Meat consumption vs Libertarianism

[SonofWill]

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!

[fer]

Do lions violate the NAP?

Would a pig honor the NAP? (i.e. wouldn't he eat you if he had the opportunity?)

 

Disclaimer: vegan myself

[PatrickC]

This topic has been discussed at length. Always worth searching the forum for certain topics, in case they have been covered.

 

http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/36893-non-aggression-principle-and-animals/

[fridolutin]

The debate should be on the ecological imprint of meat eating instead of the moral issue.

 

In our world where ressources are reducing it seem's unsustainable to go on with certain way's.

[Nathan H. Hoffner]

The problem is Statism, not "meat".  I've learned from research that the healthiest societies eat (ate) lots of grass fed / wild animals and/ or seafood... and not just the flesh, but organs, bone marrow, blood, etc. (which is the most nutritious).  The healthiest societies consider animal fat sacred....   Fat equals survival (natural fat).   Grains (carbs (ie sugar) / anti-nutrients, etc.), processed fats (canola), and other processed food, is slave food.  Hell, it's not even "food" by definition.  It's only food-like and it's designed to make us fat and sick so they can profit off of us.   Our brains evolved due to high amounts of omega 3 fatty acids and other nutrients that came from.. wait for it... animals!   See Weston A. Price foundation information. See "Primal Body, Primal Mind" by Nora Gedgaudas.   See this link for the truth about veganism:  http://www.beyondveg.com/

[Guest darkskyabove]

If we strip away all preconceptions we are left with two categories: biological organisms (alive) and inorganic formations (not alive). The category biological organisms includes bacteria, fungi, plants, insects, fish, reptiles, mammals, etc. Humans cannot survive by ingesting raw inorganic materials. Where on this list is the distinction about what is proper for humans to consume? Any distinction would be arbitrary, as all these organisms share many features of biological activity (life).

[wdiaz03]

Slaughtering animals for meat consumption is a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle....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. ...

 

It seems your argument revolves around pain. to clarify:

 

Is it OK to eat animals that are already dead? killed by other animals.

 

Is it OK to heavily sedate animals before killing them? They would feel no pain.

 

Is it OK to genetically engineer animals that have no pain receptors and feel no pain when killed?

[Guest Exceptionalist]

Animals and plants are uncapable of rationality. You cannot convince a bear to not kill you. Pain is just a feeling. Everyone is part of the food chain except he is capable of self-ownership.

[LovePrevails]

Do lions violate the NAP?

Would a pig honor the NAP? (i.e. wouldn't he eat you if he had the opportunity?)

 

 

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

[SonofWill]

This topic has been discussed at length. Always worth searching the forum for certain topics, in case they have been covered.

 

http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/36893-non-aggression-principle-and-animals/

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?

 

 

The debate should be on the ecological imprint of meat eating instead of the moral issue.

 

In our world where ressources are reducing it seem's unsustainable to go on with certain way's.

The problem is Statism, not "meat".  I've learned from research that the healthiest societies eat (ate) lots of grass fed / wild animals and/ or seafood... and not just the flesh, but organs, bone marrow, blood, etc. (which is the most nutritious).  The healthiest societies consider animal fat sacred....   Fat equals survival (natural fat).   Grains (carbs (ie sugar) / anti-nutrients, etc.), processed fats (canola), and other processed food, is slave food.  Hell, it's not even "food" by definition.  It's only food-like and it's designed to make us fat and sick so they can profit off of us.   Our brains evolved due to high amounts of omega 3 fatty acids and other nutrients that came from.. wait for it... animals!   See Weston A. Price foundation information. See "Primal Body, Primal Mind" by Nora Gedgaudas.   See this link for the truth about veganism:  http://www.beyondveg.com/

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.

