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
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.
Eat plants: plants die
Eat animals: animals have to eat a bunch of plants first meaning way more plants die and also animals die
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.
Actually, (correct me if i’m wrong) carrots are not dead until you boil/cook them.
I love poking holes in people’s analogies without addressing their points.
If that’s the litmus test, then there are certainly animals that aren’t sentient and don’t meet those requirements. Is it OK to eat animals that do not have brains?
You are also denying oxygen to those cows
they are not able to feel pain or emotions
you can’t prove that
Here is my prove: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8052213/
TL;DR: Abstract
Claims that plants have conscious experiences have increased in recent years and have received wide coverage, from the popular media to scientific journals. Such claims are misleading and have the potential to misdirect funding and governmental policy decisions. After defining basic, primary consciousness, we provide new arguments against 12 core claims made by the proponents of plant consciousness. Three important new conclusions of our study are (1) plants have not been shown to perform the proactive, anticipatory behaviors associated with consciousness, but only to sense and follow stimulus trails reactively; (2) electrophysiological signaling in plants serves immediate physiological functions rather than integrative-information processing as in nervous systems of animals, giving no indication of plant consciousness; (3) the controversial claim of classical Pavlovian learning in plants, even if correct, is irrelevant because this type of learning does not require consciousness. Finally, we present our own hypothesis, based on two logical assumptions, concerning which organisms possess consciousness. Our first assumption is that affective (emotional) consciousness is marked by an advanced capacity for operant learning about rewards and punishments. Our second assumption is that image-based conscious experience is marked by demonstrably mapped representations of the external environment within the body. Certain animals fit both of these criteria, but plants fit neither. We conclude that claims for plant consciousness are highly speculative and lack sound scientific support.
that’s not proof they aren’t conscious
“…plants have not been shown to perform the proactive, anticipatory behaviors associated with consciousness…”
an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
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
Plants don’t have an agent that feels negative or positive feelings.
you can’t prove that
you can’t prove that
I also can’t prove that you have one. It’s not a standard we operate under.
I also can’t prove that you have one
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.You just put your line at believing that humans have agency, even though you just as much can’t prove that.
you’re projecting.
I don’t think it means what you think it means.
you’re projecting your values and ethical system onto me.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Your arguments lack any logic
you’re wrong, and making a statement like this doesn’t make it true
