Example: I believe that IP is a direct contradiction of nature, sacrificing the advancement of humanity and the world for selfish gain, and therefore is sinful.

Edit: pls do not downvote the comments this is a constructive discussion

Edit2: IP= intellectal property

Edit3: sort by controversal

  • WideEyedStupid@lemmy.world
    0·
    2 months ago

    I don’t know if it’s a moral per se, but I think nobody should be able to decline being an organ donor. It is an absolute and unforgivable waste to let bodies rot/burn when they could save someone. There is no reason, no good reason, to not be an organ donor. There is no good reason to be able, even after you’re dead, to just let people needlessly die.

    And religious reasons are even more moronic. What God, if you truly believe he’s good and righteous and loving, would want you to let someone else die if you could save them? Why is your meat sack more important than somebody’s life? Don’t most people believe the soul leaves the body? It’s just meat.

    I’ve had countless arguments about this, but nobody has ever been able to give me a compelling reason as to why letting someone die to protect a corpse is right or just.

    • superkret@feddit.org
      0·
      2 months ago

      Your view of god seems to be very much influenced by the Abrahamic religions.
      You may not agree that it’s important for the deceased or their relatives to keep the body intact until it’s buried.
      But there’s a point to be made that this simply isn’t your, or the state’s, or anyone else’s decision.
      That only the deceased and their relatives have the right to decide that, no matter what their reasons are.

      Ultimately, you’re proposing that as soon as the brain stops functioning, the body of the person immediately becomes state property.
      And that’s a hard point to make, since everything else they leave behind usually doesn’t, and all of our traditions surrounding death go against it.

      • Nibodhika@lemmy.world
        01·
        2 months ago

        While I sort of understand your point our society already contradicts that. If a person were to die under suspicious circumstances, an autopsy would be performed regardless of the dead or any relative’s wishes, and that would violate the integrity of the body as much as an organ donation would. Therefore we as a society understand that there are limits to one’s personal beliefs.

        I also disagree with the person you’re replying to, I think the system should be opt out with the following conditions:

        • You must opt out yearly, on the 366th day since you last opted out you become an organ donor again
        • You must not have opted out of it over the past 5 years before you’re allowed to undergo any surgery that would jeopardize the integrity of your body, including organ transplants but also blood transfusions and potentially also any foreign object such as pins or bone grafts.
        • You cannot opt out if you have ever received an organ.
        • Your body cannot be autopsied, embalmed or cremated, as all of those would also violate the body. This includes police investigations.
        • Any family of anyone senile/old/incapacitated enough not to be able to keep renewing it (or the person himself if possible in a moment of lucidity) can be added into the permanent no donation list.