Also it’s likely to make you sick and then you become a liability to your community = immoral.
Comment on Philosophy has peaked. Checkmate atheists
tacosanonymous@mander.xyz 2 months ago
Morally wrong? No. Disgusting and disrespectful? Absolutely.
tias@discuss.tchncs.de 2 months ago
Windex007@lemmy.world 2 months ago
The idea that you’re morally obligated to maximize your own health to minimize your burden on society usually doesn’t stand up well to follow up questions.
Realistically, the societal health costs of being obese would be statistically higher than fucking roadkill. I think most people would find themselves pausing before suggesting to an obese person that thier obesity is more morally problematic than fucking roadkill.
There is something to health of an individual in a society and morality, it’s pretty hard for me to ignore that intuition. I just don’t know a real formulation which doesn’t introduce more issues to a system of morality than it resolves? Curious if anyone had one.
petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 months ago
When I read liability, my instinct was contagion. There is absolutely a moral obligation to minimize contagion—we did a whole covid-lockdown thing about it.
Being obese is too self-contained an issue, if it is an issue, I think. The only one suffering, if they are suffering, would be the obese person, and the only externalization of that would be financial costs that are too abstract for people to take personally.
Windex007@lemmy.world 2 months ago
I have the great privilege of living in a society with socialized Healthcare, so these questions do come up from time to time.
The lifetime Healthcare costs for people who have conditions which can be mitigated by lifestyle choices is a real thing. Smoking, being an obvious example much less touchy than obesity. Even if I’m extremely comfortable with the slice of my taxes that go to Healthcare… wouldn’t it be great if we got to spend less on smoking-related issues, and could instead buy more MRI machines. Merely pay for more doctors? Nurses? Expand the treatments we can even offer?
Just because they’re abstract, doesn’t make it any less of a question of morality. I don’t see any moral difference between the contaigen and smoking from the perspective of the personal responsibility of maintaining the overall health of your society. One is just accepted by society.
tias@discuss.tchncs.de 2 months ago
I think you’re strawmanning this. I didn’t say you are obligated to maximize your health. But that’s different from knowingly making yourself ill.
In Sweden we spend a lot of resources treating people for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) which is almost exclusively the result of smoking. I think it’s wrong to smoke given how much it costs fellow tax payers and how it takes away resources from people who suffer from ailments that are not a result of their actions.
That said, everyone deserves compassion and it’s also wrong not to help people who are suffering regardless of the reason. But that’s part of what makes it bad to knowingly hurt yourself - you’re imposing an obligation onto other people.
Passerby6497@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Is it not? I’m not religious, but I still find it morally wrong to have sex with something that didn’t consent to it.
Whether the animal is alive or dead, it isn’t able to consent. And since the animal cannot consent, it is therefore rape, making it morally wrong.
kkj@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 months ago
A dildo also isn’t able to consent. A carrot isn’t able to consent and is more alive than the roadkill (since it can still reproduce). Ability to consent is something we require from conscious beings, but we generally don’t require it from objects, and corpses blur the line.
I definitely get the “ick” feeling from necrophilia, so my knee-jerk reaction is to consider it immoral, but it isn’t actually that easy to come up with a consistent justification for that condemnation.
QuinnyCoded@sh.itjust.works 2 months ago
UT OH
Passerby6497@lemmy.world 2 months ago
A dildo was never alive, and a carrot is not a sentient creature.
Lol, no they don’t. A corpse should be treated like the person it was, so it still needs consent otherwise you’re still raping it.
It absolutely is: a sentient (not even sapient, but sentient) being’s bodily autonomy is inviolable without their consent.
Extending your logic to make my point, if a corpse is blurring the line, what about brain dead coma patients, especially ones that are infertile? Are they ok to rape? They’re alive and can’t reproduce, so what’s the difference, right?
kkj@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 months ago
A corpse is not a sentient creature. Former sentience is not the same as sentience.
That’s your opinion, and it’s completely valid, but what’s your justification for why someone else should agree?
Well, they’re alive, for one. Corpses by definition are not. And what we think of as “brain-dead” is the long-term and potentially permanent loss of consciousness and therefore sapience, but sentience is a bit harder to disprove.
Your standard seems to be “current or former sentient beings,” which is consistent, but you haven’t given a justification for the “or former” part. Current sentient beings experience suffering, so that’s a pretty good reason, but corpses don’t.
HeHoXa@lemmy.zip 2 months ago
I cannot fucking believe I’m going to participate here…
… but when you’re talking to someone about organ donation, you’d typically say something like “You can’t take them with you. That isn’t you anymore. You’re dead. It’s just meat now.”
… and that’s as much as I’m going to say because gross
abysmalpoptart@lemmy.world 2 months ago
But this is actually why we decide whether or not we participate in postmortem organ donation while we’re alive - we make the conscious decision ahead of time. Which is still then consistent with the consent argument
Omgpwnies@lemmy.world 2 months ago
So then if I consent to someone fucking my corpse after I’m gone, it becomes morally OK for them to do it.
remon@ani.social 2 months ago
That makes it immoral in your framework. But you can simply construct one that doesn’t require consent, then it wouldn’t wrong.
Passerby6497@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Sure, but I can also construct a moral framework in which it’s ok for me to murder anyone I don’t like because my not-mental-illness-sky-daddy said so.
Moral relativism is bullshit and can be used to justify anything.
remon@ani.social 2 months ago
Exactly, you can construct what ever moral framework you want to, sky daddy or not.
brown567@sh.itjust.works 2 months ago
What if it’s a plant instead? It once was alive, and is incapable of consent. Is it morally wrong to make a dildo out of wood? What about bone?
Passerby6497@lemmy.world 2 months ago
A plant is not an animal, and is also not a sentient creature. A bone is a part of an animal harvested and used as a tool, not the animal itself.
It’s a simple line to draw.