When does killing an animal constitute murder?

And what is your opinion on the mentally deficient?Jon

---

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

Are your morals really so absolute? Or do you actually consider things on a case-by-case basis? It strengthens group moralityprovides for a good deal of safe measure. It's a fine use of tax dollars. Are your morals really so absolute? Or do you actually consider things on a case-by-case basis? I actually think people who destroy perfectly good inanimate property (even if their own) should be criminally prosecuted. Your classification of animals doesn't answer anything; it just shifts the debate. Also, it doesn't address the issues regarding animals who aren't owned by anyone. Are your morals really so absolute? Or do you actually consider things on a case-by-case basis? There are many reasons to criminalize the killing of animals, for example: resource management, endangered species protection, public safety related to disposal, public hazards of the killing process, etc.There are also many reasons to consider the killing of animals a moral question, even without appealing to the welfare of the animal in question, for example: resource management, endangered species protection, public safety related to disposal, public hazards of the killing process, etc.Are your morals really so absolute? Or do you actually consider things on a case-by-case basis?JonEdited by Jon, : answers and questions...

---

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

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

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

I don't know. But the animals they use are rarely included in the grouping of animals set off by society as 'unharmable', for that very reason. So, your question is not relevant to my position. I already explained; actually, I did that in the part you quoted. I don't view all destruction of property as immoral; it depends on what's being demolished. LOL. Of course you would think that. You place little, if any, value on anything other than Crash. But as I said to Bluejay: "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." Wasting food is immoral; when David Letterman drops a piano on a brand new car while there are folk needing cars who have none, and schools wanting pianos that cannot afford them, that is immoral. There is no distinction. 'When not deer season, and without a license, and if not done on accident, it is bad to kill a deer; you will be fined for it'. There are many cases where it is deemed bad to kill an animal; the same laws even apply to some plants (that I am aware, certain wild rices are protected from over-harvesting in my state). Like I said, it is not a hard-and-fast, across-the-board law against killing an animal; but it is a law against killing an animal, a law that is necessary to achieve the goal of managing certain animals viewed as a natural resource. Huh? I don't see how that answers the question: 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

Huh? Society wants to make sure everyone thinks X is wrong; to achieve this it deems Y wrong, where Y = (X+Z). Thus, no one who accepts that Y is wrong ever has to worry about making a wrong decision regarding X; all of X is already covered. When did I argue for their protection? Yup; and it is chic to manufacture products that are not tested on these animals; many in society don't like it. Nope; not even myself. But, as they say, if you shoot for the moon... something something stars... not sure. Saying 'fuck it, why even bother', though, is just lazy. You are shifting the goal post, Crash. I am not talking about owning; I am talking about destroying. But it does hurt them. I already gave an example; I notice you neglected to reply to it: "... when David Letterman drops a piano on a brand new car while there are folk needing cars who have none, and schools wanting pianos that cannot afford them, that is immoral." How does it accomplish this unless it makes the act of killing an animal illegal in certain cases? Huh? Again; that doesn't answer my question. You've just reiterated my question in the form of a statement. Why not provide actually examples?JonBTW, this will be my last reply here regarding morality of the treatment of inanimate objects. It's off-topic here; if you'd like to continue in another thread, please set it up and I'll see you there.Edited by Jon, : damn velar plosivesEdited by Jon, : damn prepositionsEdited by Jon, : damn English language

---

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

At the point where the killed subject no longer meets the legal definition of a 'person' but meets the legal definition of an 'animal'. I do not believe in sharp moral distinctions. A lot of your points don't make any sense outside of a legal system; I don't see how anyone could answer some of them without somehow appealing to that system.Jon

---

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

No, it doesn't. The question in the OP is:

quote:

---

Meldinoor in Message 1:

​

Do you believe there is a sharp moral distinction between the killing of one subset of animals and all other animals, and where do you place it?

---

To 'detail the criteria upon which you personally accord different forms of life different moral status' is only necessary if you in some way answer 'yes' to the first part of that question.Several folk now have answered 'no', and so they are exempt from indicating the nature of a distinction they don't believe exists; which is why your jumping on them to 'detail the criteria upon which you personally accord different forms of life different moral status' is entirely inappropriate.Jon

---

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

It's a safe measure. Not everyone needs it to be safe; the net's only there for if you fall.JonEdited by Jon, : confusing wording

---

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

Huh? How are those scientists falling? Are they killing babies in their cribs? Do they beat their wives; wait at bus stops and snipe off random people?They aren't falling at all; that is why they ignore the net.JonEdited by Jon, : clarity

