Reason to the Philosophy of Balance and to the law on the slaughter tax
According to the majority opinion the human is the supreme predator in nature, and therefore he or she has the right to kill other living creatures, in particular I mean the animals, insects and plants or fungi, and even though perhaps the human does not like it nor he or she admits it publicly, the human must respect the fact, that in nature strong, often unmerciful predators govern and the human as the supreme predator must arrange also his or her life according to it. Human does not need allegedly care about the good of all creation, but just for the good of his or her own pack also at the expense of great death and pain of other packs of living creatures, the human can allegedly approve and cause much more than the least possible death and pain. Thus the human has allegedly the right to be also unmerciful. This is partly proved by the historical tradition of humanity and by nature observations, especially by the Darwinian evolution theory, although exact science has not provided the perfect exact scientific proof of this up to now.
Conversely according to the Philosophy of Balance in nature is valid the law of the exclusive harmony, i.e. symbiosis, i.e. the in long term most powerful law of love (defined in an obvious way in my Philosophy of Balance, that "All living creatures in fact mostly want to live in a world, where everyone likes each other, therefore everyone is still obliged to cause the least possible death and pain. All the rest consists more in views (speculations).). This is based on my scientific hypothesis that according to the Philosophy of Balance, living microorganisms, especially living cells, are capable of distinguishing and remembering whether we protect them, especially by feeding them, or whether we kill them. Therefore, even these living microorganisms, according to the Philosophy of Balance, are able through basic mental reflections to distinguish between and remember their friend or enemy. It could be said, that they possess a soul in the religious sense of the term. An adversarial living microorganism is then treated as an enemy by not only these living organisms but also by their affiliated or related microorganisms, which devour it. In our macro-world, this tends to manifest as quarrel, illness, pain, war, injury, disaster, failure, death, etc. A friendly living organism, according to the Philosophy of Balance, is then treated in an amicable manner by these living microorganisms, or, more precisely, it is not devoured by them. On the contrary, they devour such living microorganisms that attempt to devour the amicable one. The friendly behaviour of the microorganisms manifests itself in the macro-world as the peaceful and long life of me and my offspring or as a series of friends and comrades who are willing to fight and sacrifice their lives for us. In my Philosophy of Balance I am also trying to find exact natural science proofs for this hypothesis.
If my Philosophy of Balance is valid, then every living creature in nature and also the human as the supreme predator in nature are paid off in long term to be still as little as possible predator, i.e. to cause still the least possible death and pain, or at least still not to cause much more than the least possible death and pain. If the human society wishes to humanize further, then it can be assumed that in the future the enactment of by me proposed slaughter tax happens most certainly, unless human society humanizes further, then this will apparently not happen.
The main in everyday life practical biblical question: Is nature unmerciful or the biblical paradise for all alive can be achieved in it by own forces of living creatures?
My Philosophy of Balance is based on a single dogma („All living creatures in fact mostly want to live in a world, where everyone likes each other, therefore everyone is still obliged to cause the least possible death and pain." All the rest consists more in views (speculations).), from which the truth follows, which is self-evident for every thinking creature that could be expressed, so that those who or which want the most of all to achieve by their own forces as soon as possible the world, where everyone (especially all living creatures) would like each other (i.e. to achieve paradise on Earth), then those should still cause the least possible death and pain (especially to all living creatures), if, as the case may be, above mentioned axiom or dogma is not verifiably refuted.