicable

if perpetrator does not understand NAP but victim understands NAP -> NAP Not Applicable

if perpetrator does not understand NAP & victim does not understand NAP -> NAP Not Applicable

if perpetrator understands NAP but victim does not understand NAP-> NAP Applicable

[FreedomPhilosophy]

For logical consistency we must treat like cases alike.Many of the non-human animals reared and killed for human consumption are biologically close in terms of their traits. Darwin suggested that animals have emotional lives in "The Expression of Emotion in Man and Animals". In many significant regards non-human animals express traits of person-hood and therefore should be treated like persons. Indeed many people do treat their companion animals just like people.Obviously there are many animals such as insects or jelly fish that do not have any traits of person-hood and therefore do not need to be treated as persons. This principle also works with marginal cases such as the unborn or brain dead that are other examples of beings lacking traits of person-hood.

[PatrickC]

it's completely consistent.

 

Stef: "someone with an IQ of 30 is not criminally responsible for aggressive actions and so you can't be bound by something you do not understand."

 

But, if someone kills someone with an IQ of 30 we do consider this a violation of the nonagression principle.

 

what logically follows is:

 

if perpetrator understands NAP & victim understands NAP  -> NAP Applicable

if perpetrator does not understand NAP but victim understands NAP -> NAP Not Applicable

if perpetrator does not understand NAP & victim does not understand NAP -> NAP Not Applicable

if perpetrator understands NAP but victim does not understand NAP-> NAP Applicable

 

I guess as far as the NAP is concerned, you can argue that. However, UPB trumps the NAP each time.

[LovePrevails]

If you are going to create a consistent moral theory which includes both animals and humans, then you are going to need to hold those same humans and animals to the same moral theory. Since we know that a lion's survival is dependent on killing other animals. As humans we are unlikely to reason with them in this regard.

 

It's completely consistent

 

if perpetrator understands NAP & victim understands NAP  -> NAP Applicable

if perpetrator does not understand NAP but victim understands NAP -> NAP Not Applicable

if perpetrator does not understand NAP & victim does not understand NAP -> NAP Not Applicable

if perpetrator understands NAP but victim does not understand NAP-> NAP Applicable

 

I guess as far as the NAP is concerned, you can argue that. However, UPB trumps the NAP each time.

 

 

 

Without the state what will we do about mad raving axe murderers? DROS

Yeah but what if person in the DRO is family with the murderer or has been bribed? Third party watchdogs

Yeah but the someone in the third party watchdog can split the money with the DRO guy... Then they will have a bad reputation

Not if they cover it up completely... their competitors will have an incentive to investigate them

Yeah but they will all just cartelise.... etc.

etc... etc...

etc... etc...

[PatrickC]

What's that got to do with my earlier post?

[LovePrevails]

because you keep moving the bar when your arguments are defeated, just like a statist.

 

 

It looks to me like post-fact rationalisation.

 

I want to eat meat therefor it is ethical for whatever argument will do.

[Mishelle]

This is such a fascinating and pertinent argument and I thank everyone before me for adding such thought-provoking points.

 

I'd like to chime in from a more personal angle and hope this may add something to the conversation.  

 

We moved to the country 4 years ago full-time and for a few years before that we were here  building a cabin during my hubby's off-hitch weeks.  At that time we had no electricity, hauled in water and lived in a tent.  Now we have turkeys, ducks, chickens and will soon get sheep.  Self-sufficiency is our reasoning and motivation--food, water, energy independence--what does it take with modern amenities? how hard is it really? could two people with outside jobs, no experience and few relevant skills really pull it off? These were the questions motivating us.

 

I was a vegetarian for a few years after learning about the conditions and treatment of animals in the factory farming system.  I was often ill and caught colds regularly, but I did not equate it at the time with my diet.  Then I learned from a nutritionist I had a sensitivity to wheat and dairy.  I switched to what they are now calling a Paleo diet, but is really much older than this new trend.  I've had one cold in 5 years and at 45 I'm one of the healthiest people I know.

 

As for the moral implications of killing animals, I've also explored this in a very hands-on way.  In addition to our own animals, we also trap and kill wild hog on our property.  These hogs destroy vast areas of farmland and the riverbanks and are considered vermin here.

 

Anyone who has lived this close to the land would say the same thing--nature is not set up for vegans.  The amount of grains and veggies one must consume in this diet really requires the mass production farming system we have now, producing grains and lots of them, fertilizing them with chemicals instead of manure, and distributing them from a central location because no small or local farm could produce that much veg and grain.

 

The Permaculture movement is the closest thing around when it comes to aligning with natural systems. Here we see the cooperation of plant, animal, human in a cycle that works, that restores the land and supports the human.  It's really unfortunate that killing has to be a part of it, and I know no one who enjoys this part of the process.  We are here to align and flourish with nature first, not to force our version of virtue onto it.

