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
[–] 14 points 1 year ago (2 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 4 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
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Plants don’t have an agent that feels negative or positive feelings.

    you can't prove that

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

    you can’t prove that

    I also can't prove that you have one. It's not a standard we operate under.

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

    I also can’t prove that you have one

    so it's probably not a good basis for making moral decisions

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

    It is. You're already doing it, otherwise you will be having zero problems with killing and eating random humans. You just put your line at believing that humans have agency, even though you just as much can't prove that.
    We have pretty good understanding of how biological organisms operate at this point. We don't need to spend generations on disproving solipsism anymore.

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

    You just put your line at believing that humans have agency, even though you just as much can’t prove that.

    you're projecting.

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

    I don't think it means what you think it means.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    you're projecting your values and ethical system onto me.

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

    No, I just assume you aren't eating humans. Because it's the only way we can continue this conversation.

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

    Do you actually have something to say?

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

    you're wrong about my motivations, and your personal values are not universal.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments