SkyeStarfall

Have you seen the kinda shit some people do on geoguessr?

Moral agents and moral subjects are two vastly different things

"oh no, I got called out for maybe making fun of how people look not being the best idea"

It is, and it won't get better. Windows is very much in the process of enshittification.

I get you are being intentionally obtuse for some fucking reason, probably to absolve yourself of your own moral harm you are causing, but yeah, veganism is about reducing harm as much as individually possible. Is it really that hard to understand?

Can an animal understand the moral implications of the exploitative logistics chain of creating a smartphone and your part in it as a consumer? And what alternatives could be used in its stead? From environmental, to exploitative of the workers, to the health issues of resource extraction or factory work. Or about the ethics and consequences of fast fashion, or political policies or phenomena such as universal healthcare or gentrification?

If you are incapable of understanding the structural reason for why someone does something, I think it's fair to say you cannot be a moral agents. Stealing is bad, yes, but is stealing bread because your children are starving bad? Is stealing still bad when the laws and moral framework that is set in the society determined by those who get rich off of exploiting the same people who steal? I think it's fair to say you need a lot of abstract thinking to fully comprehend these scenarios.

And a great way of making other good and innocent people self-conscious about their appearance. Making fun of someone's looks doesn't affect just that person.

Literally in the abstract

In this paper, we do not challenge this claim. Instead, we presuppose its plausibility in order to explore what ethical consequences follow from it.

And further in the introduction

He has argued that, while animals probably lack the sorts of concepts and metacognitive capacities necessary to be held morally responsible for their behaviour, this only excludes them from the possibility of counting as moral agents. There are, however, certain moral motivations that, in his view, may be reasonably thought to fall within the reach of (at least some) animal species, namely, moral emotions such as “sympathy and compassion, kindness, tolerance, and patience, and also their negative counterparts such as anger, indignation, malice, and spite”, as well as “a sense of what is fair and what is not” (Rowlands 2012, 32). If animals do indeed behave on the basis of moral emotions, they should, he argues, be considered moral subjects, even if their lack of sophisticated cognitive capacities prevents us from holding them morally responsible.1

But yes, I am fairly certain that no non-human animals has the mental facilities to be true moral agents. Especially because this is something a significant chunk of humans struggle with, and no animal comes close to us in terms of abstract thinking and that kinda stuff.

Non-human animals aren't moral agents. This is like basic stuff, c'mon.

..is it GregTech?

It's GregTech, right? Best

Oh no, every time I get lots of time I spend months resting from the ever background presence of burnout, and given sufficient time, I actually do want to do stuff. It's just I never get enough, always just barely scraping by.

Can't go mad from having an existential crisis if you're too dumb to have one in the first place.

Taps at head