Comment by [deleted] on 26/01/2020 at 08:01 UTC

1 upvotes, 1 direct replies (showing 1)

View submission: Reductio: if we consider merely affecting the environment to be morally wrong, we face the conclusion that our existence is evil. This indicates we have made a mistake...

View parent comment

I did, and his argument fails from the start because of his title. It presents a false dichotomy of a persons state of existence and fails to convey the idea behind the article. So he loses most of his potential audience due to headline bias.

Replies

Comment by Gravity_Beetle at 26/01/2020 at 08:26 UTC*

3 upvotes, 0 direct replies

Hang on, so are you now saying that you don’t actually dispute the article’s premise — that merely existing is morally acceptable — but your complaint is with the title? Because your first post didn’t mention the title, and it definitely seems to misrepresent the article.

> Any affect on the environment as a whole? If you push a seed that has fallen from a tree into the soil with just a finger, **your premise would describe you as evil**.
> The first thing to get clear on is whether simply affecting the environment is a bad evil thing. **It’s not, and here’s why**.