When does killing an animal constitute murder?

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!"

The difference has more to do with social conventions than personal morality. There are consequences for stepping outside society's bounds.If we were stranded on Frako's island, we'd make our own conventions.

---

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

But the questions you're asking are about social conventions, not personal morality:

quote:

---

Have you killed bugs more blithely than you would kill humans?

---

Yes, I have, because society doesn't care if I kill bugs. They're liable to lock me up if I kill humans. Yet, there are humans that I could "blithely" kill if there were no social consequences but I wouldn't willingly kill a bee. I'm saying that our personal morality can be overridden by our social surroundings.

---

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

But that isn't what you asked. Shall I quote you again?

quote:

---

Have you killed bugs more blithely than you would kill humans? Message 44

---

You didn't say anything about personal moral views and, as I explained, the reasons for my "blitheness" are social, not personal. I wouldn't say that at all. There are plenty of examples of people going against social conventions because of personal convictions, just as there are plenty of examples of people "going with the crowd" despite their personal convictions.That's why a blanket comparison of killing animals to killing humans doesn't make much sense.

---

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

Personaly morality was not mentioned in the question nor does it factor into the answer. How is it a question about personal morality? That is a blanket comparison. I think jar has said that it depends on the specific person and the specific bug and the specific situation. I don't think it's about the "amount" of concern or the "quality" of concern. He might feel bad about accidentally killing a person with his car or accidentally killing a dog with his car but it doesn't make much sense to talk about "how bad". Likewise, if he made a conscious decision to kill a person or a mosquito, it doesn't make much sense to compare the two situations. It varies from one person to the next and one situation to the next. No blanket answer is adequate.

---

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

If jar isn't going to make such a general statement about himself, I'm not going to do it for him. As I've said more than once, it depends on the specific situation. As I've also suggested, yes, some bugs are worth more than some humans. The bug that I have no reason to kill is worth more than the human that I do have reason to kill. Mosquitos aren't the best example becaue I do kill them preemptively as well as in self defense. But yes, some bugs are worth more than some humans. The bug that I have no reason to kill is worth more than the human that I do have reason to kill.

---

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

As I've said, it depends on the specific situation. I don't go around randomly deciding to kill random organisms. Without a specific situation, the question has no answer. Without specifics, we don't need moral principles.

---

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

Are you suggesting that I should take the psychopath at his word and take respinsibility for his actions? If incredulity is your best argument, I'm not going to expend much effort on a response. Allow me to rephrase: Until I have detailed specifics about the situation, I don't need to analyze my principles. Until the situation requires them, for all intents and purposes, I don't need them.Most errors in such situations arise from people pre-deciding what they would do and then going with the pre-decision instead of an appropriate one.

---

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

As I've already said, there are social implications to swatting humans. I make decisions based on consequences.

---

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

That puts you firmly in the camp of the creationists who cannot believe evolution happens. Come on. Up your game. Don't expect people to agree with you just because you want them to.

---

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

That's a dangerous attitude, only a step or two away from, "I was only following orders." It's important to keep your brain running all of the time, just in case you do come across a situation where a bug is more valuable than a human.

---

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

I have a minor-to-moderate ant problem in my house. I went to the hardware store hoping naively, perhaps, to find a humane trap so I could release them into the wild. All I found was products that boasted of wiping out the entire colony. I found that a bit extreme, so I fell back on Plan B: I did nothing.Now I have a moderate-to-apocalyptic ant problem in my yard. I've been accused of exporting ants to the entire neighbourhood, though I don't understand why the neighbours can't wipe out my colony remotely if those products live up to their hype.I have been tempted to shoot the neighbours but I won't exterminate the ants. On the other hand, I know lots of people who like dogs, cats, horses, etc. better than people. Maybe you just need to improve your knowledge of human nature.

---

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

And I didn't say I would. My point has been that I don't have a predetermined moral position before the situation arises.By the same token, I doubt that your position is as cut-and-dried as you pretend. Given a ludicrously extreme situation where you have to decide between killing a mass-murderer or causing the extinction of an insect species, what would you do?

---

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

Again, the point is to avoid unnecessary generalizations. If you had to choose between killing the worst dregs of humanity or the extinction of a "mere" insect species, what would you do? If you can't come down on the side of humanity in a specific scenario, your generalizations are meaningless.

---

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

I remain unwilling to make silly generalizations where they are neither necessary nor appropriate. I'm not taking a position; I'm presenting a viewpoint. As I've said, I function in society by conforming largely to society's collective morality. I've killed chickens for food. I've shot at crows for fun (though I can't say for sure whether I hit any and I might not do the same thing today). I've never had an opportunity to kill a human being and get away with it, so I have no basis for comparison. Now you're just being disingenuous. You know damn well that a lot of people would kill a murderer or a rapist in a heartbeat if they could get away with it.

---

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