• chaircat@lemdro.id
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    I don’t think waving away being a Luddite just by saying so makes it so.

    I can’t think of a single angle of principled moral theory that makes this okay. Vandalizing or stealing someone else’s property they paid for. Hurting both the restaurant and the customer by depriving them of their food. Holding back progress on an invention that can reduce the need for humans to engage in a type of work that is hard, dangerous at times, and low paid.

    From a purely rational on paper view, it doesn’t look terribly different than saying vandalizing or stealing from delivery vehicles driven by people isn’t wrong. What possible justification could there be for this view besides Ludditism fuck robots?

    • FredericChopin_@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      I wonder if people had more prospects would crime go down?

      That’s a rhetorical question by the way. Petty crime is a failure of society.

    • treadful@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      22
      ·
      1 year ago

      groans

      I don’t think waving away being a Luddite just by saying so makes it so.

      Guess you know me better than I know myself.

      From a purely rational on paper view, it doesn’t look terribly different than saying vandalizing or stealing from delivery vehicles driven by people isn’t wrong. What possible justification could there be for this view besides Ludditism fuck robots?

      Imagine thinking humans are rational beings the debate ethics every time they have a feeling. Sometimes you just gotta fuck shit up.