Vibration Reduction, or twice as much light?

I'm contemplating on a new lens, and the Nikkor 24-70 F/2.8 looks good, but it doesn't have VR. Since it lets in twice as much light than an F/5.6, do I need Vibration Reduction?

VR will be helpful when you don't want the shallow depth of field that you'll achieve at f/2.8.

The aperture scale goes as follows 1, 1.4, 2, 2.8, 4, 5.6, 8, 11.2, 16…
f/4 lets in twice as much as f/5.6, and f/2.8 lets in twice as much light as f/4.
From f/5.6 to f/2.8 you will therefore let in 4 times as much light, which means if you have a shutter speed of 1/60 you can now have a shutter speed of 1/240. Much better. I would go for the 24-70, it's really nice and will honestly make you go wow! When looking at improvements. Wide open lenses help with vibration reduction and fast moving objects, while VR only helps with vibration blur, NOT motion blur.

VR is a good thing, but it is not needed so much in the range of the lens you are considering. I'm not saying that it doesn't help at all, because it does, but as you suggest, you would be able to use faster shutter speeds due to the larger apertures. As long as you have no problem with the reduced depth of field on some images, you are right.

The real consideration here is the overall quality of the 24-70 lens. It is a serious piece of pro-level glass. I own the comparable DX lens - the 17-55 - and it is not VR. I do believe in the value of VR, but I can't say that I've missed it with this lens.