When does killing an animal constitute murder?

Just as a general point to help muddy the waters:In the UK - eating horse-meat is considered an abnormal (almost 'wrong') thing to do. But it is not illegal.
In France (technically less than 30 miles away) - eating horse is normal.And yet both countries routinely eat beef.

If I ask "Have you killed bugs more blithely than you would kill humans?" how is that not a question about personal morality in this context?Whether society thinks that the lives of bugs and humans are of equal moral worth was not what the question asked. Yes - And in this case if jar were to kill humans with the same "I don't remember" attitude he has dislayed towards bugs I suspect he would be classed by society as a psychopath.Now I don't think he personally does consider the lives of bugs and humans as equal in this regard. I don't think jar really is a psychopath. Which is why I find his reluctance to say that he wouldn't kill a human with the same blitheness he might kill a bug somewhat bemusing. Who is making "blanket comparisons"?I was asking jar specifically what his moral outlook is towards killing humans as compared to bugs. Does the same "due concern" he says he extends to bugs also apply to humans or are humans worthy of more "concern"? What constitutes an immoral act of killing and what doesn't as far as one personally is concerned.These are the questions I have asked. But apparently he cannot answer these questions.

I remember the first time I read your view on this (in an abortion thread years ago - when I first joined). I was horrified.But I have subsequently come to the conclusion that your view on this makes a certain sort of biological sense in a cold hearted rational sort of way.Not that I agree with it. I just don't think I have strong evidential grounds of any sort for disagreeing with it. I think it would. Drastically. But that obviously remains to be seen. Or maybe not.I have a 9 month old who is just beginning to laugh and crawl and recognise people in an obvious way. I have no doubt it is at least partly instinct but the idea that he isn't a "person" just does not compute.

Personaly morality was not mentioned in the question nor does it factor into the answer. How is it a question about personal morality? That is a blanket comparison. I think jar has said that it depends on the specific person and the specific bug and the specific situation. I don't think it's about the "amount" of concern or the "quality" of concern. He might feel bad about accidentally killing a person with his car or accidentally killing a dog with his car but it doesn't make much sense to talk about "how bad". Likewise, if he made a conscious decision to kill a person or a mosquito, it doesn't make much sense to compare the two situations. It varies from one person to the next and one situation to the next. No blanket answer is adequate.

---

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

I just want to be clear - it's absolutely cold-hearted. The only reason to wonder who is or isn't a real human being is to know who it's "ok" to kill when you have to kill someone.I hope that's a position I'm never in. I really do, because as rational as my position seems to me, I can't even conceive of what it would feel like to have to follow it. But I guess I'm just the perverse kind of person that isn't willing to refuse to consider a "Sophie's Choice"-type situation just because it would suck. I'd rather have a gameplan going into something like that, and then live a life where I never had to face that choice. Maybe. I'm dubious when people say "oh, you'll change your mind when..." because I think they maybe don't know me very well. I usually have pretty well-thought-out reasons for thinking something, and I feel like I'm self-aware enough not to simply change my mind because of emotions.Probably not going to have any kids, though. Anyway, best of luck with yours. I'm sure he'll be a great human being before you know it!

Well the word "you" wasn't be used in a royal sense. So - Just to be clear - You don't think there is a general statement that can be made about jar's personal moral view of the worth of a bugs life as compared to a human life? What about your personal moral view - Is a human life worth more than a bug's life as far as your personal morality goes? Are you seriously going to tell me that your personal morality does not generally hold a human life in higher esteem than a the life of a mosquito?Seriously?

He already is.

If jar isn't going to make such a general statement about himself, I'm not going to do it for him. As I've said more than once, it depends on the specific situation. As I've also suggested, yes, some bugs are worth more than some humans. The bug that I have no reason to kill is worth more than the human that I do have reason to kill. Mosquitos aren't the best example becaue I do kill them preemptively as well as in self defense. But yes, some bugs are worth more than some humans. The bug that I have no reason to kill is worth more than the human that I do have reason to kill.

---

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

If you had to choose between the life of an unknown human and some random bug which would you choose to be killed? Remove the specifics and we are left with only more general moral principles are we not?It is these I am trying to get at and it is these that jar seems to be avoiding for some reason that I don't understand.Why can he (and you) not just admit that in general you consider a human life to be of more moral value than that of a bug?Or are either of you really denying that this is the case?

As I've said, it depends on the specific situation. I don't go around randomly deciding to kill random organisms. Without a specific situation, the question has no answer. Without specifics, we don't need moral principles.

---

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

A psychopath stands in front of you with a bug held between two fingers of one hand whilst a random person is held with a knife at their throat by the other hand.He asks you which he should kill, makes it clear that one of the two is going to die and the other live depending on your choice.Which do you choose? Seriously? The life of a random human is of no more consequence to you in moral terms than the life of a random bug? By definition principles do not depend on detailed specifics.

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

A three handed psychopath. Neat.Why choose either?Why remove the moral obligation and the resultant consequences from the psychopath?Why not just stop the psychopath?

---

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