When does killing an animal constitute murder?

Says the person who won't say that they consider the life of a human to be generally of more moral worth than that of a bug!!!!!!!!Given that you probably don't even care when you step on an ant - That is the dangerous position.Although I don't believe you advocacy of it beyond some silly debate tactic.

You talk about psychopaths but you won't even explicitly state that you consider the life of a human of more moral worth than that of an ant that you step on without a second glance.Go figure.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

My irrational poistion is this:Sentience is key. Except when it comes to humans.I would object to the farming, eating or anything else of a species that were demonstrably equivalent to us in terms of sentience. Such aliens should be treated as partners. Not culled.I feel sort of the same about our less sentient ape cousins but don't have the courage of my convictions to really do anything about our abysmal treatment of them.But humans, no matter how insentient, for reasons of age, disease or whatever I would give more moral consideration to than pure sentience considerations demand. Just because they are human and I am inclined to special plead the moral worth of humans on the deeply subjective basis that I am one.

I have a minor-to-moderate ant problem in my house. I went to the hardware store hoping naively, perhaps, to find a humane trap so I could release them into the wild. All I found was products that boasted of wiping out the entire colony. I found that a bit extreme, so I fell back on Plan B: I did nothing.Now I have a moderate-to-apocalyptic ant problem in my yard. I've been accused of exporting ants to the entire neighbourhood, though I don't understand why the neighbours can't wipe out my colony remotely if those products live up to their hype.I have been tempted to shoot the neighbours but I won't exterminate the ants. On the other hand, I know lots of people who like dogs, cats, horses, etc. better than people. Maybe you just need to improve your knowledge of human nature.

---

"I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"

Thank you for outlining your moral position on the question. I believe you're the only one so far to give a general outline of their personal stance on the question.

And yet I still don't believe that if faced with the genuine moral dilemma of having to wipe out the ant colony in your house or be responsible for the death of your human neighbours that you would choose the existence of the ants over the humans.Maybe I am being optimistically human in this. If that is not your stance I think you are a genuinely worrying member of society and I am glad that I am not your neighbour.But I still believe that your stance in this thread is a debate tactic rather than a genuine statement of considering the lives of ants as being morally equivalent to your human neighbours........

Still, wiping out the ant colony does entail killing many more individuals. Just like killing several humans constitutes a greater moral wrong than the killing of a single human, killing a million ants should magnify the wrongness of the deed a million times.

And I didn't say I would. My point has been that I don't have a predetermined moral position before the situation arises.By the same token, I doubt that your position is as cut-and-dried as you pretend. Given a ludicrously extreme situation where you have to decide between killing a mass-murderer or causing the extinction of an insect species, what would you do?

---

"I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"

Having read the whole thread I think I agree with both positions.A) I value human life, in general, more than any other species, with a close to equal value for certain close relatives and sentient species.B) There are individual cases where I would value the life of a lesser species over that of a human being.In Stragglers scenario, I would, in general, chose the life of the human. Unless, the human was a child molester, rapist, murderer, etc. If that was the case, I'd say kill the human and spare the bug. In fact, let the bug dine on the dead human.I can also agree that, if asked just on the bases of species, there are some I irrationally consider of more value than others.Then there is the point of food. If one species was what I considered food and the other not food, I kill the food. For example, if you put a dog on a chopping block or a rabbit, I'd kill and eat the rabbit. If you put a rat or a fish, I'd kill and eat the fish. But, if you put a lizard or a rat, I don't know which I'd kill. I have no reason to kill either one.It's slightly confusing because there is no set standard for choosing what to kill other than for food or self defense. Except in the case of bugs where grossness or annoyance are a factor. But other than that, each case is different, each scenario can varry as to which way I'd decide.- Oni

Yeah I share the same opinion. I thought I was the only one. I haven't read any of your abortion posts so I was unaware.I have always felt abortions should not be limited to the first trimester, and see many situations where one should go for the abortion before subjecting a human life to terrible living conditions.- Oni

I still don't see how you can deny that in general you consider a human life of more worth than that of a bug?You can name all the extreme situations you want - But in general I have absolutely no problem stating that I consider a human life as of more moral worth than that of a cockroach.How you have talked yourself into a debate position where you cannot explicitly agree with that I don't know.Will you agree that given the choice between the life of a random human and a random roach you would consider the human life of greater moral worth?If you can't explicitly agree with that - Then yes I continue to think you have cornered yourself into a silly debate position rather than one you actually believe in.

Maybe so. But unless we are talking about speciocide the number of ants killed (to be honest) barely registers on my moral radar.

How about "aborting" a 1 year old?

Again, the point is to avoid unnecessary generalizations. If you had to choose between killing the worst dregs of humanity or the extinction of a "mere" insect species, what would you do? If you can't come down on the side of humanity in a specific scenario, your generalizations are meaningless.

---

"I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"

It's always easy to make up dilemmas.For example, is any human life worth the loss of bees?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!