If we strip away all preconceptions we are left with two categories: biological organisms (alive) and inorganic formations (not alive). The category biological organisms includes bacteria, fungi, plants, insects, fish, reptiles, mammals, etc. Humans cannot survive by ingesting raw inorganic materials. Where on this list is the distinction about what is proper for humans to consume? Any distinction would be arbitrary, as all these organisms share many features of biological activity (life).

It seems your argument revolves around pain. to clarify:

 

Is it OK to eat animals that are already dead? killed by other animals.

 

Is it OK to heavily sedate animals before killing them? They would feel no pain.

 

Is it OK to genetically engineer animals that have no pain receptors and feel no pain when killed?

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.

Animals and plants are uncapable of rationality. You cannot convince a bear to not kill you. Pain is just a feeling. Everyone is part of the food chain except he is capable of self-ownership.

Humans are animals, and rationality isn't the same as consciousness/free will. See my response above.

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

Yes I think this makes perfect sense, thanks for the clarification.

[PatrickC]

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?

 

Since you're new to the forum, I suggest you read it again and a number of other threads on the same topic over the years, if you care to search the forum. Nothing remotely like being shot from the hip. This topic is like determinism and nihilism. Mostly emotionally led, whilst ignoring key philosophical principles. I've seen the same responses to this question on this thread and your rebuttals are nothing new, albeit worded differently.I'm open to alternative rebuttals to well thought out arguments already posed. So far I'm seeing a lot of adjectives.

[wdiaz03]

But what's the alternative for a wild animal? nature is a constant struggle to survive. For example. We have ducks in our neighborhood and they are constantly hungry and when the ducklings hatch each day there are fewer until 2 or 3 out of 20 reach maturity.

 

If you could ask those ducklings if they would like to get fed each day, protected from harm, allowed to reproduce etc. the only tradeoff is that they will be eaten when they get old. What's to say that they wont take that deal? What good is free will when you have very little chances of surviving?

 

 

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.

[Hannibal]

NAP only applies to moral agents, capable of reciprocation. 

Problem solved.

[steve_]

NAP only applies to moral agents, capable of reciprocation. 

Problem solved.

 

Therefore the NAP applies to us humans, which means we humans shouldn't break it.

 

Not: Therefore it's okay to initiate force against babies and animals.

 

Right?

[LovePrevails]

NAP only applies to moral agents, capable of reciprocation. 

Problem solved.

 

So the NAP does not apply to mentally disabled people then and it's ok to kill them to eat them?

[Hannibal]

Therefore the NAP applies to us humans, which means we humans shouldn't break it.

 

Not: Therefore it's okay to initiate force against babies and animals.

 

Right?

 

It means that only humans are afforded the right to live free from coercion. Including babies, because they will grow to be moral agents. Animals are not afforded any protection under the NAP.

So the NAP does not apply to mentally disabled people then and it's ok to kill them to eat them?

 

Mentally ill humans are still humans, and humans as a general rule meet the criteria to be covered by the NAP. Mentally ill people have the potential, however slight, to recover their faculty for moral agency. Plus, we all expect to lose our faculties at some point as we age, so a NAP which only protects us when we are at our strongest just doesn't make any sense.

In fact mentally ill people, just like children, are not afforded complete NAP coverage as we cannot leave them entirely to their own devices - for their own sake as well as ours. 

 

Animals, as a general rule, do NOT meet the criteria to be covered by the NAP. It would make absolutely no sense to include them because it is of no benefit to us to do so. If this doesn't make sense to you I can only suppose that you haven't researched and understood the genesis of the NAP and it's reasoning.

[tasmlab]

Scientists are currently trying to synthesize meat i.e., grow it without the animal.  It will be nice when they get it right.  We can just skip this debate whilst we munch on our hamburgers.

[Hannibal]

Scientists are currently trying to synthesize meat i.e., grow it without the animal.  It will be nice when they get it right.  We can just skip this debate whilst we munch on our hamburgers.

