Poll: At what point is killing/hurting something wrong?

Zarmi

New member
Jul 16, 2010
227
0
0
No one is above it. If you kill another living being for no reason, I personally think you deserve to die as well. Because you're simply not intelligent enough to deserve life.
 

lior13

New member
Jul 21, 2009
123
0
0
when it comes to humans i think they desver pain not death but pain yes at list most of us but animals no bugs yes
 

MGlBlaze

New member
Oct 28, 2009
1,079
0
0
I'll borrow somewhat from Mordin Solus here;

It's wrong to harm any individual from a species that has members capable of calculus.

Basically I object to harming sapient life without reason. Even if it's non-sapient life, I object to just harming it for shits and giggles. Let's take a cow; they are slaughtered for meat. Ideally the killing should be as painless as possible and their lives up until that point should be of good quality.

Other than that, killing or harming should only be done with good reason; self-defence comes to mind.
 

MrMixelPixel

New member
Jul 7, 2010
771
0
0
This is going to be difficult for me to articulate. O_O. Not the best with them word thingies.

I believe that a majority of any group decides what is right or wrong when killing. As an example: If the majority of the people in the group you belong to decide that killing all people with mental illness is okay, then it is okay.

The majority decides when killing is right or wrong. If your or my take on it is different than the majority, then it is wrong.
 

Ampersand

New member
May 1, 2010
736
0
0
It's always wrong to kill something. Sometimes you're left with no other option, but even if you have no choice but to kill you should never fool yourself into thinking it was the right thing to do. The only way you can cock things up worse is by getting killed yourself or getting someone else killed.
 

peruvianskys

New member
Jun 8, 2011
577
0
0
Hitokiri_Gensai said:
Personally, i believe that if youre going to use what you kill then its ok. FOr instance, hunting. I love to hunt, but i never hunt wastefully. ANything i kill is either eaten by myself or i give it to friends or family.
But why is it wrong to kill a child and eat it? What distinction do you make between "killable" and "unkillable?"

Is it intelligence? Pigs are smarter than newborn children. The pain a pig feels is biologically the same as the pain a baby feels, and they understand their stress on roughly the same intellectual level, so why is killing a pig understandable while killing a baby is considered a heinous crime?

And anyone who says "It's okay to shoot a deer if you eat it," I guess I ask why that's the case. Why is it okay to end a conscious creature's life just because you make some use out of it? Deer exist, period. They don't exist for us. We have no more right to the meat of a deer than a deer has to the meat of a human, or a human has to the property of another human. The idea that use justifies killing rests on the assumption that we are somehow 'owed' the bodies of animals that have been here a lot longer than us.

Question for hunters: Would you kill a bear in order to stop it from harming a child that it would later eat? And if so, why? What is the difference between a bear making use of the meat of a baby and a human making use of the meat of a bear? The relationship between the two parties is the same in both cases, mainly, neither has a right to the other.

In short: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYvTMHii6Pw
 

Hitokiri_Gensai

New member
Jul 17, 2010
727
0
0
peruvianskys said:
Hitokiri_Gensai said:
Personally, i believe that if youre going to use what you kill then its ok. FOr instance, hunting. I love to hunt, but i never hunt wastefully. ANything i kill is either eaten by myself or i give it to friends or family.
But why is it wrong to kill a child and eat it? What distinction do you make between "killable" and "unkillable?"

Is it intelligence? Pigs are smarter than newborn children. The pain a pig feels is biologically the same as the pain a baby feels, and they understand their stress on roughly the same intellectual level, so why is killing a pig understandable while killing a baby is considered a heinous crime?

And anyone who says "It's okay to shoot a deer if you eat it," I guess I ask why that's the case. Why is it okay to end a conscious creature's life just because you make some use out of it? Deer exist, period. They don't exist for us. We have no more right to the meat of a deer than a deer has to the meat of a human, or a human has to the property of another human. The idea that use justifies killing rests on the assumption that we are somehow 'owed' the bodies of animals that have been here a lot longer than us.

Question for hunters: Would you kill a bear in order to stop it from harming a child that it would later eat? And if so, why? What is the difference between a bear making use of the meat of a baby and a human making use of the meat of a bear? The relationship between the two parties is the same in both cases, mainly, neither has a right to the other.

In short: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYvTMHii6Pw
is it any different than a bear killing a smaller animal for food then? by your arguement, no. its not right for us to harvest plants either, because they exist too. So, ultimately your arguement says that we're not given the right to survive. We cannot will food into existance by sheer mental power so, we harvest plants and animals for survival.
 

Vindictus

New member
Apr 3, 2010
58
0
0
I think, in a perfect world, everything alive (this becomes a bit more complicated with abortion, as I am pro-choice) has the right to exist and thrive as best it can. This means leaving nature to it's means, but not setting up gargantuan abattoir chains to provide a somewhat unnecessary food source.
 

peruvianskys

New member
Jun 8, 2011
577
0
0
Hitokiri_Gensai said:
is it any different than a bear killing a smaller animal for food then? by your arguement, no. its not right for us to harvest plants either, because they exist too. So, ultimately your arguement says that we're not given the right to survive. We cannot will food into existance by sheer mental power so, we harvest plants and animals for survival.
Plants don't feel pain, suffering, or emotional distress when harvested. Plants have no will or desires or emotions or brains at all. Not to mention that human beings can live perfectly healthy lives on completely plant-based diets.

