When does killing an animal constitute murder?

I think this fits the topicVsak dan prvi - 24ur.com
Tough none of you understand slovenian il translate a bit.After a torturous death of a dog, that got eaten by fleas in Brot, the police gave the charges to the prosecution. The offender that tortured the animal to death is threatened to one year imprisonment for the act.This year in the summer the president of the coast society against the torture of animals Andrea Bogataj Krivec found a German Shepard dog on its last breaths with the help of an anonymous tip. He was eaten by by fleas, starved, and full of suffering, blind on both eyes and could not walk. He was crying from pain, and a bit before death. She took him of his chain and took him to the vet, The vet found malnutrition, and dehydration. On his body there where swarms of fleas and was eaten while alive by flies. He was a living cadaver she said. The dog could not be helped so they released him from his pain with euthanasia. The dog was about 10 years old.

I would say that while I respect all living things my compassion for an animal is proportional to it's intelligence. This proportion is tempered by the subject animals tastiness, bacon would be a good example. I will kill a mosquito with less thought than I will kill a duck and a duck with less concern than I would a dog. As all moral judgments are based on our own subjective viewpoints I guess it comes down to why the killing is being done. The most important thing is to consider your place in the food chain. Hunger does away with a lot of equivocating.Here is a wrench in the works. Would it be morally acceptable for a species of greater intellect to come along and farm humans for food or adrenaline or amusement? Would that be murder? Hmmm...maybe I should be a vegetarian after all.

And yesterday I would have agreed. But now I think, for me, the more accurate term is "awareness".BTW nice irony in your screen name....

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

At least in part I would say that yes. But it isn't black and white. It is partly instinctual. But mainly it is "human". See below for what I mean by that. I can imagine such scenarios where I might even be the one advocating that the plug be pulled. Cases where if the child ever awoke they would be brain damaged beyond personhood. I don't think this is just about instinctual protection of ones DNA carrier as you are implying - Even if that at root may be the underlying cause of all the more human layers we pile on top.This is about a quality that for lack of a better description I would call humanness. Incorporating empathy, sympathy, compassion, experience, love, respect, wisdom and all sorts of other woolly, pretentious sounding ill defined concepts that cannot be either derived from nor reduced to a series of IF THEN logical statements. The things that make you you and me me. The things that make the personal morality of each and every one of us subtly different from everyone else no matter what common cultural factors may be shared. Don't rely wholly on either. I am asking about your personal morality. I am asking what you think you should do in a particular situation. Not what you would do (even if the questions has been phrased in that way). Nor what it is logical to do. What do you believe the morally right thing to do is in the given situation. That is the question. Placed in actual moral situations we might do all sorts of things. Including run and hide from making any choice at all.But I am not asking what people would do. There is no way to know that until faced with an actual situation. I am asking what you personally morally think you should do.Do you see the difference?

Crash's nonchalance about torturing dogs is an extreme outlier in U.S. attitudes.In most states in the U.S. (possibly all), one would be prosecuted, fined and jailed for torturing an animal.One would also become a social outcast, commonly regarded (accurately, imho) as either a sociopath in full or in the making.If I knew my neighbor was torturing an animal, I would interfere by any means necessary--his act reduces his moral worth far below that of the animal he abuses.Anyone who kills, skins and eats one of my cats should put his affairs in order. Edited by Omnivorous, : No reason given.

---

Dost thou prate, rogue?
-Cassio

​

Real things always push back.
-William James

I have asked you about your personal morality. And I haven't suggested that your personal morality has to conform to anything.But given that you have stated both that your personal morality does conform to society's collective morality and that society's collective morality in general places the life of a human over that of an ant - Why couldn't you just say that in general you value human life more than that of an ant when asked that question? And yet it now seems that I was correct in my belief. Are you familiar with the concept of dehumanising one's enemies? Why do you think this is a common psychological process in cases where acts of violence are committed against fellow humans? And those circumstances have everything to do with your moral stance on killing humans and nothing to do with the relative moral worth of human life with that of other species.You are still conflating moral questions like Do murderers deserve to die? Or "Is it morlal for soldiers to kill?" with the question regarding the relative moral worth of different species asked in this thread. They are not the same question. You are still conflating moral questions like Do murderers deserve to die? with the question regarding the relative moral worth of different species asked in this thread. They are not the same questionIs anyone’s moral stance on whether or not a murderer should be killed going to be swayed by the possibility of an ant living or dying based on their decision? Really?And if not what do such scenarios have to do with the question posed by this thread?

