Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   When does killing an animal constitute murder?
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 121 of 352 (594956)
12-05-2010 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Straggler
12-05-2010 6:29 PM


Re: Not murder under any circumstances
How about "aborting" a 1 year old?
Well, now we get to the fun part - under what specific scenario?
If I had to place a value on the life of a toddler vs that of say a 10 year old kid who's experienced a good amount of life - not that I'm right - but I would place more value on the 10 year old's life.
So if it's a toddler vs a 10 year old, I would save the 10 year old.
I could also see a scenario where starvation had falling on a group and survival would require travelling great distances. I could see not only toddlers and infants being a burden, but also the very old. Not that I could actually do this, or that it is morally right in any way, but losing both the infants and the very old could prove beneficial for the survival of the group.
We can of course make more kids. But not if we're dead.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Straggler, posted 12-05-2010 6:29 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Straggler, posted 12-06-2010 11:53 AM onifre has replied

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 122 of 352 (594969)
12-05-2010 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by crashfrog
12-05-2010 1:05 PM


Re: Not murder under any circumstances
In Message 60
crashfrog writes:
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.
Now don't be modest! Or you could swiftly be the target of satire!

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by crashfrog, posted 12-05-2010 1:05 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


(1)
Message 123 of 352 (594971)
12-05-2010 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by jar
12-05-2010 3:52 PM


Re: Moral Dilemma
In Message 84
jar writes:
Which wife?
Oooo. That's definitely better than Jack Benny's "...wait, I'm still thinking."

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by jar, posted 12-05-2010 3:52 PM jar has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 124 of 352 (594973)
12-05-2010 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Meldinoor
12-05-2010 4:12 AM


Meldinoor writes:
Do you believe there is a sharp moral distinction between the killing of one subset of animals and all other animals, and where do you place it?
On personal behavior, I will swat a mosquito, or deal with ants that are in the house. I ignore outdoor ants as far as possible. Unless causing a problem, I ignore spiders in the house on the theory that they can deal with mosquitos, ants, etc.
I don't have a problem eating meat - it see it as part of our natural diet. But I don't kill animals for sport.
I don't have a well developed moral position on it, for that would entail judging the actions of others. I prefer to not judge those who like hunting.

Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Meldinoor, posted 12-05-2010 4:12 AM Meldinoor has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(1)
Message 125 of 352 (594975)
12-05-2010 11:01 PM


Oh, Moral Dilemmas
One of the struggles I have with these hypothetical moral dilemmas is whether or not I would actually act in accordance with any pre-made decision that I might formulate and present here.
In Onifre's dilemma, I think I would end up choosing the toddler over the 10-year-old, despite the fact that I understand the logical reasons that Onifre put forward. This is based on an initial reaction I had to the thought experiment. I think the reaction is based on a subconscious view that 10-year-olds are more self-sufficient than toddlers, and thus, may be more likely to figure out their own solution to the psychopath problem. I think this decision would hold even if I knew the 10-year-old would not find their own solution.
However, my reasoning would probably be entirely different if the subjects were switched.
For example, we tend to identify animals at the level of species or other "kind"; but we tend to identify humans at the level of individuals. So, if the choice is between one individual human and one individual animal, we are more likely to see the individual animal as replaceable than the individual human. But, if the choice was between two things that I view as identifiable units (e.g., an individual human vs. a species of animal), then the dilemma is more balanced from a psychological perspective.
When deciding between two humans, I think I would likely rank them based on their importance to me, based on such factors as kinship, perceived importance to society, social pressures from whatever audience I might have, and, though I hesitate to admit it, probably even some superficial characteristics that appeal to me. I would likely rank all animal species in the same way if the choice was between two species of animal.
When deciding between a human and a species of animal, I would simply merge the two lists. There are some species of animals that I would place higher than a larger chunk of the human species (e.g., blue jays, tigers, and Triceratops would rank quite high), and there are some humans that would rank lower than the lowest animals (e.g., Hitler and Peter the Great would rank quite low).
So, I sympathize to some extent with Ringo and Jar: I hesitate to generalize, because I don't think the generalizations hold up well. Although, just based on probabilities, I would say, in most randomly-generated situations, I would give preference to the human (and I'm quite sure that this preference would increase if I had a human audience for the decision), so, if I were to generalize, I would say that I would pick a human over an animal.
For instance, if the game were "random human vs. random animal species" (i.e. I don't know which human or which animal species is on the chopping block before I decide), then I would choose the random human, just because the highest humans rank higher than the highest animals on my list, and thus, the potential cost of killing the human is higher than the potential cost of killing the animal, and I don't want to risk killing my wife or children.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by xongsmith, posted 12-05-2010 11:42 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 126 of 352 (594979)
12-05-2010 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Blue Jay
12-05-2010 11:01 PM


