When does killing an animal constitute murder?

I applaud your support for the great ape project. But to claim that this is remotely consistent with anything else you have said in this thread is completely ridiculous.You started out in this topic insisting that relative moral worth could only ever meaningfully be adopted towards specific individuals. You asserted that any Generalization by species is futile Message 262. Now you proclaim your support for a project whose raison d'etre is to promote chimps, bonobos, gorillas and orang-utans as being generally more worthy of moral consideration than other less self aware species.During this thread you have denied that society has taken a moral view on this issue. Society hasn't taken a stance. Message 184. Now you proclaim your support for a project which seeks to enhance the moral status of great apes in the eyes of society.Throughout this thread you have questioned the role of legality in the context of discussions about morality. What do laws have to do with what is morally acceptable? Message 209. Now you proclaim your support for a moral campaign whose primary practical aim is to bestow legal rights on certain species.Throughout this topic you have derided the idea that society generally confers greater moral value on humans than other species. But that's exactly what you're trying to do, use the existence of laws that single out humans as evidence of a "special" moral attitude toward humans Message 236. Now you proclaim your support for a project which seeks to elevate the status of great apes so that they too can be accorded some of the higher moral consideration already accorded to humans by society.Can you really not see the contradictions here? Nobody here has disputed that real life moral situations are individual and unique. This does nothing to detract from the very evident conclusion that human society generally accords humans greater moral consideration that it does other species. If human life wasn't generally held in greater moral esteem there would be no reason to single a mass murderer out as worthy of any less moral value than any other person would there?

As a general moral principle I accord greater moral consideration to humanity than I do other species.

​

As a general moral principle I consider those culpable of heinous moral acts against other sentient beings to have relinquished some of the moral consideration that would normally be accorded to them.

​

As a general moral principle I accord greater moral consideration to those that possess high levels of sentience than those possessing significantly lower levels.

​

I could go one. These are the sort of (very often conflicting and competing) moral principles that I apply to unique situations, weighing them up to come to my personal moral conclusions. But, if as you assert, no such moral principles apply you have no basis upon which to weigh up the unique balance of factors that make up an individual situation.

​

Simply saying "it's individual" and applying the vacuity that is "do no harm" tells us nothing about how you personally come to moral conclusions in this context. Which is supposed to be what this thread is about.

​

ringo writes:

​

It's your strawman. Take it any way you like.

​

You are the one who proclaims support for a moral campaign to ban experimentation on great apes whilst stating that the reasons for not breeding and raising humans to be experimented upon are practical rather than moral.

​

Do you think this is a consistent position?

The following was written by the founder of the great ape project regarding his rationale for the project: You claim to support the great ape project. But you also deny making any moral distinctions along speciesistic lines. Can you see why this might seem rather contradictory? Legal rights on the basis of moral status. Obviously. Have you read anything about the great ape project at all? Why do you support this campaign?Bearing in mind the following from the OP: "I'm more interested in your own thoughts on the matter than what the law says". Since when did the term generally and the phrase absolutely and to the exclusion of all other factors mean the same thing? Which of the two have I used consistently throughout this thread? Which have I never used once? Is your simplistic answer based on being unable to differentiate between a personally held general moral principle and a claim of absolute universal moral truth?You talk about "individual situations". I am asking what factors you consider important to unique moral situations and the relative importance these factors play in your moral decision making.To this end consider the following: There are two creatures. One of these will be destroyed and the other left entirely unharmed. The choice will be entirely yours. What sort of questions would you want answered before making your decision?What sort of factors matter to you when making personal moral decisions? That is what we are trying to find out here.

