Where does this arbitrary distinction between the physical and nonphysical realm come from? Who says that it would only be immoral to handle sth physically you don't have permission for? On what basis does this moral theory exclude the digital/nonphysical/nondirect way? Is someone remote operating a drone that kills a bunch of civilians not responsible?
> Something being a thing doesn't justify it morally. Slavery is a thing, you know? Murder is a thing, etc.
Instead of taking the contrarian route and coming up with wild theories, how about you first engage with any material from centuries of philosophy of law and jurisprudence? With any existing understandings? Your argument is extremely far out there and just demonstrates an utter lack of knowledge. It's not very respectful to then put the burden of "proof"/argument on all your discussion partners.
> Something being a thing doesn't justify it morally. Slavery is a thing, you know? Murder is a thing, etc.
Instead of taking the contrarian route and coming up with wild theories, how about you first engage with any material from centuries of philosophy of law and jurisprudence? With any existing understandings? Your argument is extremely far out there and just demonstrates an utter lack of knowledge. It's not very respectful to then put the burden of "proof"/argument on all your discussion partners.