 

I'd like that. I eat meat, but I'm not entirely comfortable with it. I don't mind killing animals to eat them, but it;s the farming that I don;t like so much - it's as though being born to be eaten is horrible, but just getting unlucky and eaten is just nature.

[LovePrevails]

 

Mentally ill humans are still humans, and humans as a general rule meet the criteria to be covered by the NAP. 

You are just moving the goal post and making up the distinctions as you go along to suit the position you started off with and want to maintain.

 

"agents have to understand the NAP"

"no wait agents have to be part of a species that has the capacity to understand the NAP"

etc etc etc

 

just post-fact rationalisation.  nothing else.

[wdiaz03]

I'd like that. I eat meat, but I'm not entirely comfortable with it. I don't mind killing animals to eat them, but it;s the farming that I don;t like so much - it's as though being born to be eaten is horrible, but just getting unlucky and eaten is just nature.

 

I wouldn't trust it

 

I know this threat is about eating meat, but how about caging chickens for their eggs, or lambs for their wool, horses for their speed....wouldn't that violate the the NAP as well according to the OP?

[FreedomPhilosophy]

Any formulation of the kind 'only humans deserve moral consideration' because 'only humans have property X' are simply restating the first assertion in a different form of what defines human. It is circular logic and no better than a 'just so'.If the capacity for moral agency is the property X, that doesn't work because new born infants and the mentally impaired may not have moral agency, but they are presently treated as full humans.If one supposes that moral status is to be granted on the basis of a possible future outcome, then the inverse proposition also comes into effect. It is possible that I as a moral actor may be hit by a bus tomorrow and lose my moral faculty for the rest of my life, but could that be used to justify denying me my moral status? Any contingent added to a premise can be negated by the potential opposite possibility. I do not think philosophy and speculation sit together very well. There may be a scientific breakthrough tomorrow that could potentially make non-human animals smart enough to become moral actors. 

[Hannibal]

Any formulation of the kind 'only humans deserve moral consideration' because 'only humans have property X' are simply restating the first assertion in a different form of what defines human. It is circular logic and no better than a 'just so'.If the capacity for moral agency is the property X, that doesn't work because new born infants and the mentally impaired may not have moral agency, but they are presently treated as full humans.If one supposes that moral status is to be granted on the basis of a possible future outcome, then the inverse proposition also comes into effect. It is possible that I as a moral actor may be hit by a bus tomorrow and lose my moral faculty for the rest of my life, but could that be used to justify denying me my moral status? Any contingent added to a premise can be negated by the potential opposite possibility. I do not think philosophy and speculation sit together very well. There may be a scientific breakthrough tomorrow that could potentially make non-human animals smart enough to become moral actors. 

 

Like many of the other posters, you are entirely missing the point of the NAP. The NAP exists not as some kind of universal constant, but as a principle agreed upon by men who wish to freely trade value for value. The NAP exists for our own benefit - it is rational for us to abide by the NAP out of our own self-interest.

 

The NAP is reciprocal in nature, and to extend it to beings who are unable to reciprocate is entirely illogical.

 

 

 

If the capacity for moral agency is the property X, that doesn't work because new born infants and the mentally impaired may not have moral agency, but they are presently treated as full humans.

 

Regarding this bit - you will notice that I actually stated that infants and mentally Ill people are NOT treated 'as full human beings' (by which I assume that you mean afforded full NAP inclusion, rather than moral agency being the delineator of humanity).

 

However, we fully expect infants to grow to be men & women who will wish to trade freely with us (just like the sleeping man, or the man in a coma), and who would bear grudges from the ill treatment, or grow up damaged such that they are less able to participate in a productive and free society. Again, the point is that the NAP exists for our own benefit. It makes absolutely no sense outside of a reciprocal paradigm.

 

 

My reasoning is not circular at all - you just don't understand what the NAP is. You are plucking the NAP as a principle out of the ether, and then formulating your logic around that supposed constant. You are working back to front - first ask yourself WHY we need a NAP, and only when you understand that will you be able to understand exactly what the NAP is.

