When does killing an animal constitute murder?

This thread is about the moral worth we accord to different species. If there are things you have no moral objection to doing to one species but do another - then yes it is very definitely on topic.I would personally morally object to the breeding and raising of human beings for the purposes of eating or experimentation in all but the most extreme end-of-the world-if we-don't-do-it nightmare sci-fi scenarios.I have no such moral qualms about mice or cows or fruit fly. Primates come somewhere in-between for me. I do have a moral problem with using these creatures for eating unless absolutely necessary and I would limit experimentation on primates to the less frivolous things that can be demonstrated to have genuine benefits to humanity. In reality there rarely, if ever, is a situation in which all other things are equal. Each situation is unique. A real life situation comprises all sorts of competing and conflicting general moral principles. As well as self interest and a whole host of other factors which make a complex moral web. But it is the subjective weighting we accord to these general principles that makes each such decision not just unique but highly individual.However in the absence of these competing and conflicting moral principles we have nothing to distinguish one situation from another.As a general moral principle I consider human life as of more moral worth than bacteria, fruit fly, mice etc. I have never said that this was the only moral principle at play in any specific scenrio. In fact I have said the opposite. But it is a general moral principle that I advocateI had no idea this was going to be quite so controversial given that it seems to be the attitude taken in mainstream Western society as a whole. I object to Nazi style experimentation on humans for the same reason I object to vaginal rape. Because I personally think it is morally reprehensible.The fact that I could in theory be the victim of the first whilst (as a man) it would be impossible for me to be subjected to the second has very little bearing on my stance on either.Call me a wild eyed idealist if you will.

Sorry I'm late. I disagree, based on the evidence of my own sensibility and that of others I know personally.I consider the killing of great apes, corvids, cetaceans and elephants--for reasons other than self-defense--murder. I suspect I would include other animals in that group if the intelligence and self-awareness of all species were fully defined.I do what I can with financial support, public demonstrations, and political organization and expression to stop the murder of these species. Our devastation of their populations is a holocaust.I consider the moral worth of humans guilty of the murder of sentient creatures to be less than their victims. Under the right circumstances, I would defend these species with direct action; I would consider any harm to the murderer justifiable. Had I the means, I would sink Japanese whaling boats rather than stand by and watch that obscenity--as Bruce Cockburn sings about death squads in Guatemala, "If I had a rocket launcher...I would not hesitate."

---

I know there's a balance, I see it when I swing past.
-J. Mellencamp

​

Real things always push back.
-William James

The campaign to accord some basic human rights to apes seems relevant to this thread. I personally (in an admittedly rather impractical and apathetic way) would broadly support these sorts of measures.What do others think? Presumably those who deny that moral considerations are ever applied to anything other than specific individuals (of whatever species) are utterly mystified, baffled and confounded as to what this campaign could possibly be seeking to achieve.

Do you understand the difference between moral and legal?

---

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

Well, I for one am glad the the great apes in Spain may soon have their rights.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

I'd extend the right not to be tortured to cows, cats, rats, etc. I have reservations about extending the right to life to cows and I'm hesitant to grant the freedom of the streets to bears.

---

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

Well, I think it is only one day of the year and one street in one city where the freedom of the street is given to cattle and then only to cattle of the masculine child type. I could likely live with the bears in Spain being given equal rights.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Considering the salient point of the thread to be human action regarding other species; how could the issue not resolve to mankind's population size varies inversely to the conservation of earth's fauna. At one extreme we have mankind's extinction first the other side of the scale is man's extinction last.

Here is the original text: First off, the United States, after WAY TOO LONG A TIME, granted these rights to women and black people and so forth. They are still bogged down in stupid religiously fucked up brains on the issue of gay rights.This did not go far enough. And even if it were at last extended to all of Homo Sapiens Sapiens, it would still not be far enough.In the Science Fiction world you may run across the acronym HILF, which stands for Highly Intelligent Life Form. Even this is not enough. We rightly protect the rights of those among us who have damages or conditions of the brain that some may construe as judging them "not highly intelligent". I suggest we use the term SALF, Self-Aware Life Form.Therefore,
my first recast of the Declaration of Independence quote would thus look like this: * to allude to Fermat's Last TheoremBut there is room for more of this sort of thing here. I think we might consider, in this wonderful forum, some ideas to improve on the various governmental documents around the world so far.The bit about the Creator is perfect. No God need be mentioned specifically or even needed. ("Hi, Ma and possibly Dad and possibly THuihuiygkca numbers 4,5,6,7,8 and 9!)It is the words Inalienable and Endowed that make the US Founding Fathers (probably Jefferson as attributed, but with people talking into his ears in each side) statement so POWERFUL.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

What do they call a Minimally Intelligent Life Form? Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

Does that really cover those lifeforms that are so highly evolved that they no longer separate self from all life?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

So which of those, moral or legal, do you think my above 'ape rights' example is concerned with?Do you understand that in many cases the two things are not wholly unrelated and that this specific example exemplifies how the shifting moral outlook of a society operates in tandem with changing legislation?Or are you going to talk about jaywalking again? Given that the 'individual only' position you have espoused in this thread makes it impossible for you to make a moral distinction between a mass murderer and a roach exterminator it would seem rather inconsistent for you to start understanding those who do accord moral consideration along speciesistic lines pertaining to such factors as sentience. Then I guess the reasons, which seem very legitimate and obvious to me, for Spain implementing theses laws for apes but not for fruit fly must be very very perplexing to you.

Since it's about legislation, I'm going to say legal. I've never suggested that they're wholly unrelated. My objection is to the way you tend to use the concepts of moral, legal and socially acceptable as if they were interchangeable. On the contrary, I do make a distinction - an individual distinction. I gave the example of the ant colony and the wasp colony. Not at all. Human rights for non-humans supports my case.

---

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

While I would like the opportunity to recast it again should that situation arise, I remember another SF story about an alien lifeform that sent a representative individual. Turns out all the individuals were telepathically connected and each one was expendable in the manner of trimming fingernails or cutting hair. When the species finally figured out that humans were not so connected and thus the investigative experiments of killing individual humans in various different manners for observation became woefully understood as the egregious killing of isolated entities, the species quickly terminated the earth-bound representative. Perhaps reminiscent of Douglas Hofstadter's character, Aunt Hillary, in Godel, Escher & Bach.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d