When does killing an animal constitute murder?

If you kill a human to eat them does that stop it being murder?Whilst I am not exactly disagreeing with you (yet) I want to know why killing animals for food is not murder but killing humans for the same reason is?

I think we humans pretend to ourselves that our morality is based on sentience when in fact if you look more closely we just don't apply this consistently.For example a fully developed chimp is almost certainly more sentient than a newborn human baby. But if forced to choose which one to kill what choice would most people make? OK, I hear you say, but a newborn human child has the capacity for greater sentience than the chimp in the future. So then I would ask about a geriatric human with a degenerative and irreversible brain disorder of some kind. Would they count as more sentient than a fully functioning chimp? What about a brain dead human being?When you consider that we not only kill sentient animals but experiment on them and cull them to near extinction the idea that our morality is consistently based on sentience in some way looks rather weak. Most of us would never treat even the least sentient human being in ways that we barely think twice about treating the most sentient of animals. Our morality is human-centric. Not rationally based on a criteria such as sentience.Personally I don't particularly have a problem with humans having human-centric morality - Effectively special pleading our own species as worthy of more moral consideration regardless of any more objective criteria (e.g. sentience).But I think we should recognise this rather than try to convince ourselves that our moral choices are based on objective criteria like sentience rather than specieistic and more emotional considerations.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

So you only consider it moral to eat animals if one's life depends on it?I am trying to find whether your moral line is the same for humans as animals and if it isn't on what basis you make a distinction.

I think it does and so does the author of the OP.From the OP:

quote:

---

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?

​

ABE: Just to emphasize an important point: The topic of this thread is really about personal morality, not the legal definition of murder. I'm more interested in your own thoughts on the matter than what the law says.

---

And a particular society deems such things as crimes or not based on the moral outlook of that society.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

From the OP (I quote) "Just to emphasize an important point: The topic of this thread is really about personal morality, not the legal definition of murder. I'm more interested in your own thoughts on the matter than what the law says." If you don't have a personal morality view on this issue beyond what the law states then I don't see why you are contributing to this topic?But I will ask (given that humans are animals) why don't you kill other humans? Simply because it is illegal to do so?

You started off by defining use for food as the defining difference between murder and non-murder. Then when asked about eating humans you said that if you had to eat a human to stay alive it wouldn't constitute as murder. Fine.But you obviously have different criteria of what constitutes "murder" depending on the species as you don't consider eating animals whether vital to survival or not as murder.So with regard to the question being asked in the OP - Is it just humans that get this different treatment? Or do you have a sort of sliding scale of moral preference and level of starvation required depending on some criteria?

I'm working on it..........Have you ever had sufficient reason to kill any living creature?

So?Does the fact that we do things, and even the argument that is natural to do so, make it morally acceptable to do those things?One could argue that rape is natural. But is it immoral?

And would your "sufficient reason" depend at all on what species of creature you were engaged in killing?A maggot Vs a human for example.

You have no more idea whether the reason you might kill an insect (for example) is "sufficient reason" to kill a human being?Who hasn't swatted an annoying bug?Then I shall restrict myself to annoying you from afar and well out of range of your (apparently) psycopathic tendencies.

Whilst I agree - Why do you think humans are at the top of the scale? What animals do you consider to be taboo? Sure. So if I offered you some chimp meat would you have any moral problem with that at all?

Nor have I said that there is a "general rule". And your post is a great example of ignoring the implications of your own answers.You say that you have "quite often" had sufficient reason to kill other living creatures. Yet when I ask if the same "sufficient reason" applies to humans you say you "I don't know". To paraphrase: "I may have killed a human, but not that I can remember".You see how if we apply your same "sufficient reason" (i.e. uncaring disregard) to humans it sounds rather psychotic doesn't it? I don't think you are really a psychopath. I just don't believe you when you say that you "don't know" whether sufficent reason to kill a bug constitutes sufficient reason to kill a human.

And I think they are slightly "eccentric" in their behaviour.But at least they are trying to be morally consistent. Whatever that may or may not be worth.

And how does this detract from the point that what you consider to be "sufficent reason" for killing a bug is very different from that which is considered "sufficent reason" for killing a human?When is uncaring disregard or mere annoyance "sufficent reason" for killing a human in the same way that you have implied about bugs? Yes because that would imply psychotic tendencies wouldn't it?It was you that said you "don't know" if your reasons for killing maggots were "sufficient reason" for killing humans.I would suggest that being the non-psychopath that we both agree you are, that your previous answer didn't very well reflect the true nature of your personal morality witrh regard to different forms of life.Which is what this thread is supposed to be about.

Now that is just about the best description of personal morality I have heard on this topic. And one that I can personally identify with.Having eaten dog in Vietnam and bush meats in Africa (quite possibly ape of some sort) I am no position to take any moral high ground.But to pretend that we are not applying personal morality of some confused kind with regard to this topic is just dishonest.