When does killing an animal constitute murder?

So far I have not yet had sufficient reason to kill a human.

---

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

You started off by defining use for food as the defining difference between murder and non-murder. Then when asked about eating humans you said that if you had to eat a human to stay alive it wouldn't constitute as murder. Fine.But you obviously have different criteria of what constitutes "murder" depending on the species as you don't consider eating animals whether vital to survival or not as murder.So with regard to the question being asked in the OP - Is it just humans that get this different treatment? Or do you have a sort of sliding scale of moral preference and level of starvation required depending on some criteria?

I'm working on it..........Have you ever had sufficient reason to kill any living creature?

We humans kill other humans all the time and not for so different reasons then animals kill the same typ of animals.We go to ware and kill the enemy so we can rule over that land and take benifits from that land. Or a person sometimes so we geet a benifit unless you are a sociopath.A lion kills a noter lion To become the alfa of his pack and gain his hunting grounds and all the oter benifits.Some murder their souses for cheating, lions murder the cubs from a previus alfa.The only difference we have laws that punish such actions. A trait that came with language where the weak could turn on the strong bully/alfa so each individual had roughly the same chance of passing on his gens.

Quite often.

---

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

So?Does the fact that we do things, and even the argument that is natural to do so, make it morally acceptable to do those things?One could argue that rape is natural. But is it immoral?

And would your "sufficient reason" depend at all on what species of creature you were engaged in killing?A maggot Vs a human for example.

I don't know. Sorry.

---

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

You have no more idea whether the reason you might kill an insect (for example) is "sufficient reason" to kill a human being?Who hasn't swatted an annoying bug?Then I shall restrict myself to annoying you from afar and well out of range of your (apparently) psycopathic tendencies.

Well there is a sliding scale, humans are on top and only in some special casses killing a noter human is not murder. Then come the animals that have a social taboo on eating them, after that come the animals that we usualy eat.Tough in all animal cases pointless killing of them is wrong in my book. And pointless mistreatment is also wrong, as for the taboos on eating some animals i do not get them tough i do follow them, tough if someone wants to eat a dog and he cares for the dog so the dog had a nice life and he kills him in a humane manner then i would not have a problem with him eating the dog i on the other hand would have to be really hungry to eat a dog. I did eat a Dove once in Greece, i had no problems with it tastes like chicken, tough i doubt i will ever in my life prepare one on my own.Why is there a difference, well i am not sure social norms and all the oteher crap that shapes our decisions.

Pranists (i dunno how to spell it) from India, they walk around naked with a peacock feather in their hand sweaping the flore so they do not step on a bug accidently.

Your post is a great example for support for my position. There is simply no general rule. I have swatted many a bug, and also not swatted many a bug. It all depends on the particular incident.I enjoy eating chicken and quail and duck and deer and turkey and so have killed them. But I have also many times not killed chickens and quails and ducks and deer and turkeys.I may have killed a maggot, but not that I can remember. I have simply avoided them and left them to do their work.Sorry but I see nothing psychopathic in any of that.

---

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

Whilst I agree - Why do you think humans are at the top of the scale? What animals do you consider to be taboo? Sure. So if I offered you some chimp meat would you have any moral problem with that at all?

Personal morality is decided on a case-by-case basis. Is it moral to kill the bastard who raped my daughter? Yes it is, even if society doesn't agree. Society might decide that it's moral to kill me for doing it but I personally disagree.I don't see why attitudes toward killing animals should be any more standardized.Edited by ringo, : Speling.

---

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

Nor have I said that there is a "general rule". And your post is a great example of ignoring the implications of your own answers.You say that you have "quite often" had sufficient reason to kill other living creatures. Yet when I ask if the same "sufficient reason" applies to humans you say you "I don't know". To paraphrase: "I may have killed a human, but not that I can remember".You see how if we apply your same "sufficient reason" (i.e. uncaring disregard) to humans it sounds rather psychotic doesn't it? I don't think you are really a psychopath. I just don't believe you when you say that you "don't know" whether sufficent reason to kill a bug constitutes sufficient reason to kill a human.