When does killing an animal constitute murder?

That isn't a given. The thread asks what I think, not what I think other people should think. Are you misrepresenting me deliberately? I have said repeatedly that I have no "general" position. Show me a specific case of breeding fruit flies for experimentation and a specific case of breeding humans for experimentation and I'll give you two individual opinions. I might personally approve of one or both or neither. One example doesn't indicate a general trend. Society also puts a higher value on the last few members of an endangered insect species than it does on a mass murderer. Society also tends to put a higher value on pets than on criminals.You're trying to measure morality by citing a few examples and ignoring the counter-examples. Even if a quantitative result was possible, you're doing it dishonestly.

---

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

Let us be absolutely clear here - I have never once denied that some people put a higher moral value on some individual animals than they do some individual people. Nor have I ever suggested that you should tell anyone else what their moral stance should be regarding this matter. However I have repeatedly asked you for your personal moral stance regarding the relative moral consideration you think should be accorded to different species at the species level.If you personally don't think that breeding fruit flies for the purposes of experimentation is immoral but you do think that breeding and raising humans for the same purpose is immoral then you are applying morality at the species and not the individual level. Despite asserting that you don't do this.If you personally don't think that breeding cows for the purposes of human consumption is immoral but you do think that breeding humans to be eaten is immoral then you are applying morality at the species and not the individual level. Despite asserting that you don't do this. Direct Question: Do you personally accept the general moral principle that it is wrong to breed and raise humans for the purposes of experimentation? Or are you going to to say that "it depends which specific humans" we are talking about?Do you personally ever take general moral stances at the species level or do you only ever apply morality to the specific individual as you have claimed throughout this thread?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I've told you more than once that I don't accept "general moral principles" AT ALL. What part of that do you not understand? I HAVE said that. What part of "yes" is mysterious to you?Do you have anything to contribute to the thread besides incredulity?

---

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

Without applying general moral principles how do you ever weigh up the competing moral factors that make up a unique situation to come to specific conclusions?Can you give me an example of a moral decision you made recently in which no general moral principles were applied? Which specific humans you think it morally acceptable to breed and raise for purposes of experimentation is "mysterious" to me.Can you clarify? Which specific humans do you consider it morally acceptable to breed and raise in order to be experimented upon?Be specific.

If someone is asked Do you consider rape to be an immoral act? and they reply If I might be raped then rape is immoral but if there is no possibility of me being raped then it isn’t I don’t think they can really be said answered the question regarding the morality of the act of rape in and of itself.But your question is a good one and not a simple one to definitively answer.

So would you consider the breeding of mice or rabbits for purposes of scientific research to be immoral? Chimps? Gorillas?What about the breeding of humans for the same research purposes?I suspect that you (like I) will special plead humans as worthy of extra moral consideration in such matters. In which case I would dispute that you really do grant "equal "moral worth" to all animals (humans included)".

"First, do no harm." (If you want to consider that a general moral principle, go ahead and bray about contradictions.)In most cases, of course, it's a question of balancing harm but harm can not be measured objectively. That's why harming a murderer is sometimes preferable and harming an ant is sometimes not. Generalization by species is futile. Whether or not it was morally acceptable to breed humans for experiment would depend on the nature of the breeding and the nature of the experiment.

---

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

Firstly - I note that an example of the sort requested was not forthcoming. Can you give me an example of a specific moral decision you made recently in which no general moral principles were applied? Fine. That is a contradiction but we'll let it go with no further ado. See if you can answer the above question by applying that principle alone. Harm to what or who? I am not asking for any "objective measures". Yet again let me make it very clear that I am still trying to ascertain a consistent and realistic personal moral stance on the relative moral consideration you accord to different species. If you personally don't think that breeding mice or fruit flies for the purposes of experimentation is immoral but you do think that breeding and raising humans for the identical purpose is immoral then you are applying morality at the species and not the individual level. Despite asserting that you don't do this. Maybe so. But that does not answer the question about specific individuals. You have relentlessly insisted in this thread that moral decisions cannot be made at the general human (i.e. species) level but only at the specific individual level.So I ask again - Which specific individual humans do you consider it morally acceptable to breed and raise in order to be experimented upon in a way that is directly comparable to lab rats and fruit flies?

I did give you one earlier in the thread. I decided not to destroy an ant colony. I didn't even think of it as a "moral decision" at the time but it does seem to fit your definition. It was based on the principle (moral or not) of doing no harm. It had little or nothing to do with the species involved. That's because you're asking the wrong question. Ask me under what circumstances it might be acceptable to breed humans for experimentation.(If you continue trying to browbeat me into saying what you want me to say, you're liable to be disappointed.)

---

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

Hi, Straggler. I usually just try not to think about it, one way or the other.Breeding mice/rats for research seems okay with me, but probably just because I've grown up with it: I don't like the idea of doing that research personally. They also do some pretty weird stuff to mice (like make their backs grow into the shape of a human ear), which I don't like. For rabbits, chimps and gorillas, I'm reluctant to agree to it. I suppose it would depend on the research.Whenever I think of breeding humans for research, I only think of my family being taken away from me for research, and I don't like that. But, if it were happening on the other side of the planet, I wouldn't really want to be bothered about it.But, in general, I think you're probably right: I don't think humans should be bred specifically for research.----- I was talking about killing and murder specifically, though. As far as killing things goes, I am (in principle) opposed to any killing beyond the specific situations I mentioned. Additionally, I'm borderline on hunting, because hunting is necessary in some cases to maintain healthy populations and ecosystems, and I can't really blame any animal for wanting to find food, but hunting can also be unnecessarily devastating to animal populations in other situations.My views about how organisms rank in moral value will probably be different with each moral issue that's raised.

---

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

LOL. Whatever, Crash. If you choose not to reply, then you simply make yourself dismissible.Jon

---

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

Is there any reason for me to consider this discussion worth continuing when you decide to reduce your replies to a handful of completely irrelevant questions?Jon

---

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

Wait, I didn't say I had a problem with any of it.I'd obviously have a problem with humans being hunted for sport because it could result in my or my families death. Self preservation. But humans aside, I don't have a problem with hunting for sport at all, it is what I would call "murder" though. Yeah, I just find it superficial. Because it's fake. It's based on an economic position that they just so happen to (luckily) find themselves in.They have the luxury of having options, that is all they have. That, to me, does not make their postion a moral one, it makes it a economically superior one. On this I agree with. There is no need to torture the animals first. But I don't think I've ever cared enough to put a pack of meat down and opt for the one priced three times as much. I am but a jester and not of royal blood, this luxury is not afforded to me. I find the moral postion weak when it is dependent on one's financial and geographical position. Not at all. To me it would be like breding and raising any animal for the purpose of eating. Now, could I do it? No. I couldn't. Not now, not after living so many years in a world where that doesn't exist.- Oni

I did reply, and I've successfully defended the relevance of my counterexamples.Would you like to attempt a reply, or is retreat the extent of your reaction to challenging ideas?

LOL. Whatever, Crash.

---

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr