Evil to harm an innocent being

It is evil to harm an innocent being.

Please define evil and then please provide an argument or evidence supporting that conclusion. I doubt most people believe that "it is evil to harm [any kind of 'innocent' life]".

Plants are innocent beings

Please define innocent beings.

I believe all beings should have equal rights.

Please define should.

Why do you always want every selfexplanatory thing defined?

It should very clear in this situation, that to cut down trees and thereby killing them, is the evil.

Evil to cut down a tree?

Are you taking the mick?

Are you taking the mick?

In lay man's terms please!

[Scott]

It is evil to harm an innocent being.

Please define evil and then please provide an argument or evidence supporting that conclusion. I doubt most people believe that "it is evil to harm [any kind of 'innocent' life]".

Plants are innocent beings

Please define innocent beings.

I believe all beings should have equal rights.

Please define should.

Why do you always want every selfexplanatory thing defined?

It should very clear in this situation, that to cut down trees and thereby killing them, is the evil.

That isn't a definition. Why do I want you to provide a definition for those certain words or phrases? Because they are equivocal. In another example, if you claimed a feather was light, I would need you to specify a definition of the word light so I knew whether you were saying the feather was the opposite of dark or the opposite of heavy. Anyway, you seem to be confusing an instance of something with a definition of a word. For instance, my pet my be a cat, but 'my pet' is not a definition for 'cat'. In the same way, the OP may claim that a tree is an innocent being and that killing a tree is evil but I think you are wrong if you mean to suggest that those are the actual definitions of the equivocal words I asked to be defined.

That isn't a definition. Why do I want you to provide a definition for those certain words or phrases? Because they are equivocal. In another example, if you claimed a feather was light, I would need you to specify a definition of the word light so I knew whether you were saying the feather was the opposite of dark or the opposite of heavy. Anyway, you seem to be confusing an instance of something with a definition of a word. For instance, my pet my be a cat, but 'my pet' is not a definition for 'cat'. In the same way, the OP may claim that a tree is an innocent being and that killing a tree is evil but I think you are wrong if you mean to suggest that those are the actual definitions of the equivocal words I asked to be defined.

I'v met really many people in my life, and it's only a few philosophers who ask such thing. What you ask would be very selfexplanatory and has no logically nor abstract variables, which only seems like a bad habbit of yours.

I agree that the plants are the back bone of our lives. We should teach the children to save and gurd plants just from birth. It should be a natural habbit rather than a guided practice. Same case applies upon the animals. Green toys from Ugly Doll are very inspiring in this respect.

I agree that the plants are the back bone of our lives. We should teach the children to save and gurd plants just from birth. It should be a natural habbit rather than a guided practice. Same case applies upon the animals. Green toys from Ugly Doll are very inspiring in this respect.

In nearly every post you've made you've mentioned Ugly Doll Or Birdseyemoon. One might think you're just trying to draw people to those places.

As to the topic, if you're going to condemn one organism harming another, you might as well condemn life as such. It's an impossible standard of morality for a human to practice. We don't photosynthesize; we feed on other organisms in one way or another to maintain our existence.

It is evil to harm an innocent being. Plants are innocent beings it is evil to harm them. I believe all beings should have equal rights.

A plannt grows from dirt, within the plants body the dirt goes through chemical process to be changed into it's body. We have the science today to do such chemical processess to dirt our selves and make ediable food possibly better to eat then eating a living being. Why hasn't this happened yet, No one has thouyght of it but me and also no one cares about any other living beings but humans. Personally i don't want to do any evil and they should start making foood from dirt to give people a civil good natured way of living possability istead of only being able to live like savages> It is more vcivil to make food your self from dirt the bassic materical then eat a living being so it is the future of our society.

If your premise is correct that all 'beings' should have equal rights, then plants and animals will have to be incarcerated for murder for either/or eating each other and squeezing out the weak in order to grow. Dirt has to have a life element to it or it would not nourish. As humans with the creation in our guardianship we do have the responsibility to be humane to the plants and animals we use for food, medicine, pets,etc.. Water which makes up the largest composition of all life would have to be removed from a food source as it contains life giving elements. Your premise would leave no food for any kind of life and all would die out.

-- Updated Sun Apr 29, 2012 11:02 am to add the following --

The movie 'Temple Grandin' is about an autistic girl/women who changed the way slaughter houses treated animals. Excellent.

Solarmatter,

You putted down a very good question, it is really concerned with all living beings, but do you know all the living being eat each others. Every living being actually eat other living being, then how could they been innocent. That means he is not innocent. And you said that it is evil to harm innocent being. So I think we are not harming them such as beating them giving wound, we just eat them. And eating and harming is two different things, and not one as you supposed it to be. If you think eating innocent living being is not good, then tell me which living being is innocent because they eat other living being then how they could be innocent. Do you think it is wrong to eat such living being who eat other living being. I think it is their right to get eaten up because they eat other living beings. If you did not getting it what I am saying, let me explain it by example. Grass (living being) is eaten up by rat, rat is eaten up by snake, snake is eaten up by peacock, and peacock is eaten up by humans. What’s wrong on this? Another example trees are eaten up by deer, deer is eaten up by tiger and tiger is eaten up by crocodile and so on. Everybody is eating each other. Even if we get capability to eat air, water then also it is possibility that we are eating some kind of microscopic living being through it. One thing we can eat which may not contain any living being is fire (a solar matter) but unfortunately we didn’t have the capability to eat fire.

The conclusion is that all living being are dependent to each other for food. They eat each other that is why they are not innocent and we must eat them.

Think about it, it is not at all wrong. Sorry.

I also agree it is somewhere evil but only in the situation when we are going to create unbalancing kind of situation in respect to survival of all living beings.