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

  • CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    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.

    • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      4 months ago

      Eat plants: plants die

      Eat animals: animals have to eat a bunch of plants first meaning way more plants die and also animals die

    • Nalivai@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      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

      • NSRXN@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        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

        • Nalivai@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          you can’t prove that

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

          • NSRXN@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            I also can’t prove that you have one

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

            • Nalivai@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              4 months ago

              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.

              • NSRXN@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                You’re already doing it, otherwise you will be having zero problems with killing and eating random humans.

                no, that’s not the basis of my moral decisions

              • NSRXN@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

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

                you’re projecting.

    • UndergroundGoblin@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      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.