---

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

You seem to be misunderstanding what I am saying. Let me try to explain it again:     If Society deems as immoral the mistreatment of things which are clearly non-human, then anyone who accept this viewpoint is less likely to apply criteria for 'human' that may exclude, for example, the mentally deficient, babies, etc. In other words, if someone accepts this morality, then they are less likely to think of babies and mentally deficients (for example) as less than human.You seem to be misunderstanding me to say:     If someone doesn't accept this morality, then they are more likely to think of babies and mentally deficients (for example) as less than human.Now, unfortunately, this re-rendering of my position is an illogical one; an example of the inverse error fallacy. And, indeed, if this were what I was truly arguing, then I'd certainly have no reason to disagree with your assessment that my position be nonsensical. However, this is not my position; but my position is what has been laid out in the first indented paragraph.Interestingly, when my actual position is considered, we have evidence that it might be somewhat correct; that evidence is in the beliefs of none other than Crashfrog himself. Crash does not view as human things that society would rather he view as human (e.g., in his case, children who have not yet learned language); he also does not accept the viewpoint of society in general that mistreatment of certain animals is immoral in and of itself. The argument is thus strengthened by this modus tollens re-rendering. This certainly doesn't prove my argument that these things are implanted by society as moral safe measures, but it does help to strengthen it if even just a little.So, If you still have something to say about my actual position, or if you still are unclear about it, please, feel free to pass me some more replies. But I would ask that we now try to put an end to working with an inaccurate portrayal of my argument as much as we can.Jon

---

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

Huh? X is contained in X+Z. What sort of logic are you using? And we're not talking about laws; we're talking about the reason society may decide to deem certain things immoral. I don't believe anyone owns anything. That you exchanged some crap you thought you owned for some crap someone else thought he owned and so now he thinks he owns what you used to think you owned and you think you own what he used to think he owned does not really mean anyone owns or owned any of it. If it came from the Earth we share, then to the Earth we share it belongs.But perhaps you're talking about legal ownership; which is just made up and extends up to the point where the government may begin collecting money. Our legal rights to the ownership of inanimate objects isn't even infinite: e.g., property taxes. Buying something doesn't always make it yours. Uncle Sam giveth and Uncle Sam taketh away. I don't much care that you disagree. And I'm not here to defend my own morality. No, but see my reply to CS. Your question is not related to my argument; you and he have both misconstrued my position. And this isn't related to the question you just asked. And what is another word for this destruction when said limited natural resource is an animal, a living creature?Jon

---

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

Where did I say X+Z = X?

quote:

---

Jon in Message 205:

​

Society wants to make sure everyone thinks X is wrong; to achieve this it deems Y wrong, where Y = (X+Z). Thus, no one who accepts that Y is wrong ever has to worry about making a wrong decision regarding X; all of X is already covered.

---

Actually, the first time I said it was irrelevant when I (falsely) assumed you to be speaking only of rats and such. The second time, after you mentioned the animals being used, I gave an example to prove my claim that society doesn't like the mistreatment of these animals.

quote:

---

Jon in Message 185:

​

But the animals they use are rarely included in the grouping of animals set off by society as 'unharmable', for that very reason. So, your question is not relevant to my position.

---

quote:

---

Jon in Message 205:

​

crashfrog writes:

​

Dogs? Cats? Cute rabbits? Chimpanzees? These are the animals being used in testing and these are certainly animals society has deemed unkillable and untorturable

​

Yup; and it is chic to manufacture products that are not tested on these animals; many in society don't like it.

---

None of those questions you asked that I answered, however, were related to the question you now ask me, which is based off of some silly illogical re-rendering of my position. But, indeed, there is no reason to dwell in the past. You are free to ask the question again and we will start from there.Oh lookie... here it is: I already did (Message 238); no. But it has nothing to do with my position. My position is not that 'people who do animal research are more likely to be immoral regarding humans'. My position is, brutally summed up, that society seems to operate under the notion that 'people who do not approve of animal mistreatment are less likely to mistreat a fellow h. sapiens whose humanity may be questionable'. So, again; your question has nothing to do with my position. If you want to keep asking me whether denying the antecedent will make the consequent's opposite true, I will continue to answer you the same way: No. We don't. You are just trying to skirt around the issue by turning 'killing' into 'destruction' and pretending like it isn't the same damn thing and acting as though this is not an instance of a law that makes the killing of an animal illegal for very good reason. Your word games aren't going to save you, though, I'm afraid.Jon

---

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

A cursory study in logic may alleviate your woes; let me point out some good places to begin as far as our discussion is concerned: Conditionals in Logic
Modus Ponens
Modus Tollens
Inverse Error Fallacy
Converse Error FallacyEnjoy!

---

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