When does killing an animal constitute murder?

I find an exclusive definition far more sensible than an inclusive one. A better rewrite would be: 'all things are created equal, with the exception of those things outlined in section A'.Thus, the system of rights would always err on the side of caution in the encounter of new critters.Jon

---

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

Who or what we do or do not confer rights upon, and the factors on which such judgements are derived, are at the heart of any moral stance. The great ape project (and indeed animal rights as a whole) is indisputably a moral matter.Your assertion that these issues are exclusively legal concerns rather than significantly moral ones is just silly. Specifically with regard to the moral consideration accorded to different species in Western society there is a strong (albeit imperfect) correlation. You make an individual distinction along speciesistic lines? Huh?Do you now make a moral distinction between a mass murderer and a roach exterminator? If so on what basis? How the hell does the accordance of rights on the basis of species support your argument against the accordance of moral consideration along speciesistic lines? And yet here is the generalised-by-species accordance of moral rights that "supports" your anti-by-species stance on moral consideration.From human rights to apes"Great apes should have the right to life and freedom, according to a resolution passed in the Spanish parliament, in what could become landmark legislation to enshrine human rights for chimpanzees, gorillas, orang-utans and bonobos."So I'll ask again - What is your personal moral position on the relative moral consideration to be accorded to different species? (as per the thread topic) Yet you think the accordance of moral rights to chimpanzees, gorillas, orang-utans and bonobos supports your stance? Bizzarre.

I make individual distinctions in individual circumstances, as I've said all along. Your claim is that humans are held in higher regard than other species. If several other species are being given "human" rights, then your claim is clearly false.

---

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

Do you personally accord greater moral consideration to chimpanzees, gorillas, orang-utans and bonobos than (for example) fruit fly? (I do BTW).Do you understand that the aim of the great ape project is to achieve moral status for great apes that is closer to that generally accorded to humans than creatures such as fruit-fly or mice?These are not rhetorical questions. Will you give straight answers? Not quite. My main claim is that I personally accord different moral consideration to different species. I have also pointed out that this is a very far from unique position given that it is widespread in Western society and reasonably well reflected in our laws.If you want to know my personal position on special pleading humans specifically for additional moral consideration then you should have a look at Message 108 and upthread from that. You on the other hand have consistently claimed that don't accord moral consideration along speciesistic lines, that there is no moral reason to (for example) prefer the breeding and raising of fruit fly for purposes of experimentation over humans (and thus presumably great apes) and you have generally derided any notion of applying morality along speciesistic lines as futile and simplistic.You have taken a very strong 'individual-only' stance. Then presumably you cannot agree with the aims of the great ape project on the basis that it's futile and simplistic speciesistic generalisations fail to ask why a particular fruit fly should be accorded less moral worth than a specific chimp.At least this would be the case if you had a consistent argument (which is looking increasingly unlikely).

I understand that the distinction between species is being decreased, not increased. Your main effort in this thread seems to be to browbeat me into agreeing with you. I agree with the great ape project on the basis that it takes one step away from distinctions based on species.

---

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

It seems you have abandoned your 'individual-only' stance but continue to insist that you don't accord moral consideration differently to different species.You will be campaigning for insect rights I assume? Given that the great ape project advocates that some species be given more moral consideration than others this is impossible to reconcile with your insistence that species level moral stances are "futile". If society did not accord humans greater moral worth than other species there wouldn’t be a campaign for the moral status of apes to be elevated into closer alignment with that of humans. It is good to see that you now accept that there is effectively a collective moral position in terms of pervading social attitudes and the laws that these (often) eventually result in. Because you have previously derided this as an "illusion".The great ape project is seeking to have basic ‘human’ rights conferred upon great apes rather than give them full moral equivalence to humans. This is entirely consistent with absolutely everything I have said throughout this thread regarding my own personal moral position. My main aim in this thread is to advocate the position that I have taken consistently throughout. Namely that according moral consideration to different species on the broad basis of sentience is a wholly legitimate personal stance and indeed one that is highly prevalent in Western society and increasingly reflected in national and international laws. So we should abandon any speciesistic distinctions? You would advocate equal rights for fruit fly then? Once again your position makes it impossible to make a moral distinction between a mass murderer and a roach exterminator.I find that position hard to take seriously.

Individual situations. My "stance" is that moral considerations do not automatically place humans above all other species. You keep ignoring the fact that society does value some insects above the mass murderer. Your contrived example doesn't negate that fact. It's your strawman. Take it any way you like.

---

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

I applaud your support for the great ape project. But to claim that this is remotely consistent with anything else you have said in this thread is completely ridiculous.You started out in this topic insisting that relative moral worth could only ever meaningfully be adopted towards specific individuals. You asserted that any Generalization by species is futile Message 262. Now you proclaim your support for a project whose raison d'etre is to promote chimps, bonobos, gorillas and orang-utans as being generally more worthy of moral consideration than other less self aware species.During this thread you have denied that society has taken a moral view on this issue. Society hasn't taken a stance. Message 184. Now you proclaim your support for a project which seeks to enhance the moral status of great apes in the eyes of society.Throughout this thread you have questioned the role of legality in the context of discussions about morality. What do laws have to do with what is morally acceptable? Message 209. Now you proclaim your support for a moral campaign whose primary practical aim is to bestow legal rights on certain species.Throughout this topic you have derided the idea that society generally confers greater moral value on humans than other species. But that's exactly what you're trying to do, use the existence of laws that single out humans as evidence of a "special" moral attitude toward humans Message 236. Now you proclaim your support for a project which seeks to elevate the status of great apes so that they too can be accorded some of the higher moral consideration already accorded to humans by society.Can you really not see the contradictions here? Nobody here has disputed that real life moral situations are individual and unique. This does nothing to detract from the very evident conclusion that human society generally accords humans greater moral consideration that it does other species. If human life wasn't generally held in greater moral esteem there would be no reason to single a mass murderer out as worthy of any less moral value than any other person would there?

