I think immoral and bad lines can be very blurry and I think it’s easier to think about the level of harm each action causes It will not harm you to not play the jk Rowling game, you can find another game But it will harm you to not eat (even though nestle just chocolate from what I’m aware) entertainment and food are on different levels
You’re assessing harm backwards, anon.
When we assess the harm inherent to an action in terms of morality, we assess the level of harm done to OTHERS, not to ourselves.
The level of harm done to others when you buy a nestle product, and the level of harm done to others when you buy a JK Rowling product are the same.
Some might even argue that financially supporting Nestle does a greater amount of harm to to the world than supporting JK Rowling does. I don’t make that argument, but some people could.
How amazingly self-centered to consider the damage to yourself when calculating harm instead of the damage to others.
Additionally, I’ll go ahead and point out that there are people it might harm to not play the Hogwarts game. There are people, autistic people, mentally ill people, etc, who the level of mental distress they would experience by not playing the game would cause them significant harm.
Do you care about those people?
Discussion ¬