Actually I agree with you, but I refer to the digital aspect because people don't seem to have any difficulties understanding why its problematic to steal physical books.
Which contains its own irony, as the trees providing the primary material the physical books are made from would probably have a thing or two to say about the notion of being stolen from.
I don't see any irony in it since trees don't have brains or opinions as far as we know, but when they decide to say something about it I'll definitely be sure to listen. Short of that though, I'm generally not opposed to the production of paper.
You mean sentience? Of course that's where moral value begins. Almost everyone holds that position.
And people who say they don't almost always are roleplaying that they don't for the sake of argument and can be immediately exposed as holding a contradiction in their values with the most basic pressure/consistency tests.
Your belongings aren't sentient and I'm sure that if they were to be wiped out almost everyone would hold the position that they couldn't be bothered to care.
That's not a comparable argument because your belongings have a material effect on at least one sentient entity.
Instead what if you were given the power to expunge everything in the universe outside of our solar system. Would that be acceptable?
That's not a comparable argument because you haven't been properly compensated as authors of the printed word are. If you received a dime for every snuffed-out star, would it then be acceptable?
Of course if you were to argue that downsizing the universe represents an intangible loss to humanity as a whole, we are have returned to ground zero in which it is ironic that exterminating trees provides a net benefit to humanity.
It's scientifically known that plants respond to stimuli such as being injured, namely to communicate that fact to others of its species in the vicinity.
For an example I'm sure most people can relate to, you probably know that "cut grass smell" when you mow your lawn? That's the grass throwing out chemical signals telling other grass "Hey! Something cut me down! Be warned!".
While whether this can count as intelligence or sentience is worthy of further debate, to say that trees don't feel anything is a gross mistake.
All living things respond to stimuli, even some non-living things respond to stimuli (like viruses or crystals) so I don't see "response to stimuli" as sufficient evidence that plants suffer pain.
Actually, I'm not categorically opposed to the notion, but I think you need to bring a lot to the table to explain why things without nervous systems feel pain. If the default assumption is that all complex systems feel pain then I wonder if you think things like jetstreams, economies and the internet feels pain.
> that "cut grass smell" when you mow your lawn? That's the grass throwing out chemical signals telling other grass "Hey! Something cut me down! Be warned!".
>Actually, I'm not categorically opposed to the notion, but I think you need to bring a lot to the table to explain why things without nervous systems feel pain.
Note that I didn't say they feel pain, just that they can feel what is done to them by the environment around them and respond appropriately.
The fact trees don't speak human plays a big role in us not understanding them, but they do clearly feel and express things whatever they may be.
>So is it immoral to cut grass?
Considering most of it is done for purely aesthetic purposes to satisfy human egos, arguably yes.
Note that whether it's moral or not is tangent to whether it can be done or not. We humans do plenty of immoral things without a care in the world.
Well, I never said "they feel nothing", but if you're saying plants have a right to life because they feel "something" I'm wondering where you draw the line. If you're something of a panpsychist I'm actually ok with these conclusions in terms of metaphysical consistency.
