When does killing an animal constitute murder?

Nope, don't think I said that. I don't think I knowingly kill anything with a lack of due concern.Look, I'm still totally lost about what you are trying to get at.I make decisions on a case by case basis and try to use the available knowledge at that moment.Their ain't no hard and fast rules.

---

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

The difference has more to do with social conventions than personal morality. There are consequences for stepping outside society's bounds.If we were stranded on Frako's island, we'd make our own conventions.

---

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

Again with not answering the question. Have you killed bugs more blithely than you would kill humans? Does the same "due concern" you extend to bugs also apply to humans or are humans worthy of more "concern"? I am trying to get at the topic. Personal morality. Animals. What constitutes an immoral act of killing and what doesn't as far as you personally are concerned. And I am suggesting that part of that "case by case" analysis involves your personal moral stance towards different species. Once again - I didn't say that there were. If you think I am advocating moral absolutsim you are wrong.

The thread asks about personal morality and that is what I am seeking answers on.If you are saying that we get our personal morality from our social surroundings - I won't disagree with you.But to deny that we have personal morality (whetever source it may take) is just silly.

And still if you where bourne in that tribe they would be a delicasy for you. Strange how society detirmens our actions, our likes dislikes, aour notion of morality and immorality.

Have I suggested otherwise?

No tough it is still strange. If you where bourn in India, you would most likely consider killing animals is always murder if you eat them or not you would hold them on the same level as humans. In china all animals are food dogs are good for "nightly activities" and skinning a cat while it is still alive is good for the costumer so they know their cat is fresh when they buy it. In western regions some animals are food others pets you do not eat pets, and you do not nedlesly cause harm to animals of any kind that is wrong.It all depends on the society you live in our personal morals are shaped by it

But the questions you're asking are about social conventions, not personal morality:

quote:

---

Have you killed bugs more blithely than you would kill humans?

---

Yes, I have, because society doesn't care if I kill bugs. They're liable to lock me up if I kill humans. Yet, there are humans that I could "blithely" kill if there were no social consequences but I wouldn't willingly kill a bee. I'm saying that our personal morality can be overridden by our social surroundings.

---

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

True i would kill or at least beat up many a polititian tough the price for me landing in jail deters me from it.

If I am asking what your personal moral view of killing bugs Vs killing humans is how can I not be asking about personal morality? I would say that the bulk of one's personal morality is so shaped by social surroundings that aside from some very personal subjective differences there is very little distinction.

And if I was born the son of a Hindu farmer I would probably believe in Vishnu.(**shrug**)

Did anybody come out yet for the "it's not ever murder" position? I guess I will. Killing an animal is never murder, under any circumstances, because they're not human beings.What's so special about human beings? I'm one, and so are you. That's what.I don't think the killing or mistreatment of animals should even be a crime, I certainly don't consider it a moral question. If you own the animal it's your property, and the concept of criminal mistreatment of your own property is an absurdity. Every time I see "Animal Cops" on TV I'm infuriated that my tax dollars funds misuse of law enforcement resources to prosecute noncrimes.Don't get me wrong, we have a cat and I love him. I just don't labor under the misapprehension that I'm anything but a familiar food dispenser to him, or that morally he represents anything but about $200 worth of our property. If you already knew about my views on when human life begins, you may not find this viewpoint very surprising.

1 years old isn't it?Do you have any kids?

But that isn't what you asked. Shall I quote you again?

quote:

---

Have you killed bugs more blithely than you would kill humans? Message 44

---

You didn't say anything about personal moral views and, as I explained, the reasons for my "blitheness" are social, not personal. I wouldn't say that at all. There are plenty of examples of people going against social conventions because of personal convictions, just as there are plenty of examples of people "going with the crowd" despite their personal convictions.That's why a blanket comparison of killing animals to killing humans doesn't make much sense.

---

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

Beginning of language acquisition, more or less.Which is not to say that I consider it open season on toddlers, it's just the way I determine value judgement on lives. Which, practically, I hope I never have to do. That's a definite no. But I don't think my viewpoint would change if it did. Infanticide has always been practiced in human cultures, and I can envision circumstances in which it's a morally-indicated act of mercy. Not even just for the infant.