Meat consumption vs Libertarianism

[PatrickC]

I think that fundamentally, NAP can only apply to things which can understand the NAP. Otherwise, you're forcing your moral structure on beings which do not, and cannot understand the NAP. While it is admirable to try and live principals related to the NAP towards beings which are incapable of understanding the NAP (for example, animals), it isn't neccesary under the NAP.

 

Yes, I tend to agree with you here. It's why I see reciprocity as a better way to make that fit. Since I cannot negotiate with a lion not to eat me or other livings creatures. But perhaps I'm misunderstanding your definition of 'sentience'.

 

That being said, people who perform violence against animals, eat excessive meat, and abuse animals psychologically, tend to violate the NAP against humans as well. Violent behavior towards plants and animals should be viewed as suspect unless there are good reasons (i.e. harvesting for food, self defense, spaying an neutering animals for population control).

 

Agreed, unnecessary violence towards other living creatures exhibits a particular type of cruelty in a person that is likely to show up with other humans eventually.

[steve_]

"Steve, just because an argument only applies to a narrow domain of things, as long as the domain is valid and universal, the argument is valid."

 

But your reason for the distinction is " We HAVE to draw this distinction, becuse otherwise any number of behaviors which we don't consider unethical (and reasonably so) become problematic."

 

"the NAP only applies to humans, do you feel that is an unreasonable domain?"

 

To me, it's like someone saying a certain person isn't included because it would become problematic for them, though. Sure, that person might not be able to philosophise, but they kinda still have self-ownership as much as we do, right?

 

Is being able to philosophise required to own yourself?

 

"Animals cannot reason. When an animals philosophise, we can talk about this again."

 

Reason != Philosophise, and I'm not sure being able to philosophise is necessary for self-ownership. To what objective level should people meet before they're covered by the NAP?

 

"From wikipidia "In the philosophy of consciousness, sentience can refer to the ability of any entity to have subjective perceptual experiences"

 

Why do you think animals are unable to have these?

 

"I think that fundamentally, NAP can only apply to things which can understand the NAP."

 

We can understand the NAP, therefore we ought follow it?

 

"Otherwise, you're forcing your moral structure on beings which do not, and cannot understand the NAP."

 

But it's sensible to force our moral structure onto them, and we would, in the sense that we'll happily defend ourselves against them.

[Alex Bell]

"From wikipidia "In the philosophy of consciousness, sentience can refer to the ability of any entity to have subjective perceptual experiences"

 

Why do you think animals are unable to have these?

 

Why, Steve_, do you think they do?

 

 

"Otherwise, you're forcing your moral structure on beings which do not, and cannot understand the NAP."

 

But it's sensible to force our moral structure onto them, and we would, in the sense that we'll happily defend ourselves against them.

 

If a bear is attacking me, am I forcing my moral structure onto it in order to defend myself?

[RestoringGuy]

Rationality and consciousness alone seems like a tough sell.  Ability to become rational/conscious later on is probably the hidden value everyone intends to say.  If I am unconscious but alive, and guaranteed never to have potential to wake up (in a permanent brain-dead coma), it does not seem bad if I am murdered.  But if I am expected to wake up later, there's that projection or estimation of future events that seems to trump the value of consciousness in the present.

 

I think that's why animals are a gray area, because how do you know what realizations or mental calculations they make?  Probably it is less than human, but it is more than unconscious human.  Unless it's a really lucid dream, I doubt anybody understands the NAP while taking a nap.