When does killing an animal constitute murder?

If I had reached the extreme situation of thinking that my child would be better off dead I would want the child to be killed. If I had not reached that point and wanted my child to live I would want my child to live.The bee is utterly inconsequential to my decision in either case.Such extreme situations have nothing to do with the question posed in this thread (i.e. "When does killing an animal constitute murder?" as far as one's personal moral outlook is concerned) because the only real moral consideration in such cases is the human one.

So with regard to the relative moral worth society places on human life over other forms of life (e.g. ants) what exactly is your personal moral stance?Surely you know whether you agree with the stance society has taken on this? Surely you (of all people) have an opinion? Where have I advocated that murderers shouls be killed? You are the one raising extreme individual cases like murderers. I on the other hand am quite prepared to say that my personal morality holds human life as of more worth than that of an ant.Call me a wide-eyed crazy if you will..........Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Absolutely!!!! That is my point. The comparison of human life with ant life in general is very relevant to a thread about the relative moral worth we personally accord different forms of life.What is utterly irrelevant is the stupid insistence that we only talk about specific extreme cases or murdererers etc. where, as you so rightly say, the ant has nothing to do with moral choice made in such examples. I think those (hypothetical?) monks who proclaim to treat all creatures with moral worth (i.e. sweep the floor with a feather before every footstep so as not to trample ants) have the courage of their convictions. Sane? I dunno. But it is certainly preferable to the silly stance jar has espoused where he sees no reason to treat humans with any more personal moral regard than he does the ants he mindlessly tramples over. Is the life of an ant of any relevance in my moral decisions about whether a human should live or die? No. Is it in jar's or Ringo's? Apparently given the choice between a human and an ant they do find the ant relevant. Frankly I don't believe them. I think they have talked themselves into a stupid debate position.But FYI - The ants came about from the monk example. I expected jar and Ringo to take the rather mainstream position that human life was superior to ants in general. Instead they set off down the "it depends on the human" route which completely misses the whole point of the thread. No. I am not "entirely about compassion". If anyone wants a fellow human killed the ant just isn't a consideration. The ant is utterly irrelevant. I disagree. Whether I would choose for a human to live or die has nothing to do with a moral comparison with an ant. The ant is inconsequential to my decision. I would make the same judgement re the life of the human regardless of the ant. No. Because I don't think you can answer this question in terms of specific humans. For all the reasons you have detailed yourself. It becomes all about the moral value we accord to the specific human and nothing to do with the question of different species posed in this thread. I think you have misunderstood what I am saying.I think that insisting on talking in terms of specific humans results in the whole point of this thread, which is considering the relative moral worth accorded to different species, becoming a side issue. If you insist on specific then it becomes ALL about the moral value we accord to the specific human and nothing to do with the question of different species this thread is supposed to be about.

As I've said, I don't have a handy-dandy, made-to-order, one-size-fits-all opinion for every issue. When I need one, I'll formulate one on the spot. The ability to think is more useful than the ability to memorize rote stances. Society hasn't taken a stance. Some segments of society will execute a person for murder and other segments will approve. In the most extreme cases, hardly anybody can work up much enthusiasm for the value of the murderer's life. It's just silly to suggest that society has a general human-is-more-valuable attitude. You are the one who's comparing the life of a human directly to the life of an ant or a bee, as if a situation would ever arise where a person had to choose one or the other. I'm saying that there's clearly a wide spectrum of value placed on human life and, in fact, it overlaps the value of animal life. You do seem to be the odd man out in this thread.

---

"I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"

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

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.

Yet you previously agreed that "society's collective morality" places the life of a human as having greater worth than that of an ant. Have you changed your mind on this?Society has a general ants-have-no-bearing-on-moral-questions-involving-humans stance. Because ants as a form of life are not considered by society to be worthy of moral consideration in the same way that humans are.Do you dispute this? Do you share this view? Yet the law, imperfect indicator as it may be, is arguably the best reflection of the pervading moral values of society that we have.The legal consequences and consideration given to the killing of humans Vs the legal position on killing ants I would suggest speaks for itself. I am not asking for a rote stance. I am asking you for your personal moral position on the relative worth of different species as per the thread topic.If all you are going to do is tell me that some people think that other people should be killed regardless of anything to do with other species then what relevance does any of what you are saying have here? I say that human life is worthy of more moral consideration than that of an ant and you call me the "odd man out"?Wow!

No. Because that is not about an extreme specific scenario. It is about a generic moral case. You can invent an extreme scenario to justify almost anything can't you? If that were true we would all come to the same moral conclusions. But we don't. Thus suggesting that you are wrong about this. How is it purely logical rather than based on lifetime experience, empathy, sympathy, compassion, wisdom and all sorts of other very subjective factors? And I would call euthanasia in many cases the very moral thing to do. But when was the last time you ate meat for reasons of avoiding starvation? Some people make a different moral choice to you on this issue. Would you eat chimp meat as flippantly as you eat chicken?That is the sorts of question posed by this thread. Presumably killing ants or bacteria for equally flippant reasons doesn't constitute "murder" however?So what criteria are you using? That is what this thread is about.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I don't think I said that. It seems diametrically opposed to everything I've been saying. Of course I do. What have I been saying all along?When humans set out to deliberately and ritualistically kill a person for his "crimes", they are certainly placing less value on his life than they would on the lives of ants. With ants, we have a general live-and-let-live policy. The legal position on killing humans goes all the way from one extreme to the other so there's clearly an overlap with the position on killing ants. And I'm telling you I don't have one. I'm pointing out that your viewpoint is simplistic and doesn't take the facts into account. There are times when animal lives are valued higher than human lives. Who's agreeing with you?

