"No, actually today, killing animals for food is a choice, it's not necessary at all."
Firstly, the original discussion was about all "LIFE" living off life. So even if people stopped eating animals, they would still need to kill other life. And, of course, other animals would still need to kill other animals.
Humans would still need to kill continuously day after day in order to cure illness and prevent disease.
I suppose humans could survive without killing (say) cows--although they would thereby kill them indirectly
But what animals are you accusing me of killing??
And if I did harm an animal...how does that translate into harming a person?
My characterization of evil was as an action that is harmful or hurtful. I was not intending you to apply it to bacteria, lettuce, ants, and cows. I am sure you are just attempting to be opportunistic and to muddy clear waters.
So a lesson in logic for you:
ALL evil is harmful and hurtful. But all harm and hurt is not evil. First year philosophy, young'un. :-)
Killing ants or lettuce or chickens certainly harms these life forms. But these are not evil acts. When you hit your thumb with a hammer, you are not committing an evil act.
Again...where there is an evil act there will always be harm. But obviously, harm can and does exist independently of evil. For instance, when a thief loses his freedom.
|
