When does killing an animal constitute murder?

It does, but you keep harping on personal morality, which doesn't have to. I could have had the opportunity. During the Vietnam War, I could have crossed the border and enlisted in the US Army to kill little brown people. I chose not to but I don't kid myself that I couldn't or wouldn't do it under the right set of circumstances. Of course it does. Many people who believe a murderer deserves to die would value his life below that of an innocent bee or ant.

---

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

winter dove season starts in a week.I thought god gave us all the animals to do what we want with them.

When society implants into the minds of the individual the notion that the mistreatment of certain animals is wrong, it helps to assure that these individuals will now include as wrong the mistreatment of less animal-like creatures, even if these creatures (perhaps homo sapiens by decent) are more like these animals and less like an average human. It is a safe measure. Good thing I never said we need to avoid throwing away trash or using things that are meant to be used; and good thing that has nothing to do with my position or what I said. In many cases (though I admit it is different in every case), yes, I am. And it is not stupid; it is sensible. Yes, this involves criminalizing the killing of animals in certain situations. But you said just above that 'bad resource management should be a crime'. That involves outlawing the killing of animals in certain situations; sometimes the killing of plants is even outlawed. In certain cases, to achieve the goals of resource management, the killing of animals must 'inherently be illegal'. The same applies to the protection of endangered species. Seems the killing of animals must often be outlawed in order to achieve these goals, one of which at least you have already agreed should be a goal.Are there any cases where the killing of an animal ought be illegal?Jon

---

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

It's not a crime against an inanimate object; it is a crime against the less fortunate of our world who could have otherwise put that object to good use.Jon

---

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

I remain unwilling to play silly games, and yes, that is my position.

---

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

i think he made us "lords" ( dunno the right translation) over them, and one would think he wanted us to be a good "lord" over them.In our law when you rent something to someone he is to manage that thing as a good "lord" or pay for the damages. So if he seas a leak in a roof he is suposed to either fix it and send you the bill, call you, have a repair man fix it and send you the bill, or at least put a bucket under the leak and tell you about it so you can come and fix it. If he knows there is a leak and does nothing about it then the damages that may be caused by the water are his fault. If he intentionaly does damage then it is his fault. If he does not care for say a machine in the proper manner (say greasing it once in a while) it is his fault.So if you use the bible as an example he gave us this planet to rent, and all the dameges we cause to his creation is our fault and comes out of our pocket (time in hell )

Hi, Jon. Okay. And, I still say law enforcement is more limited by practical constraints than by moral ideals. I don't understand why you want to criminalize something that you know can't be enforced effectively.Moral ideals should only be incorporated into law on the coarsest of scales. The finer the scale at which we try to enforce morality as law, the greater the impracticality, the higher the cost-to-benefit ratio, and the higher the likelihood of riots and revolts. No, I can't back this up with data, but it makes sense to me.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Straggler. I'm not sure that, in practice, people assign a "moral worth" to humans as a category. Each individual human gets its own "moral worth" score based on any number of potential criteria. But, "moral worth" of animals usually is assigned at the level of category or "kind."So, when the moral worth of a given category can only be localized to a range that overlaps the "moral worth" of another category, I can understand why someone would be unwilling to give a generic answer to the question.Maybe you should frame it as a probability. For instance, one might say that, based on some initial estimates of how they distribute "moral worth" among humans, they would favor the human over the bug in 95% of human-vs-bug pairings. This wouldn't be a definitive statement (which Ringo and Jar don't seem to want to give), but it would provide enough of a window into the person's general moral outlook to ease your mind, I think.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

But you wouldn't say that because you've built an attachment to your childs personality you would give your life for your child, would you?This is instinctual, right?Your child need not even be conscious (in a vegitative state) for you to defend it with your own life, right?I don't think you'd be more incline to defend your childs life if it has a personality vs your child in a vegitative state. At least I wouldn't. And I agree. But if you ask a question pertaining to a specific scenario as a thought experiment, given that I'm not faced with the actual dilemma right now, I would mostly lean on my logic vs my emotions.Placed in the actual situation however, more than likely, I'll be emotionally driven.- Oni

You thought wrong.BTW, what is this garish caricature of the Black Dahlia? Is it because Obama is black?

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

Except fuck 'em...so what's the point? Thanks for nothing, God!- Oni

Good point.Is raping an animal rape and should the human be punished

It might be difficult to enforce; I am not sure. But many such instances can be enforced; and done so effectively. Building codes and water use laws, for example, enforce the management of natural resources; they are a start and it is unknown how far one can go until it is tried. You certainly get the most agreement on the big issues, but that does not make enforcing widely disliked laws unmanageable or impractical. In Minnesota, for example, auto insurance is mandatory for using a car on a public road, with a few exceptions; I don't think many folk like this law, but it is used and enforced nonetheless.Anyway, we are going off-topic, I think, talking about inanimate objects instead of just animals. I'd gladly continue with this elsewhere if you'd like.Jon

---

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

You'd be hard pressed to find a psychiatrist that wouldn't agree that animal cruelty is often a precurser to violent crimes against people. Jeffrey Dahmer is a good example of that.Given that, don't think torture of any kind should be outlawed? At the very least so that some psychiatric help can be given to the individual commiting such a violent act?- Oni

I think your question should read, is sex with an animal considered rape?I would say no, it is not "rape." But it still is sex with an animal. Like with torture, it should be cause for concern for the community because it can be a precurser to raping a human - which is something that only professional athletes are allowed to legally do.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.