Originally Posted by Jozawun
You cannot be seriously saying that if we decide the moral/ethical value of a person's acts by his intentions, then we must grant monopoly IPRs for his creative work.
I rather aimed at the difference between corporeal and non corporeal.
If you accept only manual labour as worth of being recognised devaluing what is the think-part of doings, there would be only a small logical step of adapting this system to other activities apart from work or creation. Neglecting IP says "how something was done doesn't matter" (no difference if something was copied or created only the mere existence of the item counts)
I just showed where this line of reasoning would end.