When does killing an animal constitute murder?

One of the worst crimes recognized by (most) justice systems is the intentional killing of a human being (barring warfare and other common exceptions). The gravity of this crime is easy to understand, as we can all appreciate the richness of experience, and the full potential of human lives allowed to continue as long as nature allows. There is of course more to it than that, but essentially a reasonably long and fulfilled life is something that most of us want, and so our ability to empathize instills us with a moral obligation to protect our own and others' right to live.But this empathy only truly extends to members of our own species. Straggler recently opened a topic about whether other animals are capable of beliefs in the supernatural. He brings up the example of elephants: intelligent, self-aware creatures, capable (by all appearances) even of mourning their dead. (For more on that, see: Wikipedia on Elephant Intelligence)Of course, elephants are not the only animals that rival us in intelligence. Cetaceans and our fellow Great Apes have also been shown to possess advanced cognitive abilities and self-awareness. Other notable examples of animal intelligence include some bird genera, canines, felines, and (to some extent) cephalopods.But (and correct me if I'm wrong) under no jurisdiction is the slaughter of a gorilla legally considered murder. Animal cruelty perhaps, but nowhere near as serious as the killing of another human. Why is this? Considering how gorillas share nearly all of our DNA, and their intelligence and level of self-awareness rival our own, why do we consider cruelty to gorillas to fall under the same legal category as cruelty to cows? After all, gorillas are more similar to humans than either are to cows.Or to look at it from an evolutionary perspective: If someone were to go back 50,000 years and kill a cro-magnon, any jury would find him just as guilty of murder as if he'd have killed a contemporary. But suppose he went back 100,000 years, or 500,000, or 1,000,000 years? Or 6,000,000 years? At what point should he be tried for "animal cruelty" instead of murder?So I guess my question is: Given that all life is related and that the traits that we consider "human" are shared by many other animals to varying degrees,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?-MeldinoorABE: 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.Edited by Meldinoor, : No reason given.Edited by Meldinoor, : Typo, must be sleepy -.-

It's quite possible to survive without eating animals. But even so, your definition of murder does not take into account the intelligence or awareness of the animal. Do you not consider the killing and eating of animals possessing similar intellects to our own to be more morally ambiguous than say, killing a fish? What would you rather butcher? A puppy, or a chicken?Respectfully,-Meldinoor

So I propose this thread, reply to frako's first post, get some sleep, and expect to see two or three responses in the morning. But 70 posts! Wow, I do like it when my threads end up being popular, but I think I missed seeing this one grow up.
Straggler, you've done a fabulous job keeping the discussion going and posing the questions that I would have asked. But I hope you're not expecting to be payed ---------------------------Anyway, I notice how some individuals have had a different take on the question. Please notice that I'm asking each of you individually to describe, explain, and defend your personal morality on this issue. The law can go hang. In fact, don't even take the law into consideration when you answer unless you feel that it somehow shapes your own morality.One point that I raised in the OP hasn't really gotten mentioned. The implications of our relatedness to other species should have some impact on the issue. For example, if you consider killing another human being to be wrong simply because they're a human then, to be morally consistent, the killing of an animal that is closely related to a human should be more wrong than the killing of something only distantly related, like a clam.Consider hypothetically if all species of humanity, since our split with the chimpanzees, were still alive, what objective criteria would you personally apply to determine the "wrongness" of murder or mistreatment of an individual. All else being equal, is it more wrong to kill a Neanderthal than an Erectus? Is it more wrong to kill an Erectus or an Australopithecus?
If yes, then to be morally consistent shouldn't you apply the same criteria to all animals to determine the level of "wrongness" of each killing?I'll leave you with that thought.Respectfully,-MeldinoorEdited by Meldinoor, : No reason given.

But how much reason do you need to kill a bug, compared to a human? If a bug annoys you by buzzing in your ear, would you swat it? By that same token, if a human annoyed you by walking up to you and buzzing in your ear, would you murder them?If you don't make a distinction between species but only between situations, then why should your responses differ between humans and flies?Respectfully,-Meldinoor

Forgive me if I've misunderstood your position, but earlier on you said that language acquisition was your "cut-off point" for determining the value of a life.So in your case, the choice between an adult chimpanzee with a good grasp of sign language, and a newborn child would be a difficult one, but morally you'd end up killing the newborn child?Respectfully,-Meldinoor

I think the dilemma implies that this option is unavailable.-Meldinoor

I suppose if the dilemma were slightly different you would still try to pick the more non-committal choice. Suppose it was a gunman holding a gun to your wife and asking for $100. Your money or your wife? Would you still rather try to stop the gunman than to actually go along with one of the choices offered?Respectfully,-MeldinoorEdited by Meldinoor, : No reason given.

What about a situation that didn't involve a human life? Suppose instead that you were choosing between, say, a rat, and a fly?-Meldinoor

And if they were trying to kill a dog?

Would you object to the culling of a Homo Erectus population if one was found today? (Assuming the culling was done for reasons that benefited Homo Sapiens)Respectfully,-Meldinoor

If I substituted Australopithecus Afarensis* for Homo Erectus in my question, would your answer change? Chimpanzees? Gorillas? Where do you draw the line personally?The result of the hypothetical culling still benefits Homo Sapiens significantly.-Meldinoor*Not a fair question I suppose, since we really don't know how well we would empathize with living specimens.

In principle then, do you believe that this objection extends downwards into less and less "humanness", or is there a discrete cut-off point? In other words, do you consider the killing and eating of snakes to be less morally ambiguous than the killing and eating of rabbits?By what criteria do you measure "humanness"? Genetic similarity? Intellectual and emotional similarities?To explore another hypothetical: If we were to discover advanced alien life on another planet with intellects and emotions similar to our own, but completely unrelated to us, would you object to the culling and killing of their kind for the benefit of humanity?Respectfully,-Meldinoor

Thank you for outlining your moral position on the question. I believe you're the only one so far to give a general outline of their personal stance on the question.

Still, wiping out the ant colony does entail killing many more individuals. Just like killing several humans constitutes a greater moral wrong than the killing of a single human, killing a million ants should magnify the wrongness of the deed a million times.