Example: I believe that IP is a direct contradiction of nature, sacrificing the advancement of humanity and the world for selfish gain, and therefore is sinful.

Edit: pls do not downvote the comments this is a constructive discussion

Edit2: IP= intellectal property

Edit3: sort by controversal

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 32 points 1 year ago (16 children)

Eating and using animals when there is a plant-based alternative is wrong and should not be done.

  • source
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Ok so genuine question (and also my odd moral I guess?) why is eating a plant more moral than eating an animal? They're both equally alive and subsequently equally dead. Sure plants don't have a nervous system but they do react to harmful stimuli in a way somewhat analagous to a pain response. The only real difference appears to be that we can relate to animals more.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (15 children)

    Plants don't have an agent that feels negative or positive feelings. Its stimulus-response system starts and stops at that. Animals on the other hand can experience suffering and pleasure, and and it's morally wrong to inflict the first and deny the second

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    suffering and pleasure, and and it’s morally wrong to inflict the first and deny the second

    this is only true under a limited set of moral beliefs. most people aren't utilitarians though

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    But most people do care if someone hurts their own dog. Why is causing pain to animals not okay when dogs are involved but it is for pigs, cows and chickens?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Kant dealt with this like 200 years ago. have you tried actually learning any ethical philosophy?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Your arguments lack any logic so don't lecture me about philosophy. It doesn't matter here at all what Kant said since most people don't agree with him on that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    It doesn't matter here at all what Kant said since most people don't agree with him on that.

    actually most professional philosophers are deontologists. and they eat meat and eggs and dairy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    What are you talking about? Why should I care what "professional philosophers" do? That's just some nonsense without any context.

    Edit: it feels like whenever you realize being wrong about something you just switch to another topic.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Why should I care what "professional philosophers" do?

    they're the experts on ethics and logic, both of which you seem to think you have a firm grasp on. I'm pointing out that you are probably mistaken.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I've never met someone so confidently incorrect on Lemmy before. You just switched "most people" to "most professional philosophers" and now you are trying to win at least some argument about that. That's derailing at its finest.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago

    if you want to lose an argument about the validity of utilitarian ethics, I'll be happy to help you. if you want to keep throwing out red herrings, and you can stop making it personal, that's fine too

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago

    whenever you realize being wrong about something you just switch to another topic.

    I'm following your lead. if you want to stick with your assertions about pleasure and suffering I'll be glad to eviscerate utilitarianism for you.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (14 replies)
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    Would you say that cutting a carrot is equal to cut the throat of a cow?

    Plants do not have a central nervous system or a brain so they are not able to feel pain or emotions. Animals can feel, dream, have friends, same as we do. Just not as complex.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • load more comments (5 replies)
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    I think this is the one thing that is impossible to defend. In my opinion, not being vegan is impossible to justify, on ethical and moral grounds. And I am not vegan currently (I was in the past).

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Make the plants free and people will naturally eat more of them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • Probably. It's a shame that meat is so heavily subsidized. Without the subsidies, meat would be far too expensive for normal earners. In my country (Germany), for example, you pay 19% tax on oat milk and 7% on cow's milk. Because cow's milk is considered a staple food...🤡

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (12 replies)