Re: Oh, Moral Dilemmas
Thank you for describing what Straggler has been unable to see in Jar & Ringo's posts. With the subjective statistical variance so high in these hypothetical things for what people use to decide what to do, average is not dependable enough to formulate a rule of thumb. While the average may sit significantly higher for humans than for cockroaches in anyone's ordering, the variance of these situations is so huge, it is foolish to formulate a behavior before gathering the specifics of the situation.
Getting back to Melindoor's OP, I suspect we all do harbor what are quite simply specieist prejudices. This almost reminds me of the difference between John Lennon and Paul McCartney. Lennon was assassinated. McCartney can never, ever be assassinated. He can only be murdered. Or at least so the saying goes.
If a violent psycho shoots and kills in cold blood, then, as we move down the list of species as ordered by the already known specieist humans, when is it no longer murder but something like reckless destruction or poaching or something else under the umbrella of animal cruelty?
I would probably emotionally go with what the scientific community now perceives as the intelligence of the species in question. And probably have a similar known-to-be-faulty-but-it's-mine system as Straggler and frako have.
Douglas Hofstadter, in his "Godel, Escher, Bach" on page 314, introduces a character Aunt Hillary, who is a sentient ant colony, the individual ants being mere cells to her whole. Killing certain ants is akin to getting a haircut, perhaps, but killing off the colony - in this case of the intelligent Aunt Hillary, would be murder?

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Blue Jay, posted 12-05-2010 11:01 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 127 of 352 (595030)
12-06-2010 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by crashfrog
12-05-2010 1:05 PM


Re: Not murder under any circumstances
Beginning of language acquisition, more or less.
And what is your opinion on the mentally deficient?
Jon

Check out Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by crashfrog, posted 12-05-2010 1:05 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 128 of 352 (595034)
12-06-2010 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by crashfrog
12-05-2010 12:53 PM


Re: Not murder under any circumstances
Are your morals really so absolute? Or do you actually consider things on a case-by-case basis?
Every time I see "Animal Cops" on TV I'm infuriated that my tax dollars funds misuse of law enforcement resources to prosecute noncrimes.
It strengthens group moralityprovides for a good deal of safe measure. It's a fine use of tax dollars. Are your morals really so absolute? Or do you actually consider things on a case-by-case basis?
If you own the animal it's your property, and the concept of criminal mistreatment of your own property is an absurdity.
I actually think people who destroy perfectly good inanimate property (even if their own) should be criminally prosecuted. Your classification of animals doesn't answer anything; it just shifts the debate. Also, it doesn't address the issues regarding animals who aren't owned by anyone. Are your morals really so absolute? Or do you actually consider things on a case-by-case basis?
I don't think the killing or mistreatment of animals should even be a crime, I certainly don't consider it a moral question.
There are many reasons to criminalize the killing of animals, for example: resource management, endangered species protection, public safety related to disposal, public hazards of the killing process, etc.
There are also many reasons to consider the killing of animals a moral question, even without appealing to the welfare of the animal in question, for example: resource management, endangered species protection, public safety related to disposal, public hazards of the killing process, etc.
Are your morals really so absolute? Or do you actually consider things on a case-by-case basis?
Jon
Edited by Jon, : answers and questions...

Check out Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by crashfrog, posted 12-05-2010 12:53 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by crashfrog, posted 12-06-2010 11:38 AM Jon has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 129 of 352 (595042)
12-06-2010 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by Jon
12-06-2010 11:05 AM


Re: Not murder under any circumstances
Are your morals really so absolute?
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.
It strengthens group moralityprovides for a good deal of safe measure.
I don't see that it does, or what you mean by "safe measure."
I actually think people who destroy perfectly good inanimate property (even if their own) should be criminally prosecuted.
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.
Also, it doesn't address the issues regarding animals who aren't owned by anyone.
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.)
There are many reasons to criminalize the killing of animals, for example: resource management, endangered species protection, public safety related to disposal, public hazards of the killing process, etc.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Jon, posted 12-06-2010 11:05 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Blue Jay, posted 12-06-2010 11:53 AM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 153 by Jon, posted 12-06-2010 2:22 PM crashfrog has replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 306 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 130 of 352 (595043)
12-06-2010 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by crashfrog
12-05-2010 12:53 PM


