When does killing an animal constitute murder?

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.

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.

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!

I wouldn't say my morals are absolute in any sense. As a moral relativist I don't believe that any finite description of morals can accurately prescribe the appropriate action for all conceivable moral circumstances. I don't see that it does, or what you mean by "safe measure." What, really? So you don't have trash pickup at your home? You never burn candles? Do you wash and reuse each sheet of toilet paper? A few years ago my parents knocked down the back porch of their home to install an addition and a deck - did they commit a crime? I think I put a few holes in the wall of my apartment to hang some pictures - lock me up and throw away the key, I guess.I don't really think you're opposed to the destruction of property by the people who own it - that's stupid. Did you think that through before you typed it? Guess not. Animals not owned by any particular person are the responsibility of the human collective, in my view. That necessitates smart, responsible stewardship because they represent a valuable natural resource that should be preserved for the good of all. (All humans, I mean.) Bad resource management should be a crime. Improper disposal of hazardous or dangerous materials is already a crime. There are already laws that protect endangered species.In other words I think you missed the point completely. I'm not saying all animals should be killed; I'm saying that killing animals should not inherently be illegal. If you believe that improper disposal of animal carcasses is a problem, then your problem is with people improperly disposing of carcasses not with people killing animals. If you believe there's a problem with bad stewardship of valuable natural resources, then take it up with the bad stewards, not with people who run cockfights. If you don't want people betting on cockfights in your neighborhood then your problem is with illegal gambling, not with chickens fighting each other.Somebody who neglects to feed his dog is only harming his dog. I don't see the law enforcement priority, there. Dogs don't pay taxes.

No, he's not your property. Technically, legally, or otherwise.No human being is legally the property of any other. Children are not the slaves of their parents.

It would be a crime, but not because of the value of any discreet, individual animal life. It would be because "all known bat species" are the collective property of all human beings. No more special than my TV or my computer or my car. I don't think doing so would make you someone I would like to be around. But I don't think your act of torturing dogs to death should make you a criminal, unless they're someone else's dogs.Torturing animals is roughly on the same moral level for me as enjoying country music. It's going to represent a fundamental obstacle to us ever being friends, but I don't think you should be criminally prosecuted for it. Yeah. Well, I don't. I make sure the cat is fed just the same way I take care of any other property I own. I don't want my cat to die because it represents a substantial investment of money, same as our TV, and we originally bought it because it serves a desire we had, same as our TV. Just like I don't mistreat my car or my TV, I don't mistreat my cat, because it's wasteful to mistreat your own property.But it shouldn't be a crime. Can you conceive of things that are bad ideas, and may even make you a bad person if you do them, but nontheless aren't crimes?

How does it do any of that? Be specific.Tell me - are scientists who do animal research more likely to beat their wives or husbands, in your view? How does demolition not count as "destruction of property"? No, it's literally nonsensical. But not because it's bad to kill an animal. Do you see the distinction? Where the act of killing is another crime in and of itself.

Why should everything I think is bad be a crime? Now that you know I'm not particularly bothered by cruelty to animals, were we ever going to be friends?

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.

No, only X+Z is covered. If society wants X to be counterindicated, that's the purpose of laws against X. Here, in this thread. You believe that it should be a crime for people to destroy property they own, including animals.Your posts to me are meant to advocate this position. When are you arguing for their protection? Right now, here, as you type these messages into the text box. That's true but I don't see the relevance - that's not at all what I asked, is it?I asked you if the researchers that perform these cosmetic tests, or medical tests on animals, or other scientific tests on live animals, are more likely to commit domestic abuse, murder, or other crimes. Are they?If they're not, that would seem to disprove your notion that preventing people from torturing animals makes them less likely to torture humans. I disagree. Morals that you can't actually follow have no purpose. Only if it was their property. But it doesn't hurt anybody. David Letterman taking those actions doesn't take food out of anybody's mouth or keep someone from owning a car. The people who don't have new Mercedes lack them because they cannot buy them; one extra Mercedes for sale doesn't reduce the price low enough for them to suddenly afford one.I don't consider David Letterman's actions immoral under any standard. By making it illegal to destroy a limited natural resource held in the human trust, obviously. I wish you would have put that at the beginning. I don't want to open a thread for it but I'm not going to erase what I've already written.

Algebra. You used algebra so I followed suit. X only equals X+Z if Z is zero.If society wants X to be illegal, then society makes laws against X. Laws against Z have nothing to do with laws against X, so your argument makes zero sense. I'm very much talking about laws and always have been. If you're talking to me then you're talking about laws. You might have said so in the beginning. Obviously if you fundamentally don't accept the very notion of discreet, private property then we're clearly not going to ever agree on what rights property owners have.Which is fine. I don't expect to convince you on something that basic and I don't expect to be convinced by you. If you'd simply said that you don't believe in property it would have saved a lot of time, though. No, we've not. You were pretty clear about it:

quote:

---

When society implants into the minds of the individual the notion that the mistreatment of certain animals is wrong, it helps to assure that these individuals will now include as wrong the mistreatment of less animal-like creatures, even if these creatures (perhaps homo sapiens by decent) are more like these animals and less like an average human.

---

When I asked you if the people who experiment on and torture animals for scientific or industrial purpose - people who clearly have not been "implanted" with the notion that what they do is wrong - are more likely to commit domestic abuse, you evaded the question with the observations that those scientists don't experiment on cute animals, at which point I told you that was 100% wrong, and then that point was the first time you claimed that the question was irrelevant. Funny, apparently you thought it was relevant the first time I asked it.So, answer it: are scientists who do animal research more likely to beat their wives or husbands, in your view? Yes or no. Why do we need any other word? Using another word when the resource is an animal would fail to protect all the limited natural resources that aren't animals. A law against the destruction of limited natural resources protects all limited natural resources, animal or nonanimal, without infringing on the rights of property owners (which, I understand, you believe don't exist.)

Are animal-experimenting researchers - who, presumably, don't view their actions as immoral - more likely to abuse infants or the mentally retarded, in your view? Yes or no.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

I've had an entire semester in symbolic logic, as a matter of fact; if you want to communicate in symbolic logic it may behoove you to learn the symbology.

Why, when deeming X wrong would stand less of a chance of deeming wrong things that aren't actually wrong?You're basically saying "society would like people to consider murder wrong, so to achieve this it deems murder and gay marriage wrong." How does that make sense? So, clearly, society has no need to deem animal torture and experimentation wrong to make people think that murder and domestic abuse are wrong. But you admit, now, that this notion is inaccurate - people who approve of the torture and mistreatment of animals don't seem to be any more likely to mistreat other human beings. It's not a pretense, it's a totally different thing. For instance, the DOMA prevents a black man from federally marrying a white man, but it would not be accurate to describe DOMA as a bill that prevents interracial marriage. I'm not playing any word games at all - you're the one who keeps asking me to play in yours. You can't use the destruction of limited natural resources to justify a law against cockfighting simply by noting that the first law establishes a principle that some animals shouldn't be killed.

I've done that, already. Just answer or admit you don't want to. There's no need to play these games. If we're just not ever going to agree, just say so. Less likely than who? Be specific. You're using a comparator with an implied antecedent and then pretending that antecedent isn't present at all.That's a word game. I thought you hated those. You're using symbolic logic to misrepresent a predicate syllogism. You need more help with logic than I'm able to provide.