Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.
Jatt
| Reward Points: | 23 |
| Efficiency:
Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive). Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high. | 95% |
| Arguments: | 16 |
| Debates: | 2 |
Immediately, it can be said that murder is a legal term applying to humans, and that it is not applicable to non-humans.
To discuss the morality of killing animals, that is up to how you define your own morals.
My personal opinion is that it is not wrong to kill animals, for sustenance or sport. It is also not wrong to kill plants, bacteria, et cetera.
If you claim killing animals is immoral, then it follows that killing plants is also immoral, because in both cases you are ending an organisms life.
There is no evidence that would support the claim that there is an afterlife, however there is evidence to support the claim there is no afterlife.
Let's establish that life is generally considered as biological activity in an entity (i.e. rocks are not alive, they are geological not biological entities), and in humans, life is considered the presence of thought (i.e. brain dead people are not often considered alive). Neurological activity of the brain is dependent on the physical matter that composes it. Upon death, this matter degrades and loses its structure and ability to function as before. This is death. There is no life after death because that is what death is, the end of life.
|
||||||||||||