Then your support of the great ape project makes no sense whatsoever. The great ape project seeks to extend the moral distinction already conferred on humans to other great ape species on the basis that they too are self-aware and sentient.If you think the founders of the great ape project would support your 'no-species-distinction' position and accord equal moral status to fruit fly you are an idiot. If you genuinely see no reason to accord different moral consideration to different species, no moral reason (for example) to prefer the use of fruit fly as lab rats over chimps or humans, then there really is little else to say here.Other than to denounce your position as woefully inhumane and to point out your dangerous lack of personal empathy for your fellow man. Psychopath

Yes heaven forbid that you actually reveal what the the basis for your personal moral decisions actually is rather than isn't. In a thread which asks that question specifically that would be too much to ask wouldn't it? And nobody disagrees with you. But do you understand that this stance is entirely meaningless without any basis for distinguishing any one individual situation from any other? "Empathy is the capacity to recognize and, to some extent, share feelings (such as sadness or happiness) that are being experienced by another sentient being. Someone may need to have a certain amount of empathy before they are able to feel compassion."If you are going to claim empathetic reasoning as consistent with your personal moral position you are going to have to explain how it is you see no difference in terms of moral consideration accorded to humans and fruit fly (for example) on the basis of self-awareness and sentience. You haven't demonstrated any "respect" for any species at all. All you have done is deny that there are moral reasons for curbing one's behaviour. Let's repeat some of your lowlights in this thread shall we: And you want to lecture me about morality and empathy?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Both you and I generally swat flies, splat roaches, dine on cows and give very little moral consideration to most of the innocent ants we trample over as we go about our daily lives. Yet you deny that you accord humanity (or any other species) any greater moral consideration. If this claim were true you would indisputably possess a dangerous lack of personal empathy for your fellow man and be warranting of the term psychopath. Then I suggest you take notes......I accord moral consideration differently to different species. Speciesistic concerns may not be the overriding factor in any given individual scenario. It almost certainly won’t be the only factor in any given individual scenario. But the fact that a particular scenario pertains to a human rather than, say, a bee or a snake or a roach is of considerable relevance to my moral decisions regarding that particular scenario and that specific being. Because unlike you I do accord different moral consideration to different species. In fact I consider this to be a cornerstone of any socially compatible ethical stance. I don't think it is the "be-all and end-all magic cause of all behaviour" at all. Where have I ever said that? And nobody has disagreed with you. But this thread is about your personal moral stance. And you have stated that the predominant reasons you don't personally go round killing people are because you have "never had an opportunity to kill a human being and get away with it" and that the "social implications to swatting humans" have "consequences". So tell me - Where is the empathy or respect in that?

So tell me - What does it fell like to be an ant?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I am sure that the innocent bugs which are soon-to-be unthinkingly trampled underfoot as you go about your daily business will take great comfort from your all-species-are-equal moral stance. Equal rights for bacteria?If you genuinely see no empathy based reason to accord greater moral consideration to humans (or indeed any other intelligent, self-aware species) than you do bugs, no empathetic or moral reason (for example) to prefer the use of fruit fly as lab rats over chimps or humans, then what else is there to say here?Psycho.(***Straggler makes a stabbing motion and simulates screeching psycho music***)Eek eek eek!!!

The fact that to accord some species any moral worth at all you are forced to talk in terms of speciecide is in itself telling. The 'Great Bacterium Project'. Equal rights for bacteria. Would you support such a project? I very specifically didn’t single out humans.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

The 'Great Bacterium Project'. Equal rights for bacteria. Would you support such a project?You are not going to be able to answer this honestly without contradicting yourself are you? Because I don’t. As I have detailed previously. Message 108
Straggler: "Sentience is key. Except when it comes to humans." Message 169
Straggler: 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. Given that we both display moral indifference to trampling over innocent bugs as we go about our daily lives and a complete disregard for the life of bacterium everytime we brush our teeth - I would say such distinctions are very necessary. Without such distinctions the only thing stopping you from randomly wiping out colonies of innocent people is the social and legal implications of doing so. Oh..... How could I forget.Psycho.

The fact that to accord some species any moral worth at all you are forced to talk in terms of speciecide tells us you don't really accord all species equal moral consideration at all.Equal rights for bacterium? And as I have relentlessly and repeatedly said nobody is disagreeing with you about that. But do you understand that this is entirely meaningless without any basis for distinguishing any one individual situation from any other?Without any consistent means of distinction your moral decisions are simply made on a whim. Eye colour the determining factor in one individual situation, size of feet the next. No rhyme, reason or rationale. If some factors are consistently more relevant than others in your moral reasoning - What are they? Because in 300+ posts you have yet to give any indication at all.Your only stipulation in this thread is the inanity that is do no harm. This is inarguable in it’s vacuous banality. It tells us absolutely nothing about the basis of your personal moral decisions when confronted with real life complex situations involving competing interests and relative degrees of harm. What factors do you take into account? Or is it just whimsical and random on your part?

