When does killing an animal constitute murder?

It would be a crime, but not because of the value of any discreet, individual animal life. It would be because "all known bat species" are the collective property of all human beings. No more special than my TV or my computer or my car. I don't think doing so would make you someone I would like to be around. But I don't think your act of torturing dogs to death should make you a criminal, unless they're someone else's dogs.Torturing animals is roughly on the same moral level for me as enjoying country music. It's going to represent a fundamental obstacle to us ever being friends, but I don't think you should be criminally prosecuted for it. Yeah. Well, I don't. I make sure the cat is fed just the same way I take care of any other property I own. I don't want my cat to die because it represents a substantial investment of money, same as our TV, and we originally bought it because it serves a desire we had, same as our TV. Just like I don't mistreat my car or my TV, I don't mistreat my cat, because it's wasteful to mistreat your own property.But it shouldn't be a crime. Can you conceive of things that are bad ideas, and may even make you a bad person if you do them, but nontheless aren't crimes?

Have you ever been fishing and used maggots, worms or insects as bait? Legal considerations aside — Would you use a human for the same purpose?If not what is the difference morally as far as you are concerned?

A human is far too big to use for bait.Look, I can see that it is possible to create really stupid examples but honestly, that is not a moral dilemma, that example is just silly.

---

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

That would be both illegal as well as very widely and strongly socially condemned in the UK: Are social and legal attitudes the same in the US or is your view more accepted over there?I know this thread is about personal morality rather than law but I just wondered what the situation is and won't veer off any further down that tangent.

It is only silly because you don't can't to answer the question without contradicting the silly stance you have taken in this thread.Would you use a human for shark bait in the same way you would use a worm for fish bait? I would imagine a thrashing human would be quite effective shark bait.C'mon jar - You are not being honest here. You cannot function in society giving no more moral consideration to humans than you do bugs or worms. You would have to either walk around like those monks feathering the floor before every step in order to avoid trampling ants or be banned from things like driving because you would plough through anyone that got in your way with the same oblivious disregard that most of us trample ants.It's nonsense.

I believe that you believe that is true, but sorry, there is little more that you are going to get from me.I cannot imagine a situation arising where I need to go shark fishing or should one arise, where I can find no substitute for bait than a human, so it's simply silly.Hardly seems like a real moral dilemma, more like juvenile fantasy.

---

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

I agree. Natural instinct is the deciding factor.But...logic, and not natural instinct, is what I'm using in this thought experiment because I'm not emotionally attached to it - IOW, I'm not actually faced with the dilemma of having to choose right now. Do you think this is anything more than the natural instinct to protect your DNA? Or do you think you have an actual attachment to the personality of your child? That is the problem with your line of questioning, you're expecting emotionally driven answers to a question that I/we are not emotionally attached to. So I could give you my logical answer because I'm not faced with the situation right now.That is why I said "Not that I could actually do this but..."- Oni

I think my natural instinct gives me a deep attachment to the personality and person that is my child. I am asking questions about people's personal moral outlook. And I don't believe that people's personal moral outlook is driven by logic alone. I know mine isn't.

So you remain unwilling to give greater moral worth to the life of an unspecified human over that of a random bug.That is your final position on this matter?

So you do not like people that do bad things to animals, tough you do not think they should be punished. Interesting.By the way i do like country music american and slovenian.Examples of the stile i like
american
(the old dude actualy jumped out of the plain in a parashute tough with an instructor)So now that you know that i listen to country music we cant be friends ???Would the fact that i also listen to Death,Black, Hevy, Power metal make things worse or better, or that i sometimes listen to rap tough oldscool not the new i got more money then you rap. The only thing you will not find on my pc or car is techno or simiilar music thoug i do not mind it in a club. Would any of these fact make it impossible for us to be friends.

I remain unwilling to make silly generalizations where they are neither necessary nor appropriate. I'm not taking a position; I'm presenting a viewpoint. As I've said, I function in society by conforming largely to society's collective morality. I've killed chickens for food. I've shot at crows for fun (though I can't say for sure whether I hit any and I might not do the same thing today). I've never had an opportunity to kill a human being and get away with it, so I have no basis for comparison. Now you're just being disingenuous. You know damn well that a lot of people would kill a murderer or a rapist in a heartbeat if they could get away with it.

---

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

Do you not think that "society's collective morality" places the life of a human as having greater worth than that of an ant? If that is all that is stopping you let's hope you never have that opportunity. Which is exactly why such scenarios are a complete red herring with regard to the topic of this thread - Namely one's personal moral position on the relative moral worth of different life-forms. This has nothing to do with questions like "Does a murderer deserve to die?" does it?If I had that much against somebody that I wanted to kill them then the life of the bug just wouldn’t come into it. In that scenario the only moral question would be whether or not I am willing to kill the human. The bug is an irrelevance. Set it free. Squash it. In the face of that scenario I wouldn’t give a flying shit about the bug either way.Thus such scenarios have no bearing on the moral worth of different species and have no place in this thread.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Some people do need killing, the problem is if you furfill the need you get punished, so i will not kill a pedofile because i would go to jail tough if that pedofile would tuch any of my children there would be no force on erth heven or hell that could stop me from killing him/her.

What does any of this have to do with your views on the relative moral consideration to be accorded to different species?

An example of suficient reason to kill a noter human being the same species, compared to the weaker examples one needs to kill animals that are not of the same species.