 

I remain open to hearing all different sides of this argument, but I do also feel committed to aligning with the reality of life and believing we can all get through life without anyone killing any animals for food seems utopian and somewhat naive.

 

I also agree with xelent.  Starting with how we treat our fellow humans seems much more urgent undertaking.

[PatrickC]

because you keep moving the bar when your arguments are defeated, just like a statist.

 

 

It looks to me like post-fact rationalisation.

 

I want to eat meat therefor it is ethical for whatever argument will do.

 

Nonsense LP, just read through the thread and see where I was trying to prove the NAP. I have always been using UPB arguments. As usual an emotionally led topic, and with people that should know better.

[King David]

Who cares about NAP and pets, what about the NAP and my lunch?  How am I supposed to eat lunch without aggression?  Assuming that people eat flesh of formerly live prey which I for one confirm that they do.

[Wesley]

I can throw two wrenches into this discussion. (3 stories but 2 different approaches to the question of who kills more animals, an omnivore or a vegetarian?)

 

http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=97836

 

http://www.care2.com/causes/do-vegetarians-kill-more-animals-than-meat-eaters.html

 

http://measureofdoubt.com/2011/06/22/why-a-vegetarian-might-kill-more-animals-than-an-omnivore/

[steve_]

Norris says some good poins in the abc article.

 

care2 says: "According to Archer, this couldn’t be further from the truth. He cites Australian statistics that suggest producing wheat and other grains kills at least 25 times more sentient animals per kilogram of useable protein."

 

Which seems a /very/ suspicious way of comparing the two.

 

Measure of Doubt focuses on eggs, which I think are still kinda against the NAP.

 

 

Also, don't most of these animals live on grains?

[Mishelle]

If you are taking the NAP seriously then I think eggs are indeed against it, poultry are constantly killed by predators if they are free-range, few of these animals would make it in the wild.  

 

 Animals will eat anything you put in front of them, domesticated animals will forage very easily under normal circumstances and supplemental food is hardly needed except in off-seasons.

 

What do you do with the deer, boar, coon, squirrel, etc,. that become a nuisance?

[Wesley]

Norris says some good poins in the abc article.

 

care2 says: "According to Archer, this couldn’t be further from the truth. He cites Australian statistics that suggest producing wheat and other grains kills at least 25 times more sentient animals per kilogram of useable protein."

 

Which seems a /very/ suspicious way of comparing the two.

 

Measure of Doubt focuses on eggs, which I think are still kinda against the NAP.

 

 

Also, don't most of these animals live on grains?

Yes, in current society they do. Whenever I can I prefer to buy grass-fed, though.

 

I would be interested to know what percentage of farming goes toward meat versus what goes toward humans. It may scale down some of the difference. However you would think they would have compensated for that already.

[ThoseWhoStayUofM]

Does the Non-aggression principle apply to non-human animals?

This question is a bit too ambiguous to answer.  There are basically two possible questions you are asking which have two very different answers.1) Can animals be guilty of violating the non-aggression principle?If this is your question, then I think the answer is no.  I believe the reason why humans have risen above the ranks of non-human animals, achieving great societies, technological advancements, and securing a dominant place at the top of the food chain, is because of our ability to conceptualize moral behavior.  I can walk out my front door with the expectation that another human being will not kill my children so that he can increase his chances of successfully impregnating my wife.  Why is this true?  Because 99.99% of the human population understands that this would be horribly immoral and agrees to defend me, my wife, and my children in the event that some sick and twisted individual does attempt to do this.  In other species of primates, this is sadly not the case.  Our use of language enables us to think morally in this way.  Animals also are not capable of such sophisticated language... and therefore are not capable of such sophisticated thought.  Just to prove this point to you, imagine trying to think about abstract concepts without any language (mathematical notation included).  It's not even comprehensible, for me at least.2) Can human beings be guilty of violating the non-aggression principle against animal victims?I think the answer is yes.  How can we claim that setting a cow on fire and watching it burn is any less of a violation than slaughtering it in a typical fashion for consumption?  I suppose there is less suffering involved in the latter... but at no point do we define the NAP based upon how much suffering is involved.  In one of Stephan's resent videos, he talks about how property rights are foundational to life.  He cites as an example that squirrels collect nuts in the wild, and store them to protect against thieves.  He also claims that most species of birds build nests for their eggs, and will defend that particular nest.  The bird recognizes the difference between their own nest and the nest of a bird that happens to be living in a tree nearby.  However, would it be a violation of the NAP for one squirrel to steal the nuts of another or for one bird to steal the parental investment of another (parasite egg laying birds).  Of course not.  Certain species of birds whole existence involves laying eggs in another bird's nest.  I don't think we would call these birds immoral.  However, would it be a violation of the NAP for a human being to steal the nuts that were collected by a squirrel?  That isn't so obvious.