When does killing an animal constitute murder?

Having read the whole thread I think I agree with both positions.A) I value human life, in general, more than any other species, with a close to equal value for certain close relatives and sentient species.B) There are individual cases where I would value the life of a lesser species over that of a human being.In Stragglers scenario, I would, in general, chose the life of the human. Unless, the human was a child molester, rapist, murderer, etc. If that was the case, I'd say kill the human and spare the bug. In fact, let the bug dine on the dead human.I can also agree that, if asked just on the bases of species, there are some I irrationally consider of more value than others.Then there is the point of food. If one species was what I considered food and the other not food, I kill the food. For example, if you put a dog on a chopping block or a rabbit, I'd kill and eat the rabbit. If you put a rat or a fish, I'd kill and eat the fish. But, if you put a lizard or a rat, I don't know which I'd kill. I have no reason to kill either one.It's slightly confusing because there is no set standard for choosing what to kill other than for food or self defense. Except in the case of bugs where grossness or annoyance are a factor. But other than that, each case is different, each scenario can varry as to which way I'd decide.- Oni

Yeah I share the same opinion. I thought I was the only one. I haven't read any of your abortion posts so I was unaware.I have always felt abortions should not be limited to the first trimester, and see many situations where one should go for the abortion before subjecting a human life to terrible living conditions.- Oni

Well, now we get to the fun part - under what specific scenario?If I had to place a value on the life of a toddler vs that of say a 10 year old kid who's experienced a good amount of life - not that I'm right - but I would place more value on the 10 year old's life.So if it's a toddler vs a 10 year old, I would save the 10 year old.I could also see a scenario where starvation had falling on a group and survival would require travelling great distances. I could see not only toddlers and infants being a burden, but also the very old. Not that I could actually do this, or that it is morally right in any way, but losing both the infants and the very old could prove beneficial for the survival of the group.We can of course make more kids. But not if we're dead.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

I agree. Natural instinct is the deciding factor.But...logic, and not natural instinct, is what I'm using in this thought experiment because I'm not emotionally attached to it - IOW, I'm not actually faced with the dilemma of having to choose right now. Do you think this is anything more than the natural instinct to protect your DNA? Or do you think you have an actual attachment to the personality of your child? That is the problem with your line of questioning, you're expecting emotionally driven answers to a question that I/we are not emotionally attached to. So I could give you my logical answer because I'm not faced with the situation right now.That is why I said "Not that I could actually do this but..."- Oni

But you wouldn't say that because you've built an attachment to your childs personality you would give your life for your child, would you?This is instinctual, right?Your child need not even be conscious (in a vegitative state) for you to defend it with your own life, right?I don't think you'd be more incline to defend your childs life if it has a personality vs your child in a vegitative state. At least I wouldn't. And I agree. But if you ask a question pertaining to a specific scenario as a thought experiment, given that I'm not faced with the actual dilemma right now, I would mostly lean on my logic vs my emotions.Placed in the actual situation however, more than likely, I'll be emotionally driven.- Oni

Except fuck 'em...so what's the point? Thanks for nothing, God!- Oni

You'd be hard pressed to find a psychiatrist that wouldn't agree that animal cruelty is often a precurser to violent crimes against people. Jeffrey Dahmer is a good example of that.Given that, don't think torture of any kind should be outlawed? At the very least so that some psychiatric help can be given to the individual commiting such a violent act?- Oni

I think your question should read, is sex with an animal considered rape?I would say no, it is not "rape." But it still is sex with an animal. Like with torture, it should be cause for concern for the community because it can be a precurser to raping a human - which is something that only professional athletes are allowed to legally do.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

That's what I meant by depending on the scenario I could see "aborting" as you called it, a 1 year old.But the point I was trying to make wasn't so much that, what I meant is that you would protect even your braindead child as if it were completely aware and conscious.Take your scenario, say someone was holding a bee and your braindead child, which would you let the person kill?I'll get back to the rest of your post.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