I think we do so more than you give us credit for. Consider the psychology of dehumanisation of one's victims The overwhelming majority of sane people give more moral value to humans than they do ants. I find jar's and Ringo's position on this rather ridiculous. Maybe. But seriously who cares if they step on a few ants without even noticing. If one were to be accidentally responsible for the death of tens of humans I dare say it would have more of a moral and psychological impact on most sane members of society.And as for Ringo's persistent use of murderers as an example - Is anyone’s moral stance on whether or not a murderer should be killed going to be swayed by the possibility of an ant living or dying based on their decision?If not what relevance do such examples have on the question posed in this thread?

I was having a conversation with my brother in law about how old the earth was. After listening to his explanation as to why the earth could not be any more than 6,000 yrs old I told him that I wouldn't feed that logic to my dog out of fear that he wouldn't keep it down. He made some comment about casting pearls before swine and I reminded him that "As the dog returns to his vomit so the fool returns to his folly." Things degenerated from there. Do you mean that it is only ok to kill animals that are not aware that you are going to kill them? All animals feel pain don't they? There is some evidence, I understand, that shows that plants are capable of communicating distress to their neighbours.From the Wiki Today I eat salad and tomorrow I am plant food.

How can he be black when he came out of a white vagina, and was raised by white people?he's definately a white d00dEdited by Artemis Entreri, : No reason given.

That's what I meant by depending on the scenario I could see "aborting" as you called it, a 1 year old.But the point I was trying to make wasn't so much that, what I meant is that you would protect even your braindead child as if it were completely aware and conscious.Take your scenario, say someone was holding a bee and your braindead child, which would you let the person kill?I'll get back to the rest of your post.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

A child's physical attributes are not affected by parental figures.
If tall people raise a child: the child will not necessarily grow up to be a tall adult.But a child's psychological attitudes can be affected by parental figures.
If stupid and racist people raise a child: the child will probably grow up to be a stupid and racist adult.
It is also possible for a child to grow up to be a stupid and racist adult without having stupid and racist parental figures.

I haven't stated any such thing. I've said that my behaviour conforms mostly to society's collective morality. I think it's possible to dehumanize our enemies because the line between human and non-human is pretty fine. There are anecdotes, at least, about soldiers shooting civilians and then rescuing their dogs. They're very closely related. You can make whatever claims you want about "moral worth" but your willingness to kill a murderer reveals how you really feel about the value of human life. You're being very silly putting both cases into the same scenario.

---

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

Hi, Straggler. From the language here, I gather that you regard at least some (hypothetical) people who value ants more than humans as sane?----- Is the ant ever relevant, then?In any pairing, there is a chance that the decider will feel indifference, abhorrence or compassion towards either contestant. You are wanting the question to be entirely about compassion---i.e., "who would I rather spare?"---but surely the question of abhorrence---"who do I want to kill?"---is just as relevant.A decision between any two contestants may be decided by compassion towards one or abhorrence towards the other. In either case, only one contestant is really relevant, but a comparison of moral value is still made. (I'm ignoring cases in which we are compassionate to both or in which we abhor both).People are generally indifferent toward ants. Thus, all dilemmas like you propose involving ants are based on how we feel about the other contestant, and not about how we feel about ants. So, the ant is always irrelevant.You would have us believe that compassion toward some humans at the expense of an irrelevant ant is evidence of the higher moral worth of those humans relative to the ant; but that abhorrence toward other humans to the benefit of an irrelevant ant is not evidence of the higher moral worth of the ant relative to those humans.I think this is a mistake on your part.

---

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

How does it do any of that? Be specific.Tell me - are scientists who do animal research more likely to beat their wives or husbands, in your view? How does demolition not count as "destruction of property"? No, it's literally nonsensical. But not because it's bad to kill an animal. Do you see the distinction? Where the act of killing is another crime in and of itself.

Why should everything I think is bad be a crime? Now that you know I'm not particularly bothered by cruelty to animals, were we ever going to be friends?