Replying to che

I’m just pointing out that libertarian philosophy can get complicated when you consider how difficult it is to consider the consequences of your actions. Free to do whatever as long as you don’t hurt others, sounds totally agreeable. But most wouldn’t consider non-human animals as part of ‘others’ or second order effects that can be harmful to ‘others’.
Avatar
HODL 2y ago 💬 1

I think as the dominant omnivores on the planet we have a right to kill animals for nutrition, but not a right to inflict egregious or undue suffering. That’s consistent with the non aggression principle in my view.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

47
che 2y ago 💬 1

Just playing devils advocate here. What would be the problem with such a statement: ‘I think as the dominant race on earth, we have the right to own and kill other races as slaves for the productivity of our society, but not to inflict undue suffering on them’

Avatar
HODL 2y ago 💬 1

Because we’re all human beings and there is no dominant race.

47
che 2y ago 💬 1

How does one tell whether a race is dominant or not that would be different from how you tell if a species is dominant or not?

47
che 2y ago 💬 1

Genuinely not trying to bait you. Just respectful Socratic dialogue.

Avatar
HODL 2y ago 💬 1

I’m not that interested in this particular Socratic dialogue. So I’ll leave it here respectfully.

47
che 2y ago

That’s fair.