Re: Not murder under any circumstances
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.
So you are saying i can make a virus to kill of all known bat species and that would not be a crime, or immoral. Or would the fact that when the bats ar gone insects would swarm most nations eating their crops causing starvation and death on a large scale make it a crime?
What's so special about human beings? I'm one, and so are you. That's what.
And there is nothing special about your dog that guars your house brings you the newspaper and slippers. Nothing special about the bats that keep insect populations down, nothing special about the cattle that feed you with their meat and milk, the only species that is special is us humans who are doing more harm then god to nature.
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.
You are right if you beat up a dog real good before you kill and skinn him he tastes much better. Why should puppy mills be a problem all they do is make more puppies the older dogs do not look as cute so they can go live on the streat or get a bullet in their head. Or better you can slowly starve and torture them to death. Why should whales be protected good money can be made of their meat so what if they go extinct and all the other species that depend on whales in the ecosyistem can die off too we will raise more cattle to supliment our fish diet, we can cram a few more in the stall the cattle do not nead to have enough space to turn that wastes energy and wasted energy meens less meat. Who cares if the meat tastes bad, or that it is less god for our diet, or that viruses have an easier way to jump to humans in those conditions.
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.
So if i kill your cat skinn it and eat it all i owe you is 200 bucks. And if you go on a vaccation you leave the cat to starve at home if it survives you saved on some money on some food if not well you can always get a new TV i mean cat, you probably do the same with the tv you leave it pluged in and you hope no lightning strikes happen while you are away.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by crashfrog, posted 12-05-2010 12:53 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by crashfrog, posted 12-06-2010 11:59 AM frako has replied

  
misha
Member (Idle past 4628 days)
Posts: 69
From: Atlanta
Joined: 02-04-2010


Message 131 of 352 (595044)
12-06-2010 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by crashfrog
12-05-2010 12:53 PM


Re: Not murder under any circumstances
quote:
If you own the animal it's your property, and the concept of criminal mistreatment of your own property is an absurdity.
  —crashfrog
I have a son. He's technically my property as I hold legal responsibility over him. Does that mean i can mistreat him? I hope not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by crashfrog, posted 12-05-2010 12:53 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by crashfrog, posted 12-06-2010 11:51 AM misha has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 132 of 352 (595045)
12-06-2010 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by misha
12-06-2010 11:44 AM


Re: Not murder under any circumstances
He's technically my property as I hold legal responsibility over him.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by misha, posted 12-06-2010 11:44 AM misha has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 133 of 352 (595046)
12-06-2010 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by onifre
12-05-2010 7:43 PM


Re: Not murder under any circumstances
I agree with the logic of what you are saying generally. But I am not sure that logic is the deciding factor is such situations.
For example:
Oni writes:
We can of course make more kids. But not if we're dead.
And yet many parents would risk, or even give, their own lives in order to save those of their children. Even 'low value' (by the terms of the logic being applied above) toddlers and infants.
I just don't think personal morality (which is what this thread asks about) is, or even should be necessarily driven by logic alone. There are more human factors that inevitably play a part.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by onifre, posted 12-05-2010 7:43 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by onifre, posted 12-06-2010 12:33 PM Straggler has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 134 of 352 (595047)
12-06-2010 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by crashfrog
12-06-2010 11:38 AM


Re: Not murder under any circumstances
Hi, Crash.
crashfrog writes:
I don't really think you're opposed to the destruction of property by the people who own it - that's stupid.
Not to mention essentially impossible to enforce. Where would we get the budget to investigate and prosecute all those crimes against inanimate objects?
Law enforcement, in the end, is subject almost entirely to practicality, rather than absolute morality. The only moral questions involved should concern which crimes are the "worst," and thus, merit the balance of the budget and attention of law enforcement officials.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by crashfrog, posted 12-06-2010 11:38 AM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Jon, posted 12-06-2010 2:22 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 135 of 352 (595049)
12-06-2010 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by ringo
12-05-2010 7:12 PM


Re: Moral Dilemma
So you remain unwilling to give greater moral worth to the life of an unspecified human over that of a random bug? That is your final position in this thread?
Ringo writes:
If you can't come down on the side of humanity in a specific scenario, your generalizations are meaningless.
Nonsense.
Your extreme scenarios are just ways of avoiding the question being asked in this topic — Namely whether you consider some life-forms as being worthy of more moral consideration than others. I don’t see how you can function in society without considering human life as generally more worthy of moral consideration than that of bacteria or bugs.
Have you ever been fishing and used maggots, worms or insects as bait? Legal considerations aside — Would you use a human for the same purpose? Even a "dreg of society"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by ringo, posted 12-05-2010 7:12 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by ringo, posted 12-06-2010 12:53 PM Straggler has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024