When does killing an animal constitute murder?

I still have no idea what the criteria you use for determining which forms of life are worthy of more moral consideration that others.And that surely is the question posed in this thread is it not?I mean really how much moral consideration do you give to killing bacteria? Would you give more moral consideration to killing chimps? Elephants? Cats? Dogs? Etc.If people are not willing to answer such questions explicitly I am wondering why they even bother to take part in this thread? Why is nobody willing to actually answer this question without blathering on about paedophiles, murderers and and other such irrelevant factors?Surely you Oni will answer the question above?

And yet society has very clear laws on when it is morally acceptable to kill other humans and when it isn't.This same moral consideration is not accorded to ants or roaches which can be exterminated for no other reason than annoyance or desire. In fact killing bugs for pleasure results in no legal consideration or social retribution at all.Yet you claim that society has no position on the relative moral consideration afforded to roach life as compared to human life.The facts are against you I am afraid.

So you don't think the laws of society reflect the relative moral consideration accorded to humans as compared to roaches society has collectively decided upon?The two are completely unrelated as far as you are concerned?

The topic of this thread requests that you detail the criteria upon which you personally accord different forms of life different moral status.I have given my own views on this here Message 7 and here Message 108What is your personal moral view with regard tom the question asked in this (I think) very interesting) topic?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

So you don't think the laws of society as they are in the US or Europe reflect the relative moral consideration accorded to humans as compared to roaches that those specific societies have collectively decided upon?The two are completely unrelated as far as you are concerned? The fact that there are very specific laws regarding killing humans but none regarding killing roaches tells us nothing about the relative worth or value human society places on human life versus roach life as far as you are concerned?Nothing at all? Utterly unrelated?

But those crimes considered most heinous pertain to those acts which society considers most immoral. Genocide. Rape. Murder. Strangely these acts are all acts against humans. Not roaches or ants. I didn't say you could. And I thought you (currently) denied that there is anything that could be called the "collective moral outlook" anyway? Of course society has a position on the relative consideration accorded to human life over other forms of life.As far as society is concerned you can do anything you want to roaches without any recourse. If you intentionally kill animals like cats and dogs there will be some social comeback. And if you kill a human being, even accidentally, you can expect society to put you under considerable scrutiny and demand consequences. To pretend that this is not indicative of the higher moral value placed on human life by society is to deny the facts. So society does have a collective morality? And you adhere to it in terms of behaviour. But you refuse to have an opinion on whether you agree with society's stance on this.Do you personally agree with society's moral stance on this issue or not? These murderers - What is the heinous and immoral act that these people have committed? It wasn’t splatting roaches or trampling ants was it? So even your murderer example at root demonstrates the greater moral consideration granted to human life both by the overwhelming majority of individuals and by society. Both of which are reflected in societies laws and punishments for such acts.Strangely there is no such moral consideration accorded to the life of roaches. But it does. Society does consider those who kill innocent humans more immoral than those who kill innocent roaches. Or indeed any other animal. This is a fact.

Well on the basis that you probably don't pop out for toddler burgers I wondered what you stance was on animals with (arguably) a similar level of sentience. Apparently sentience is not a criteria upon which you personally apply moral consideration? Baby burger. Kid kebab. Person pizza. Yet you have no moral problem eating monkeys. Do you have a moral issue with eating humans? (extreme survival cases aside) What one is willing to eat on moral (as opposed to taste) grounds, as many vegetarians will testify, can say a lot about the relative moral worth one accords to different species.For example I know many people who will not eat battery chickens or eggs. This is a moral stance on their part. Most of these same people probably wouldn't eat chimp meat for similar moral reasons."Monkey meat" is relevant to this topic.

Do you really assign all things equal "moral worth"? Honestly?If offered a research job in a society where killing humans for research purposes was considered legal you would have no moral qualms about taking that job? You would treat humans as you treat your arthropods if your science required it and it wasn't illegal?

