295
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Apr 2025
295 points (95.4% liked)
Ask Lemmy
31095 readers
942 users here now
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
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
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.
you also assumed my reasons
Do you actually have something to say?
you're wrong about my motivations, and your personal values are not universal.
I never ascribed you any motivations, nor do I care about yours specifically, nor did I try to preach any of my own.
anyone can read that you did