 

The NAP is the result of a desire among men to live free from one another so that they may prosper and live as fully as men can. Animals can't even understand the concept of a NAP.

The only way you can claim some kind of inconsistency by not including animals is if you pluck the NAP out of the ether as some kind of universal truth - it isn't.

You are just moving the goal post and making up the distinctions as you go along to suit the position you started off with and want to maintain.

 

"agents have to understand the NAP"

"no wait agents have to be part of a species that has the capacity to understand the NAP"

etc etc etc

 

just post-fact rationalisation.  nothing else.

 

I'm not moving goal posts, or post-fact anything. You just don't understand what the NAP is.

 

Let me ask you - where does the NAP come from? Why does it exist? Why are we talking about it now?

I wouldn't trust it

 

I know this threat is about eating meat, but how about caging chickens for their eggs, or lambs for their wool, horses for their speed....wouldn't that violate the the NAP as well according to the OP?

 

Pesticides.

what about roadkill? surely we should build tunnels to drive through to stop the animals getting squashed. 

What about bugs on windscreens? We casually kill thousands of bugs each year just because we like to travel to the seaside for an icecream. Is that immoral?

etc

etc

How about clearing land for farming? What about all of the wildlife that lived in those trees/bushes/ponds/whatever?

[Guest darkskyabove]

I see no one has chosen to address the fundamental question I presented earlier.

 

Where do you draw the line?

 

If a deer is granted protection under the NAP, why not the bacteria that live in its intestinal tract? Why not plants?

 

All are biological organisms. And let's not forget, humans trace their evolutionary history back to single-celled organisms, so killing a bacterium is equivalent to eliminating a "potential" moral actor. Only the time scale is different.

 

What I would like to see is a logically consistent (zero emotional content) argument showing why humans should not consume other biological organisms. (Not so easy when the claim must be universal!) If that is not forthcoming, then the entire debate is subjective, and therefore, arbitrary.

 

Which is fine, as long as the players recognize, and accept, the conditions.

 

Are there good reasons to limit, or eliminate the consumption of higher-order biological organisms? Yes. Does that require the conclusion that said organisms should be proscribed from consumption? Check your premises. This amounts to an "is-ought" fallacy. Having some reason to not consume "meat" is not a sufficient premise to justify the conclusion that no one should eat meat. Of course, that begs the question, "What is meat?"

[PatrickC]

This is why the NAP is a merely an axiom.. Try UPB and apply the 'coma test' to all the prescribed objections.

[FreedomPhilosophy]

If a deer is granted protection under the NAP, why not the bacteria that live in its intestinal tract? Why not plants?

 

 

Bacteria and plants don't have a will and thus any self-determination or self-ownership. This is not true for higher organisms such as humans (and many farm animals) who posses all these qualities.

 

Many non-human animals posses all the qualities of personhood, but they lack the degree of intelligence we have to make social contracts. But this is also true for infants and the mentally ill who we do not deem acceptable to kill to eat.

 

From wiki

Specifically, any unsolicited actions of others that physically affect an individual’s property or person, no matter if the result of those actions is damaging, beneficial, or neutral to the owner, are considered violent or aggressive when they are against the owner's free will and interfere with his right to self-determination and the principle of self-ownership.

[Guest darkskyabove]

Bacteria and plants don't have a will and thus any self-determination or self-ownership. This is not true for higher organisms such as humans (and many farm animals) who posses all these qualities.

 

So, you admit that you can draw a line and decide what organism is deserving of the NAP and what isn't.

 

Yet, you have not provided a logical argument defining your line.

 

Let me be clear. I am not meaning to be antagonistic to anyone as a person. I am antagonistic to the lack of logical consistency.

 

First, you must prove that organisms below your appointed threshold do not meet the criteria you have set.

