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

  • tatterdemalion@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    7 days ago

    Is your belief based on an animal’s capacity for consciousness? If so do you think all animals, regardless of their intelligence, deserve the right to not be eaten? Where would you draw the line?

    • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      7 days ago

      Let’s look at this from the other direction.

      Would you kill and eat a human? How about a monkey or dog? Where do you draw the line for your acceptance of murder?

    • Paper_Phrog@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 days ago

      Hi there, good question. For me there’s no morals tied to the level of consciousness. That allows for cherry picking.

      I apply the very simple principe “don’t do to other living beings what you would not want to be done to you”.

        • Paper_Phrog@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          7 days ago

          This is a common philosophical counter question I hear. While completely valid in its core, it distracts from the real problem. Have you considered the fact that we need food to survive? I’d rather choose the food (based on current research that plants don’t feel pain as animala do) that seems to cause the least harm.

          Meat or animal products of any kind don’t fulfill that criterium.

          Then we have the fact that it contributes negatively to our planet and the production takes a huge toll on both plants AND humans alike. It simply isn’t efficient in any way.

          So this really isn’t an argument worth discussing.

          If you consider all this, there’s really only one logical choice based on the morals we decide on as a society. Which is currently seriously hypocritical.

          • tatterdemalion@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            7 days ago

            I’m not making a larger claim here, I’m just asking the vegetarians to explain the logic of their belief.

            It sounds like now you’re saying that you want to reduce pain rather than the killing of intelligent/conscious life.

            In that case would you be OK with slaughterhouses if they treated the animals humanely and killed them as quickly as possible before they could feel significant pain?

            • Paper_Phrog@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 days ago

              No, I am against all killing and intentionally inflicting of pain. I don’t mind you trying to poke holes in (my) logics at all by the way. Nothing in life is foolproof, otherwise philosophy wouldn’t exist.

            • desinetizen@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              7 days ago

              They’re talking about level of consciousness when it’s established that the entity in question has any consciousness at all. It doesn’t mean considering those with no consciousness, like plants or rocks. (I don’t agree with it though, levels are worth considering.)