---

"I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"

As I pointed out I have never once intimated that personal morality "has to" conform with anything.But you are agreeing here that that "society's collective morality" places the life of a human as having greater worth than that of an ant are you not?

There are times when individual animal lives are valued higher than individual human lives.If that is what you mean with your "complex" argument then you will get very little disagreement.Equally obvious however is the fact that generally humans consider human life as being worthy of more moral consideration than animal life.We wouldn't have survived very well evolutionary as a species if this were not true would we?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Complex is not the opposite of simplistic. I have been making a very simple argument that animal lives can be valued higher than human lives. I have been getting a lot of disagreement from you with your simplistic talk about "general" moral trends. Generalities seldom have much use in moral issues. We have to start with the premise that we did survive and work from there to figure out why. It's true that social behaviour has had a lot to do with our survival as a species but that could be based on convenience rather than morality. I don't kill my neighbour because he can help me hunt. Whether or not it would be "wrong" has little relevance.

---

"I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"

Dogs? Cats? Cute rabbits? Chimpanzees? These are the animals being used in testing and these are certainly animals society has deemed unkillable and untorturable including some in this thread - including you - who have argued for their protection. No, you just said what it does. You didn't say anything about how it does it. So, what would be some examples of criminal destruction of owned, nonliving property? As distinguished from communal property held in stewardship, like priceless cultural artifacts or works of art, which belong to all humanity. Well, now you're just being insulting for no reason. Freedom, for instance, is something I value pretty highly, for instance the freedom to do what you will with your own property when it doesn't hurt another human being. Well, but that standard is overpowering. You have much - an abundance - that you could share with the rest of the world. You live a life of truly astounding affluence as a resident of Minnesota; if you own a car or property, you own things so valuable that entire villages could thrive and prosper on the proceeds of their sale. Many are now starving as a direct result of your selfish refusal to do so. And let's not get into the selfishness you display by owning a computer, paying for an internet connection, and spending time arguing with me instead of volunteering these hours at a soup kitchen.I don't think other people have that kind of claim on us. But you seem to believe that they do. But you don't seem to live according to that principle. Ah, but what counts as waste? The leftovers I tossed last night could have surely fed someone - had they not spoiled before they could be eaten. But you can eat spoiled food - many already do.Did I commit a crime? You seem to think I'm a moral monster, I guess that's your right. Practically I don't think any human being could live up to the moral principles you've ascribed. If the goal is to manage a limited natural resource, then the law should protect the natural resource, as I've said. Acts that are completely unrelated to the management or consumption of limited natural resources - like, say, operating a cockfighting ring - shouldn't be caught up by those laws, since those actions are well out of the scope of the intent of those laws.When Michael Vick ran a dogfighting ring, the only things harmed were dogs. Dogs he owned and bred. I don't think society has an interest in regulating that behavior. I may not like it, and I might choose not to be Michael Vick's friend. But then I might not choose to be the friend of someone in the Catholic clergy, either, or to be friends with a conservative Muslim imam, or with someone who lives by the principles of Objectivism. Somebody who tortures animals for entertainment may not be someone I'd like. But I don't think they should be in jail for it. I can distinguish between acts I don't like and acts that rise to the level of immorality or crimes. As I said - cases where it's the killing that is the crime in and of itself.

OKAY!!!! You DO understand where Ringo & Jar are coming from!HooRay.Straggler continues: Yes, and I understand that you are trying to help Melindoor's thread along.The first thing that should be flatout ruled Off Topic are those weird hypothetical tests of ant versus disgusted pedophile murderer questions.Joan Baez had a very funny, but piercingly devastating, answer to a typical Draft Board question she had heard about. The question was to imagine driving on a mountain highway with a wall of rock on one side, a cliff on the other. You have your own darling family in the car with you as you are coming around a curve. Suddenly as you come around the curve, you see your grandmother trying to get a dozen babies off the road! - now, do you just slam into them all willy-nilly or do you rip the car violently to the right and down the cliff or into the wall of rock on your left (American road rules)??Baez looks at the guy and says: I go into a high state of panic, I freak out! I try to stop the car on a dime, but because I'm so freaked out I plow into my grandmother & the babies anyway and still go fatally shooting over the cliff, whereupon I land on a village church in full attendance for some family who lost a child to cancer, killing them all along with my family, and then starting a fire that burns the whole village down and ruptures a container holding vile chemicals that bursts downstream polluting hundreds of villages below for 100,000 years.So rule out those preposterous scenarios!!! Please - we've had enough.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

OKI have decided what my view on the OP is:Everything involving the consumption of DNA from other things is, in fact, MURDER.The extent to which we forgive ourselves for committing such murder is derived from our stupid "learned" vanity over the DNA we consume.It is impractical to enforce "Thou Shall Not Murder" at such a wide scale of course! Furthermore, we would all die if it were enforced at the death row level. So it's the stupid ingrained vanity. If it wasn't for vanity, we'd all be dead.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d