(June 21, 2014 at 4:10 pm)Arthur123 Wrote: Esquilax, this response will be limited I'm on my break at work typing this on my phone so bear with me if this response is rather limited in scope and content.
Most of your post focuses on a dead human body and that killing that would also be morally wrong. However, I don't belie I need to add anything per se to my definitional argumentation. Your modus ponens is self-referentialy defeating as I stated in my earlier post. The idea of killing a dead human being is philosophically unintelligible and contradictory. It's not that a corpse dosent have rights ( the right to a proper burial, the right not to be mutilated) it's that the very concept of killing necessarily can't apply to dead corpses. Therefore, I believe your objection has no merit.
Well, what I see here is you admitting that "genetically human" is not the same thing as "alive," and only living things can be murdered. Obviously, things that are genetically human can be alive, but aren't always, which is why "genetically human" isn't great as the only characteristic of a living human being.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!