I know someone who breeds fruit flies and mice for the purposes of scientific experimentation. Yesterday I ate at a steakhouse where a schematic of a cow, an animal bred purely for human consumption, was presented as part of the menu so that customers can choose which part of the cow they want to eat.Unless you are seriously suggesting that society will happily sanction the breeding of humans for purposes of experimentation or so that casual diners can nonchalantly select their favourite cuts of human flesh to feast upon — I would suggest that society rather conclusively does not accord animal life the same moral consideration it does human life.So the question that still remains — Is your personal morality in accordance with the stance taken by society on this issue? Or are you going to persist in stupidly asserting that moral judgements should never be made at the species level and that it depends wholly which individual we are talking about as to whether it is morally justifiable for them to be killed, eaten and experimented upon, and indeed even be bred for these purposes?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

If you had been raised in a environment where you ended up with a completely different personal moral stance to the one you now possess you would give different answers to questions about personal morality. Obviously.But how does this help with the question being posed here about the personal morality you possess now and the criteria you apply when making moral decisions now?You say eating animals is fine by the terms of your personal morality. Whether faced with starvation or just because you like the taste. But you also say that killing some forms of life for sport should be considered murder. But not all life because you don't extend this to insects or (presumably) things like fish.So it is still unclear what criteria you are applying in making your decisions and whether or not you would extend those same criteria to margiinal case humans. You talk loosely about an ability to interact as a criteria. But you can interact more with chimp, or even a hamster, than you can a severely brain damaged human. So whose life is of more moral worth by the criteria you are applying? And what are those criteria? Because morality is about choice. Starve or eat monkey is not the same as eat monkey burgers and getting fat from overeating because you like the taste or to avoid carbs for reasons of personal vanity.

Given that this thread asks participants to state their personal moral position regarding the different moral consideration they think should be accorded to different species this is hardly something to shout about after 200+ posts. As stated your personal moral stance makes no distinction between breeding and raising fruit flies or mice for the purposes of experimentation and breeding and raising humans for the purposes of experimentation.Unless this is your actual view Ithink you should reconsider. Society certainly does have human-is-more-valuable attitude when it comes to things like the morality of experimenting on living creatures and breeding them for that purpose. Your relentless assertion that morality can only be applied to the individual and not the species defies the fact that we are doing this. And they also quite justifiably make moral decisions that accord different moral consideration to different species in general.Do you continue to deny this fact?

So killing anything for sport is murder. But you have relatively less of a problem with the murder of things that cannot interact?Is there some sort of specieistic scale of ability to interact? With humans at the top and bacteria at the bottom? I fail to see how ability to interact is significantly different from stating sentience as one's criteria. The fact that some people are in a position to be selective about food is indeed what allows them to develop and apply their moral stance to that area of their lives. But why is that a bad, arrogant or "bullshit" thing to do if that is what they choose to do?And it isn't just vegans. There are many who will not eat factory farmed animals for moral reasons regarding the treatment of animals. Even if we are going to eat animals do we have to torture them first? I would say that you are refuted on this point by the fact that millions do take a personal moral position on eating certain animals. I assume you would morally object to humans being bred and raised for purposes of eating?

Let us be absolutely clear here - I have never once denied that some people put a higher moral value on some individual animals than they do some individual people. Nor have I ever suggested that you should tell anyone else what their moral stance should be regarding this matter. However I have repeatedly asked you for your personal moral stance regarding the relative moral consideration you think should be accorded to different species at the species level.If you personally don't think that breeding fruit flies for the purposes of experimentation is immoral but you do think that breeding and raising humans for the same purpose is immoral then you are applying morality at the species and not the individual level. Despite asserting that you don't do this.If you personally don't think that breeding cows for the purposes of human consumption is immoral but you do think that breeding humans to be eaten is immoral then you are applying morality at the species and not the individual level. Despite asserting that you don't do this. Direct Question: Do you personally accept the general moral principle that it is wrong to breed and raise humans for the purposes of experimentation? Or are you going to to say that "it depends which specific humans" we are talking about?Do you personally ever take general moral stances at the species level or do you only ever apply morality to the specific individual as you have claimed throughout this thread?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Without applying general moral principles how do you ever weigh up the competing moral factors that make up a unique situation to come to specific conclusions?Can you give me an example of a moral decision you made recently in which no general moral principles were applied? Which specific humans you think it morally acceptable to breed and raise for purposes of experimentation is "mysterious" to me.Can you clarify? Which specific humans do you consider it morally acceptable to breed and raise in order to be experimented upon?Be specific.

If someone is asked Do you consider rape to be an immoral act? and they reply If I might be raped then rape is immoral but if there is no possibility of me being raped then it isn’t I don’t think they can really be said answered the question regarding the morality of the act of rape in and of itself.But your question is a good one and not a simple one to definitively answer.