It does have to do with the question you asked me about "aborting" a 1 year old child. Unless you take back the question? If not, allow me to continue with my point. My argument is that logic is the only deciding factor in such a situation, because, if it was up to some subjective moral guildine that you have, under no circumstances would you morally find taking the life of any child regardless of the scenario ok.When you apply logic as you say here: You can make a decision that would involve taking the life of your child. Logically, if the child would be subjected to a life where he/she is braindead, the better choice is terminate the child's life. But it would still be an immoral act. Logical, but immoral.-----Now to the topic of the OP. I'll admit that I am a bit confused as to what you are asking, I get what the OP is asking though. In fact, you are the one who gave the original "what if" scenario: So putting this confusion aside, I'll say this, I would kill a human if I needed to: in self defense, if I had to eat them to survive, if they tried to harm my family or friends, or if my family and friends needed to eat. I would not consider this murder.Likewise these are the same reasons I would kill an animal: in self defense or in defense of my family, or if I or my family/friends had to eat them to survive ( for the vegans out there, YES, I need animals to survive.) And in these cases I wouldn't consider it murder.Morality does not come into play for humans or animals IMO. It is natural instict to protect myself from harm, starvation, or that of my family/friends.However, killing for sport, whether human or an animal (ignoring the law) is in both cases murder.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

I think you introduced the 'extreme' element when you asked me about "aborting" a 1 year old child. So it is understandable that everything after that would follow the 'extreme' case.We'll leave it at that if its cool. With a few exceptions, haven't we? How many people do you know that think taking the life of a child is morally ok? Would a better way to say it be, it is the logical decision based on our subjective experiences? I eat to avoid starvation. Meat is my main source since I count every carb like a vain douchebag. I suppose if I had been raise eating Kentucky Fried Monkey and Monkey Nuggets I would. But I didn't so my tastebuds aren't used to it.I would however try monkey with no reservations or moral problems. If it was delicious and I had it readily available, I would have no issue making it part of my diet. Microscopic things like that are rarely ever interacted with. But I would, instead of destroying an ant pile, move my spot to were neither of us disturbes the other. I see no point in killing them for my benefit.- Oni

Then why are you ask me about monkey meat?I answered everything you asked me in the post. C'mon! Kentucky Fried Monkey and not even a chuckle? pfftttt I would think my criteria is limited to things I can see and interact with, I give these species more consideration than a bacteria or a fly. I've interacted with all of those animals you mention, I guess that kinda gives us a bond that I can see being equal to bonds I make with a human.I guess my criteria would be anything I can make a human bond with. And monkey meat!- Oni

Not really since I think everything is sentient at some level. To me it would then seem pointless to try and ascribe some vague "amount" of sentience for each species. See, I chuckled for that.I think I would have a problem with now switching to human meat, or for that matter, monkey meat and/or any really exotic meat.However, disregarding the law for this extreme example, I would have no problem being in a society where hunting and eating humans was the norm. I would see it the same as hunting and eating any other animal. That's because they weren't raised in a place where no other option existed. There are no vegans in Darfur, dude. There are no vegans in a tribe in Peru. You eat what we got. Roots today, iguana tomorrow - just eat it.Some people however, are just awarded the luxury of being able to make-up some superficial moral position about meat eating, but put them in a poverty striken place and all that gay shit flies out the window.And note, I'm not talking about extreme situations, I'm talking about people who for generations have lived in these conditions. Not just starvation, but areas where no other food supply exists. You eat what we got. I assume none of these people live in a place where there is only monkey meat to eat?Would these same moral people consider a tribe of people who only have monkey to eat as immoral? If not, why not?- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

YOU asked me if I would have a problem eating human meat. I think my argument shows that there is no personal morality when it comes to eating any particular animal, and those who claim there is are full of shit. Did I say some? I meant all. Killing all forms of life for sport is murder - disregarding the fact that murder is a human law that applies to humans only. It depends on the circumstance. To kill without regard for the life of the species, it would have be things I can't interact with, like flies or bacteria. I couldn't for example kill a dog as easily as I do flies or bugs.If the case is to eat, then I have no personal moral opinion on what to eat or not eat. I say eat it all, as many in the world do. It can be, it just never took off. There is no difference in my opinion between a monkey and a chicken, and we eat chicken sandwiches all day and many do get fat from it.Monkey is not a popular brand of meat, but in some places it is. People eat it just the same as we eat chicken. They do so without any moral issues, they are just used to it, as we are used to chicken.And again, the example of vegans giving the excuse that they don't eat meat because they have a moral issue with it, I find that to be complete bullshit and something only afforded to those who have the option to be so arrogantly selective about food.- Oni

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