[FreedomPhilosophy]

 

Regarding this bit - you will notice that I actually stated that infants and mentally Ill people are NOT treated 'as full human beings' (by which I assume that you mean afforded full NAP inclusion, rather than moral agency being the delineator of humanity).

 

 

So is it ok to aggress against the mentally ill because they cannot reciprocate re the NAP?As I stated, you cannot add contingent qualifiers to a moral imperative because the inverse logic would be equally valid and thus nullify any such assertion. 

[wdiaz03]

Any chances we can get a concensus before I finish with my BBQ? The Flank steaks are looking nice, but I don't want to feel bad about eating them...

[Hannibal]

So is it ok to aggress against the mentally ill because they cannot reciprocate re the NAP?As I stated, you cannot add contingent qualifiers to a moral imperative because the inverse logic would be equally valid and thus nullify any such assertion. 

 

No, not because they can't reciprocate the NAP, but because if they were afforded full inclusion they would end up killing themselves/the rest of us.

 

But instead of cherry picking, why don't you address the meat of my post. I still think that you don't understand what the NAP is or where it came from.

This is why the NAP is a merely an axiom.. Try UPB and apply the 'coma test' to all the prescribed objections.

 

UPB isn't even required - common sense should suffice. I can't believe we're even having this discussion; it's ridiculous. 

 

Can ANYONE who thinks that the NAP includes animals tell me why we even have such a principle in the first place? 

[Guest darkskyabove]

So is it ok to aggress against the mentally ill because they cannot reciprocate re the NAP?As I stated, you cannot add contingent qualifiers to a moral imperative because the inverse logic would be equally valid and thus nullify any such assertion. 

 

Knock it off. He never said it was OK to aggress against them. Stop being a pseudo-intellectual. If you can't state your case without resorting to excessively complex language, how do you expect to be taken seriously? Do you think you're the only one who can use language in an arbitrary fashion?

 

The contingent qualifiers you have promoted are quite apparent. You have yet to address the fundamental question I proposed (you skipped right over it). Where do you draw the line? Isn't a line "contingent"?

 

As to the second line of the above quote: What the hell does that even mean? Who's moral imperative? Yours? Doesn't nullification of assertions apply universally, therefore, all your assertions are nullified?

[steve_]

Can ANYONE who thinks that the NAP includes animals tell me why we even have such a principle in the first place? 

 

What's the point in having it if you're only going to apply it to things you think it's convenient to?

[Guest Exceptionalist]

What's the point in having it if you're only going to apply it to things you think it's convenient to?

 

 

I guess it is convenient to resort to a straw man argument instead of addressing a question rationally. 

[steve_]

It means that only humans are afforded the right to live free from coercion. Including babies, because they will grow to be moral agents. Animals are not afforded any protection under the NAP.

 

Well, even allowing you that, it still means I can assault mentally disabled people.

[LovePrevails]

What's the point in having it if you're only going to apply it to things you think it's convenient to?

^^^^ this x 1000 is blatantly what is going on here

 

"the NAP only applies to.... whatever I want it to, because I want to continue eating meat"

 

all I see is twisting the rules .... it's all post-fact rationalization

 

"eating  meat is moral" is the conclusion  which the premises are chosen afterwards to fit

[Guest darkskyabove]

"eating  meat is moral" is the conclusion  which the premises are chosen afterwards to fit

 

Same could be said for "not eating meat".

 

I have yet to see an answer to my question about drawing a line. Invoking the NAP to protect "deer and rabbits" is a red herring.

 

Granted, it could be claimed that the NAP should be applied universally to all biological organisms. So, where's the claim? As far as I can see, it is "contingently" applied to organisms which some people have some attachment to, therefore, it is not being applied universally.

 

So, is the NAP meant to be applied universally, or only to human interaction?

 

If the answer is universal, then humans must find their subsistence from inorganic material (ummm, rocks for breakfast). If only to humans, then why the debate?