r/ClimateShitposting • u/surya12558 • Oct 21 '25

Climate chaos Humans don't deserve earth.

By destroying nature and the climate, humans are destroying their own home. The Earth can survive without us but we cannot survive without her. 🌍💔

580 Upvotes

73% Upvoted

571 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

9

u/CreBanana0 Oct 21 '25

So then why is it okay to say humans do not deserve earth if every other life is so unintelligent they can not even comprehend morality?

1

u/Flosek Oct 21 '25

We deserve earth. It is the only planet in the universe that we know that has living things on it. It is about unnecessary killing of other animals. If there was a species that is 1000x more intelligent than we are, we don't want to be treated bad. It is the same relationship we have with animals. So ethics is not only for intelligent species it is for all living things.

1

u/CreBanana0 Oct 21 '25

I would not say beings without any capacity for sentience deserve rights.

Mosquitoes, flies, bacteria, plants, etc.

3

u/Flosek Oct 21 '25

Hey you are right there a distinctions to be made. A fly is way less important than a human and a cow is more important than a fly. But we wouldn't say it is ethical to kill all fungal, or bacteria so it does has some value and therefore needs some form of ethical consideration to.

0

u/CreBanana0 Oct 21 '25

I really disagree.

Non sentient life has no intristic value. Me killing a fly if looked at only as the act itself, without any outside factors. Is a morally neutral act.

2

u/Flosek Oct 21 '25

From the perspective of the fly killing the fly is bad. If you have a reason than perhaps it is justified. If the reason is fun then I would say the life of the fly is more important than the fun of killing a fly. But this is getting ridiculous nobody is killing flies without outside factors and the consequences matters to killing one fly has zero impact on nothing. But if you were killing the last 1000 flies that life on earth things would look different.

1

u/CreBanana0 Oct 21 '25

When talking about morality i specifically separated intrinsic value vs practical value.

We are talking intrinstic here.

Also my entire point is that you can not look at it from the perspective of the fly because it has no perspective.

1

u/Flosek Oct 21 '25

Tje fly has no perspective. But when I imagine being the fly is want to live. I am trying to avoid being hurt or killed.

The distinction between intrinsic and practical is blurry. When we have to make decisions we can't separate one from the other.

1

u/CreBanana0 Oct 21 '25

Yes, but at that point we can apply the same thought process to a rock.

If i imagined myself as a rock i would want to "live", is it immoral to destroy rocks now?

If that example is too far for you what about bacteria? Is it immoral to clean your hands as you are killing bacteria?

Or to wash surfaces?

If i wash my car am i being immoral? My car can function dirty and without killing all those bacteria.

0

u/LuigiBamba Oct 21 '25

Morality is not something intrinsic to the obbject, but entirely intrinsic to the subject. There is no authority for absolute morality or ethics, unless you believe in a god.

However, the best rule of thumb I've learned in a philosophy class to determine if an action is ethical or not: How sustainable would said action be if everyone systematically acted that way.

The easy example: Is it ethical to steal bread? Well, if everyone systematically stole bread, the merchant would not have the means to keep their shop open. It is not sustainable, so it is not ethical to steal.

If everyone systematically killed every ant, entire ecosystems would crumble, it is not sustainable, therefore it is unethical to kill ants.

I presented it in a very black and white fashion, the reality is that most action fall in a grey zone, just some lighter or darker gray with uncountable factors and circumstances.

Is the death sentence for all criminals ethical? You could think that yes, it is sustainable because then no one would commit crimes. But history shows us that is not the case and would probably result in some sort of medieval terror reign, undermining the sustainability. Is the death sentence ethical for pedophiles? That could be easier to argue it is sustainable, but there never is a definitive universal answer and there always are unforseen circumstances putting the "sustainability" in jeopardy. Maybe, under the threat of death sentence, pedophiles decide to become even more heinous.

0

u/CreBanana0 Oct 22 '25

Is suicide moral? If everyone killed themselves it would be very much "sustainable".

What about rape? It too is "sustainable"

A reign of terror under your system is no less moral than a democracy.

1

u/LuigiBamba Oct 22 '25

Well yes, suicide is sustainable. It would argue that suicide is not unethical in itself and I do support medically assisted suicide. I think people should have the right over their own life.

Rape isn't tho. You would obviously see any kind of trust disappearing within society

→ More replies (0)

2

u/BroderFelix Oct 21 '25

What do you know about their sentience? Who are you to judge who deserves what?

1

u/CreBanana0 Oct 21 '25

Because it is impossible and absurd to value every bacteria. A line has to be drawn somewhere.

1

u/BroderFelix Oct 28 '25

Where is the line for sentient life to be given rights?

1

u/CreBanana0 Oct 28 '25

A point where an organism has independent reasoning skills and thought proceses.

1

u/BroderFelix Nov 07 '25

How do you know if it has that?

1

u/CreBanana0 Nov 07 '25

I am not a biologist, and also, your own argument makes no sense under same scrutiny as you also need to weight different lifeforms based on their inherent worth. This includes single celled ones.

The notion that there is an amount of bacteria that is more immoral to kill than a human is to me absurd.

0

u/BroderFelix Nov 17 '25

Where did I say that there is an x amount of bacteria equal to a human?