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
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
this is only true under a limited set of moral beliefs. most people aren’t utilitarians though
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?
Kant dealt with this like 200 years ago. have you tried actually learning any ethical philosophy?
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.
you’re wrong, and making a statement like this doesn’t make it true
actually most professional philosophers are deontologists. and they eat meat and eggs and dairy.
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.
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.
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.
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.
you can’t prove that
I also can’t prove that you have one. It’s not a standard we operate under.
so it’s probably not a good basis for making moral decisions
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.
no, that’s not the basis of my moral decisions
you’re projecting.
I don’t think it means what you think it means.
you’re projecting your values and ethical system onto me.
No, I just assume you aren’t eating humans. Because it’s the only way we can continue this conversation.