As a general moral principle I accord greater moral consideration to humanity than I do other species.

As a general moral principle I accord greater moral consideration to those that possess high levels of sentience than those possessing significantly lower levels.

As a general moral principle I accord greater moral worth to the existence of an entire species than I do an individual.

​

I could go one. These are the sort of (very often conflicting and competing) moral principles that I apply to unique situations, weighing them up to come to my personal moral conclusions. But, if as you assert, no such moral principles apply you have no basis upon which to weigh up the unique balance of factors that make up an individual situation.

​

Simply saying "it's individual" and applying the vacuity that is "do no harm" tells us nothing about how you personally come to moral conclusions in this context. Which is supposed to be what this thread is about.

Would you accord equal rights to bacterium?Anyone who genuinely cannot see any empathetic or moral difference between using anti-bacterial mouthwash and machine-gunning down a busload of random innocent people is somebody society needs to protect itself from. Nobody is advocating a "rulebook"? If you really wanted to I suppose you could describe what I am talking about as a personal moral "code". Bottom line - The personal moral position I have put forward in this thread is both honest and consistent. Consistent both internally and with my actual behaviour in real life.The personal moral position you have espoused in this thread (according moral consideration to all species equally, from bacteria to humans via ants, chimps and roaches) is riddled with inconsistencies, unworkable in any practical sense and blatantly has little bearing on your cow chomping, ant crushing, fly swatting, anti-bacterial toothpaste using, journey through life. I can honestly say that eye colour is not a factor in my moral reasoning. Can you give an example of where eye colour was the deciding factor in any moral decision you made? As would mine.But this thread isn't about that. And you are notably still unable to give a realistic answer to the question posed without entirely contradicting yourself.

And your point is what?Anyone who genuinely cannot see any empathetic or moral difference between using anti-bacterial mouthwash and machine-gunning down a busload of random innocent people has far more in common with Charles Manson than I ever will.A moral code that respects humanity, respects sentience, respects life, respects the existence of a species as an entirety etc. etc. etc.VS "I don't like blue eyes today - Fuck you" whimsical randomness. And you wanna compare me to Charles Manson?Psycho.(***Straggler makes a stabbing motion and simulates screeching psycho music***)Eek eek eek!!!

Blind unthinking adherence to fixed absolutes is indeed as dangerous as baseless randomness. Fortunately I am advocating neither.Most people consider Charles Manson to be guilty of immoral acts. It seems you do too. But in your case it is unclear if this is because you don’t like the colour of his eyes, or because he was responsible for the death of a few humans or because he engaged in the ritualistic bleach based slaughter of billions of innocent bacteria in a vile procedure otherwise known as cleaning the toilet.

If you have any basis for your moral reasoning beyond arbitrary random whim regarding things like eye colour or toenail length - We have yet to see it in this thread.It's all too easy to say what isn't your position - The difficult part is telling us what factors your moral decisions are based upon.Feel free to do so anytime you are ready........ If you are going to persist in your ridiculous position of removing all speciesistic distinctions and differences with regard to moral consideration then you are misrepresenting yourself. But we all know that you no more believe in equal rights for bacteria (or even ants) than I do. We all know that you don't really think that breeding and raising fruit fly for genetic experiments rather than humans is a solely practical rather than moral decision. And we all hope that you wouldn't personally go round killing people if the legal consequences for doing so were removed.The fact is you started off thinking you were debating some sort of moral absolutist and said some bloody silly things to prove your non-absolutist credentials in response. You dug a debate hole for yourself and now cannot get out of it.Hence the evasive quips and refusal to answer direct questions. Ho hum.

I rest my case.