This is a text from my notes where I wanted to decode if abusing fluffies is wrong.
Note: The text will have writing mistakes.
I want to brake down abusing fluffies just for the shits of it.
Is it ethically right to abuse fluffies?
Now, we all (healthy, moral beings, who agree on the common global moral standard) know that it is wrong to abuse.
Therefore, abusing fluffies is wrong, right?
First, lets define “abusing”.
Here is an accurate definition for this case:
“Cruel and violent treatment”
Now lets have a look at this argument, and lets think about it from the standpoint of objective* moral, and reasons, by leading these claims with premises.
Now, let’s think why abusing fluffies is bad.
We will be taking a look at a common explination that is used to defend the claim that abusing fluffies is bad, which is commonly refered to as, “abusing fluffies is bad, because abusing is bad.”
Let me brake this down to objective* premises. Let’s try to go from norms to objective* norms
Let’s start with the most basic premise
-Suffering is bad.
Now, we can all agree on this. (At least from a global moral standard) We should avoid suffering.
(note: this premise can be broken down even further, but that would go deep into the questions of philosophy ect… so let’s not do that)
lets proceed, and connect the claims.
→Suffering is bad
→Abusing creates suffering in the thing that is abused
→abusing is bad
We have proven that abusing is bad.
Let’s proceed
-abusing is bad
therefore,
-abusing fluffies is bad
-because abusing is bad
Now, we have created the chain.
-abusing fluffies is bad
-because abusing is bad
-because abusing creates suffering to the thing that is abused
-and suffering is bad
Therefore,
-Abusing fluffies creates suffering to the thing that is abused, which is bad.
And in the form of an argument:
-Abusing fluffies is bad because the fluffies suffer.
I have just connected the claim with an objective* moral rule.
But… hold on.
Let’s go through a thought experiment about that claim:
If I would draw a fluffy burning alive in agonizing pain, would the fluffy suffer?
Let’s iterate on what fluffies are:
Fluffies are retarded cartoon horses. they are a concept. They are pictures and data that we interpret to be what they are.
→Fluffies aren’t actually real.
They can’t actually suffer in any way. Because they aren’t actually real.
Because for something to actually suffer, it has to actually be and it has to be capable of actually feeling pain to actually suffer.
Therefore:
If I would draw a fluffy burning alive in agonizing pain, it wouldn’t actually suffer.
because it isn’t actually real, therefore it is incapable of actually suffering.
Therefore, For the claim “abusing fluffies is bad” to be true, the claim “Things that are not real can suffer” would also have to be true.
Which… it isn’t.
Because thing that aren’t real cannot feel pain. because they aren’t real.
boom.
I have just proven wrong the claim “abusing fluffies is bad”. by leading premises from the standpoint of objective norms with the help of hume’s guillotine.
But of course, in philosophy, … philosophy.
Now, lets look at this from a different view.
Why do people think abusing fluffies is bad in the first place? I will take the liberty to explain what I think is the most rational reason: People know that abusing animals is bad. We all know it. And we (who agree on global moral standards) try to reduce/avoid abusing. Because it is bad. Therefore, we think abusing fluffies is bad. because abusing is bad.
But as I proved, the term “abusing” can be broken down to another premise and shown that it is dependent on it. And as I proved, it is not always bad. Rationally thinking with the use of objective norms and premises, that is…
This is not the only way of philosophical thinking . This argument may be proven different if a different kind of standpoint and way of thinking is taken.
For example, if we declare the claim “abusing fluffies is bad” as a moral standard (kinda like with “suffering is bad”), then the claim is correct.
Psychological abuse would also make a difference.
In this post I had a look at “physical suffering”
But if the definition of of abuse was just “suffering”, we could appeal that “suffering is created in the brain of the viewer from seeing abuse”. Now, I would have proven my own argument wrong, because abusing fluffies would create actual suffering in the brains of the viewers.
But keep in mind the common reason (that I mentioned) why people think abusing is bad. Most commonly, it is because of the suffering of the thing that is abused, not you suffering from viewing it. ( I am making this conclusion because if you would not like the suffering of others only because YOU would suffer from watching it, that would make you a “selfish egoistic cynic pile of shit who only thinks about themselves and not others.” (I have no prove for this claim, but let’s consider it true.)
Also, fluffies aren’t actually real. They are just pictures and data, that we interpret to be what they are. therefore, it is impossible for us to actually physically abuse them, as what they would be. But if one day, someone would actually create fluffies in real life, as real living creatures, then this argument would be false, if we would refer to the physical abuse of them.
Also, we could think how our abusing comics affect others. For example, if a child sees a video on YouTube about abusing fluffies, and gets pulled into our community, all of this cruel material could change that childs way of thinking in a bad way, since children are still children, whose brains are still in a developing stage and are very vulnerable to outside information. This could rise the chances of that child becoming more aggressive, or potentially even worse.
And those were just some cases. There is still plenty more. But it is impossible for me to explain them all.
But you know…
It all comes to relativity.
Or does it?
(*By objective I mean as objective as things can get)(I say this because in some philosophical thinking there is no such thing as “objective”, because everything is relative.)
( or said in more complexity:
*By “objective” I mean: as objectively as we can go without mixing it into relativity, and ignoring subjectivity and existentialism, from an objective standpoint, rationally thinking. from the point of view of the common global moral)
But…
In the end, if someone would ask you “Why do you abuse them?”, a better answer to this may most likely be found in psychology, instead of philosophy.
After all, the question is “why do you abuse them?” and not “But isn’t it wrong?”
But in the very end, the best way to explain why you abuse them would be the very classic:
Thankyou everyone, that was my Ted talk. in which I spent 4+ hours in writing.
Now, let me play with your brains a little.
Are things always as they seem?
How do you know that?
(NSFW. Don't approve? Don't click.)
Or is that just my Halloween costume?
hmmmmm…
hmmmm~
You know, sometimes you think you know something.
But things may not always be as they seem to be.
Or will they?
Whaaaaat?
In the end, you know nothing.
OR DO YOU?
Now, I could just explain what I am and what is going on here, which would explain all of this, but I really just want to leave this here because I LOVE making people confused and uncomfortable with philosophy.
Hold on…
Wait a minute…
How do we know that YOUR fluffies are actually fluffies?
Hmmmm…
hmmm~
WoAaAaAaAaaaah… That was something.
Now,
What do you think about the ethics of abusing fluffies?
