Not sure why this got removed from 196lemmy…blahaj.zone but it would be real nice if moderation on Lemmy gave you some sort of notification of what you did wrong. Like an automatic DM or something

  • Mr_Dr_Oink@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Winning anything? Is that always at someone elses detriment? Are you saying that because there are winners, there must always be losers? Because i would argue that winning something doesn’t cost the ones that didn’t win anything. We all started at the same point. As losers (or not winners), they have the same that they did before. Only the winner sits at a different state.

    If my gain causes suffering of others, then even though i would be happy about my gain, it would still be wrong to cause that suffering to others.

    Even animals have an understanding of morality. It is not limited to humans. Its just more pronounced and debated.

    • BluesF
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Animals understanding of “morality” is extremely different to what we as humans understand as moral, and I’d argue that you can’t actually ask them what they think is right or wrong, so you can’t really know if their behaviour is based on morality or… well, anything else.

      Regardless, semantics aside my primary question was how you arrive at the position that “gaining from someone else’s loss is wrong” is an objective position to take… because I think that is just something you think is wrong.