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.
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.
