When does killing an animal constitute murder?

This use of the word 'murder' is so diffuse that it renders the term meaningless. Murder can only be committed by a human against another human.'I am the Lord thy God...eat me.'

Is a roach exterminator morally equivalent, by the terms of your personal morality, to a mass murderer? You are agreeing here that that "society's collective morality" places the life of a human as having greater worth than that of an ant are you not? This is not a rhetorical question. Which is why I am seeking clarification above. Because you seem to be fundamentally contradicting yourself. Is a roach exterminator morally equivalent, by the terms of your personal morality, to a mass murderer (of humans — just to be clear)? If not why not? Again - These are not rhetorical questions.I don’t consider the killing of roaches to be morally comparable to the killing of humans because my personal morality doesn’t accord roach life the same moral value as human life. I don’t feel the need to insist on knowing which specific humans or which specific roaches are involved in order to conclude this general moral principle.Apparently you think this is some sort of unique and silly stance on my part. Society?

Is a roach exterminator morally equivalent, by the terms of your personal morality, to a mass murderer (of humans — just to be clear)? If not why not?Unless some forms of life are being accorded more moral value and consideration than others a pest control expert is arguably morally equivalent to someone committing genocide.This is ridiculous. Yet Neither jar nor Ringo will agree that they do accord some forms of life with more moral worth than others. I have never at any point asked questions about murderers or pedophiles. In fact I have objected to such specific examples as irrelevant to the question posed in this thread. Because these questions have NOTHING to do with the relative moral worth accorded to different forms of life and everything to do with one's moral stance on murderers and pedophiles.So why don't you take your complaint to those who are insisting that such extreme cases are relevant to the question posed in this topic? Tell it to those who keep bringing up murderers and pedophiles.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

So killing bacteria is morally no different to killing primates as far as you are concerned?It is all just DNA.

Is a roach exterminator morally equivalent, by the terms of your personal morality, to a mass murderer (of humans — just to be clear)?If not why not?Be specific.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I was too quick to agree. My point was:

quote:

---

... but you keep harping on personal morality....Message 151

---

"Collective morality" is mostly an illusion, which can change from day to day. "General moral principle" is also a mostly irrelevant concept. Morality is applied in specific instances and the specific humans or cockroaches are vital to the application.

---

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

I think you introduced the 'extreme' element when you asked me about "aborting" a 1 year old child. So it is understandable that everything after that would follow the 'extreme' case.We'll leave it at that if its cool. With a few exceptions, haven't we? How many people do you know that think taking the life of a child is morally ok? Would a better way to say it be, it is the logical decision based on our subjective experiences? I eat to avoid starvation. Meat is my main source since I count every carb like a vain douchebag. I suppose if I had been raise eating Kentucky Fried Monkey and Monkey Nuggets I would. But I didn't so my tastebuds aren't used to it.I would however try monkey with no reservations or moral problems. If it was delicious and I had it readily available, I would have no issue making it part of my diet. Microscopic things like that are rarely ever interacted with. But I would, instead of destroying an ant pile, move my spot to were neither of us disturbes the other. I see no point in killing them for my benefit.- Oni

Is a roach exterminator morally equivalent, by the terms of your personal morality, to a mass murderer (of humans — just to be clear)? If not why not? Again - These are not rhetorical questions.Why can you not give a straight answer to this? So you overcome your previous contradiction by advocating that society has no stance on the relative moral consideration that should be accorded to ants as compared to humans?That is now your definitive position? And yet we collectively tolerate, indeed encourage, roach exterminators and seek legal retribution against those who kill humans.Why do you think this is?

I still have no idea what the criteria you use for determining which forms of life are worthy of more moral consideration that others.And that surely is the question posed in this thread is it not?I mean really how much moral consideration do you give to killing bacteria? Would you give more moral consideration to killing chimps? Elephants? Cats? Dogs? Etc.If people are not willing to answer such questions explicitly I am wondering why they even bother to take part in this thread? Why is nobody willing to actually answer this question without blathering on about paedophiles, murderers and and other such irrelevant factors?Surely you Oni will answer the question above?

Huh? Society wants to make sure everyone thinks X is wrong; to achieve this it deems Y wrong, where Y = (X+Z). Thus, no one who accepts that Y is wrong ever has to worry about making a wrong decision regarding X; all of X is already covered. When did I argue for their protection? Yup; and it is chic to manufacture products that are not tested on these animals; many in society don't like it. Nope; not even myself. But, as they say, if you shoot for the moon... something something stars... not sure. Saying 'fuck it, why even bother', though, is just lazy. You are shifting the goal post, Crash. I am not talking about owning; I am talking about destroying. But it does hurt them. I already gave an example; I notice you neglected to reply to it: "... when David Letterman drops a piano on a brand new car while there are folk needing cars who have none, and schools wanting pianos that cannot afford them, that is immoral." How does it accomplish this unless it makes the act of killing an animal illegal in certain cases? Huh? Again; that doesn't answer my question. You've just reiterated my question in the form of a statement. Why not provide actually examples?JonBTW, this will be my last reply here regarding morality of the treatment of inanimate objects. It's off-topic here; if you'd like to continue in another thread, please set it up and I'll see you there.Edited by Jon, : damn velar plosivesEdited by Jon, : damn prepositionsEdited by Jon, : damn English language

---

Check out Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

At the point where the killed subject no longer meets the legal definition of a 'person' but meets the legal definition of an 'animal'. I do not believe in sharp moral distinctions. A lot of your points don't make any sense outside of a legal system; I don't see how anyone could answer some of them without somehow appealing to that system.Jon

---

Check out Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

I've told you that I don't have a "definitive position" on a general principle. Neither does "society" have a position. Some people may have a position and some may not. In no way does a simple addition of personal positions and non-positions add up to a "societal" position of any relevance. Because "moral equivalence" is a silly concept.The mass murderer has negative value. A bug that we don't want to exterminate has neutral or positive value. What makes you think it has anything to do with morality?

---

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

And yet society has very clear laws on when it is morally acceptable to kill other humans and when it isn't.This same moral consideration is not accorded to ants or roaches which can be exterminated for no other reason than annoyance or desire. In fact killing bugs for pleasure results in no legal consideration or social retribution at all.Yet you claim that society has no position on the relative moral consideration afforded to roach life as compared to human life.The facts are against you I am afraid.

What do laws have to do with what is morally acceptable?

---

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

So you don't think the laws of society reflect the relative moral consideration accorded to humans as compared to roaches society has collectively decided upon?The two are completely unrelated as far as you are concerned?