Is hunting (killing) animals, whether commercially of for sport, a violation of the NAP?
Your thoughts…
You must be logged in.
You must be logged in.
Hunting and NAP
Is hunting (killing) animals, whether commercially of for sport, a violation of the NAP?
Your thoughts…
The issue of animal rights comes to mind when I read a question like this. If animals were allowed rights, then they would be subject to the law and held responsible for their actions if they were to break it. The consequence of rights is responsibility, which non-human animals are incapable of.
But as far as the NAP goes, is it really an initiation of force to kill an animal that isn’t under the jurisdiction of the law due to it’s lack of social responsibility? I think that’s more of a subjective matter, depending on how one views and values life.
Hi Tristan,
when you say ‘If animals were allowed rights’, who is it that allows them those rights, or decides not to allow them those rights?
Do animals not own themselves like we do? Or is it because they are not self-aware like humans?
Do you mean political laws? Or the laws of nature?
I know there are a few questions here, but I would like to understand the position further. Perhaps we could define the word ‘rights’. Also maybe defining ‘laws’ would help.
Alan,
I consider that which allows us our rights, or rather access to allow a concept of rights.
The whole argument on what predicates our rights is up in the air (some argue it’s god, some say it’s natural, etc.), but I would claim that what is certain is that we grant rights to individuals on the basis that they will be responsible with their rights. So it is not that animals aren’t self-aware or do not own themselves. Rather it is that due to our inability to communicate with them and our evolutionary superiority that we cannot grant them the rights we grant each other on this basis.
I have the right, just as everyone else, to live freely without being coerced by anyone. But if your dog were to make it’s way to my lawn while my kids were playing and attack one of them, I wouldn’t call the police to arrest the dog and sue it for the damage it caused. I would instead put you on trial since it is your animal and you are responsible for it.
As far as the difference between political law and laws of nature go, I think we can do Bastiat and everyone else a favor and ignore laws that are predicated by The State.
I hope I made sense. I’m sure I could’ve established a definition for rights and and laws better but maybe there are people on this feed who could contribute?
Hi Tristan,
The only right that I can see is that animals own themselves, whether that be a human or a dog. A right is only a concept from our minds anyhow.
The main point is that we own ourselves in objective reality. Whether the animal has the understanding to understand self-ownership or not.
Some mentally challenged humans may not understand that they own themselves, but I don’t consider it wise or good to murder them, whether that be for fun, like hunting or for food.
The idea of granting people rights is to me like the idea of granting people freedom. The only ‘right’ people have is that they own themselves, their actions and the consequences that go with them. Some animals can’t understand the consequences, but I don’t think because of that then its cool to hunt them. Wouldn’t peace and freedom for all animals be the best ideal?
I think this rule in life seems accurate, ‘Do as you want, but be prepared to accept the consequences’.
Now a dog does not understand the consequences of certain actions, like we do. But every individual is different, and have different ideas about the outcomes they expect. Some animals act on instinct and don’t even think of the consequences (think of people in tons of debt believing that the good times will continue forever).
In self defense, then I think you use the most reasonable amount of force to deal with the circumstance at the time.
Personally I can’t imagine intentionally killing an animal to eat or hunt for any circumstances in today’s advanced world.
I’m not suggesting that we abuse those, animals or humans, who cannot grasp the concept of rights. Rather that their responsibility should be left in the hands of others, if they wish to be apart of society, because they are capable of threatening our lives.
And when I said that we grant rights to others, I meant it in a way that was paraphrasing the NAP, being that I won’t coerce you because I don’t want to be coerced by you or anyone else who likes you. In other words and to go along with what your saying, I’m allowing you to carry about your own business because you allow me to go about mine, if that makes sense.
Of course peace and freedom for all creatures would be a good thing, but we’re going to need to make compromises. Back in the day, man had to rely on animals for sustenance. Today, people can get away with eating no meat at and live longer than most people do on average. Though some nutritionists that I know of would argue on an evolutionary-biology basis that meat is essential for man’s optimal health.
Nope. The NAP only applies to humans. Also, a government cannot confer rights; rights precede government.
The NAP applies to any being that
1. has the potential to understand and assert it; and
2. is not violating it.
Currently, this only includes human beings who do not initiate the use of force. In the future, this could include intelligent extraterrestrial life as well as new species on Earth that may evolve higher brain functions.
I completely agree. But this moment, to my knowledge, no other creature fits the bill. So I’d rather just type out humans and leave it at that, instead of enumerating and making disclaimers upon the unknown life-forms that are out there.
I think it’s possible that certain animals are technically capable of understanding it, if not necessarily asserting it verbally. The great apes and dolphins, maybe. But, at least with the sea mammals, we can’t understand them, so we don’t know what they’re thinking.
The great apes at least can learn sign language (but only in conditions where humans have massively aggressed against them by keeping them in cages, so …)
I agree too! But I have a conflict of interest you could say since I both hunt and raise beef cattle. That said I always take care of my animals.
I say no. We raise animals, some for food. We had sheep for several years and will be getting some pigs soon. For me, it is always a difficult day when the “harvesting” occurs (we have a fellow who comes to our property, and then we pick up the meat, all nicely packaged, at the butcher) because these are animals we raised from birth. But it’s been an awakening for me as well, I guess part of “seeing things as they are.” Hunters have told me that they have more love, and certainly respect, for animals, than many so-called animal lovers, and I definitely see that. And then there are the pests — the yellow jackets that steal the honey, the olive fruit flies that can destroy a whole crop, and the big nemesis in this area, the gophers. It’s all now part of our cycle of life, and I don’t see that it violates NAP.
I think the NAP only applies to ‘man’, since it comes from the definition of man, therefore it only applies to those entities with the definition of ‘man’. So in regards to animal rights i do not think the NAP applies to animals other than man, and therefore you cannot make an ethical judgement one way or the other.
However I think you can make a rational argument to convert people to vegetarianism or something like that, its more of a preference than a moral right or wrong, but like I said I think you could certainly make the case either for better farming practices or for eating food that does not require killing animals.
I saw a video that showed what happens to the male chicks after they’re born and it was pretty horrendous what this Meat Industrial Complex has done with our food. I think something along the lines of what Joel Salantin has been doing with raising animals more naturally and humanely butchering them and so on.
I suggest asking bears and sharks about their take on the NAP. Consider these opinions in dealing with the animal kingdom.