As a general moral principle I accord greater moral consideration to humanity than I do other species.

​

As a general moral principle I consider those culpable of heinous moral acts against other sentient beings to have relinquished some of the moral consideration that would normally be accorded to them.

​

As a general moral principle I accord greater moral consideration to those that possess high levels of sentience than those possessing significantly lower levels.

​

I could go one. These are the sort of (very often conflicting and competing) moral principles that I apply to unique situations, weighing them up to come to my personal moral conclusions. But, if as you assert, no such moral principles apply you have no basis upon which to weigh up the unique balance of factors that make up an individual situation.

​

Simply saying "it's individual" and applying the vacuity that is "do no harm" tells us nothing about how you personally come to moral conclusions in this context. Which is supposed to be what this thread is about.

​

ringo writes:

​

It's your strawman. Take it any way you like.

​

You are the one who proclaims support for a moral campaign to ban experimentation on great apes whilst stating that the reasons for not breeding and raising humans to be experimented upon are practical rather than moral.

​

Do you think this is a consistent position?

Which is it? Moral status or legal rights? I proclaim support for a legal campaign. We're not comparing humans with other humans. We're comparing humans with other species. It's clear that some other species are sometimes valued higher than some humans. The OP asks:

quote:

---

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?

---

My answer is, "No."Is all of your blathering at me based on you not knowing what "no" means?

---

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

The following was written by the founder of the great ape project regarding his rationale for the project: You claim to support the great ape project. But you also deny making any moral distinctions along speciesistic lines. Can you see why this might seem rather contradictory? Legal rights on the basis of moral status. Obviously. Have you read anything about the great ape project at all? Why do you support this campaign?Bearing in mind the following from the OP: "I'm more interested in your own thoughts on the matter than what the law says". Since when did the term generally and the phrase absolutely and to the exclusion of all other factors mean the same thing? Which of the two have I used consistently throughout this thread? Which have I never used once? Is your simplistic answer based on being unable to differentiate between a personally held general moral principle and a claim of absolute universal moral truth?You talk about "individual situations". I am asking what factors you consider important to unique moral situations and the relative importance these factors play in your moral decision making.To this end consider the following: There are two creatures. One of these will be destroyed and the other left entirely unharmed. The choice will be entirely yours. What sort of questions would you want answered before making your decision?What sort of factors matter to you when making personal moral decisions? That is what we are trying to find out here.

I support removing distinctions based on species. I don't see how that can be misconstrued as making distinctions based on species.

---

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

Then your support of the great ape project makes no sense whatsoever. The great ape project seeks to extend the moral distinction already conferred on humans to other great ape species on the basis that they too are self-aware and sentient.If you think the founders of the great ape project would support your 'no-species-distinction' position and accord equal moral status to fruit fly you are an idiot. If you genuinely see no reason to accord different moral consideration to different species, no moral reason (for example) to prefer the use of fruit fly as lab rats over chimps or humans, then there really is little else to say here.Other than to denounce your position as woefully inhumane and to point out your dangerous lack of personal empathy for your fellow man. Psychopath

The founders of the great ape project don't dictate my reasons for supporting it. Increasing respect for other species isn't "inhumane" any more than abolishing slavery is "unfair" to slave owners. Empathy doesn't require discrimination.

---

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

Yes heaven forbid that you actually reveal what the the basis for your personal moral decisions actually is rather than isn't. In a thread which asks that question specifically that would be too much to ask wouldn't it? And nobody disagrees with you. But do you understand that this stance is entirely meaningless without any basis for distinguishing any one individual situation from any other? "Empathy is the capacity to recognize and, to some extent, share feelings (such as sadness or happiness) that are being experienced by another sentient being. Someone may need to have a certain amount of empathy before they are able to feel compassion."If you are going to claim empathetic reasoning as consistent with your personal moral position you are going to have to explain how it is you see no difference in terms of moral consideration accorded to humans and fruit fly (for example) on the basis of self-awareness and sentience. You haven't demonstrated any "respect" for any species at all. All you have done is deny that there are moral reasons for curbing one's behaviour. Let's repeat some of your lowlights in this thread shall we: And you want to lecture me about morality and empathy?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Respect was one of the reasons why I didn't wipe out the ant colony or the wasp colony. I've done no such thing. I've said that morality isn't the be-all and end-all magic cause of all behaviour that you seem to think it is. I've said that, for example, social pressure is often a larger factor than individual morality. You seem to have that backwards.Edited by ringo, : Fixed quote.

---

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