Thus, you have two choices: A perfectly healthy diet that causes no suffering, and a less healthy diet that causes a huge amount of suffering. Which one is more moral? Obviously we have to destroy things to eat them, but we can choose to destroy the things that don't feel pain and suffering like we do. If you don't need to cause terrible suffering, and you do it anyway, that's wrong by any definition. All hunting is hunting for sport if you don't need the meat to survive.
 

Hitokiri_Gensai

New member
Jul 17, 2010
727
0
0
peruvianskys said:
Hitokiri_Gensai said:
is it any different than a bear killing a smaller animal for food then? by your arguement, no. its not right for us to harvest plants either, because they exist too. So, ultimately your arguement says that we're not given the right to survive. We cannot will food into existance by sheer mental power so, we harvest plants and animals for survival.
Plants don't feel pain, suffering, or emotional distress when harvested. Plants have no will or desires or emotions or brains at all. Not to mention that human beings can live perfectly healthy lives on completely plant-based diets.

Thus, you have two choices: A perfectly healthy diet that causes no suffering, and a less healthy diet that causes a huge amount of suffering. Which one is more moral? Obviously we have to destroy things to eat them, but we can choose to destroy the things that don't feel pain and suffering like we do. If you don't need to cause terrible suffering, and you do it anyway, that's wrong by any definition. All hunting is hunting for sport if you don't need the meat to survive.
well at any rate, i respect your opinion, but i also dont agree. I like to eat meat, and i also like to hunt. I dont kill to let it rot in the ground, and i believe that thats fine.
 

zehydra

New member
Oct 25, 2009
5,033
0
0
CarlMinez said:
zehydra said:
If it is human. The nature of survival is that species survive at the expense of others. While I believe killing a person is wrong, it's not because of pain (that's a totally different issue), it's denying them life.

If we go and say then, "killing ALL living things is wrong because it is denying them life", then we would have no way of living. We would all starve to death. All other limitations, such as "capable of pain" or "sentient" are arbitrary in the context of the question of the right to life.
I'm not sure If I agree with that.

There is no logical reason to value a life over another life simply because it's a member of homo sapiens. I value human life because humans are emotional, intelligent creatures. Just like most mammals and birds, and I value their lives as well.
There is no logical reason to value human or mammalian life simply because it is emotional or intelligent.
 

TehCookie

New member
Sep 16, 2008
3,919
0
0
peruvianskys said:
Hitokiri_Gensai said:
is it any different than a bear killing a smaller animal for food then? by your arguement, no. its not right for us to harvest plants either, because they exist too. So, ultimately your arguement says that we're not given the right to survive. We cannot will food into existance by sheer mental power so, we harvest plants and animals for survival.
Plants don't feel pain, suffering, or emotional distress when harvested. Plants have no will or desires or emotions or brains at all. Not to mention that human beings can live perfectly healthy lives on completely plant-based diets.

Thus, you have two choices: A perfectly healthy diet that causes no suffering, and a less healthy diet that causes a huge amount of suffering. Which one is more moral? Obviously we have to destroy things to eat them, but we can choose to destroy the things that don't feel pain and suffering like we do. If you don't need to cause terrible suffering, and you do it anyway, that's wrong by any definition. All hunting is hunting for sport if you don't need the meat to survive.
Or an even healthier diet that has meat. Humans are omnivores, meat is good for you. Not in the quantities the average person eats it but if vegetarians didn't watch their diets I doubt they would be healthier. Besides who's suffering? Me? I don't mind killing for food. The animal? They're dead. You can say how they're mistreated at large farms, but the chickens at my grandpa's house had a wonderful life until they were dinner.
 

Sight Unseen

The North Remembers
Nov 18, 2009
1,064
0
0
I think my opinion is too complex to be reflected by a single poll choice. Allow me to break down my answer along a few lines:

a) animal rights: I don't think that killing animals is morally wrong in general, although I have some lines which should be drawn in certain areas. I think that killing endangered/rare animals is wrong, and that they should be protected. I think that animals should be treated with respect while they are living and if possible be given a quick and painless death. Obviously I think that animal torture or gruesome painful slaughtering is wrong. Finally I don't think that animals should be killed unless they are needed for food or if they pose a threat to human safety and that is the only way to get rid of them.

b) human rights:

i) Abortion/Stem Cell Research: I think that abortion is okay in general, because sometimes unintended pregnancies happen. It is espescially justified for rape victims who become pregnant. I don't agree with using abortion as a substitute for normal contraception. I don't think it is moral for a woman to repeatedly fail to use contraception and then get pregnant and use abortion as a get out of jail free card. I think it is much more moral to abort the child and save the parents' chance at having a good life than to force them to have the child and make huge sacrifices in order to provide for the child, possibly ruining both the parent(s) and the child's future. In addition I think that stem cell research is justified as it is a tremendously promising field of research and has great potential to save countless lives.

ii) Suicide/Euthanasia: I think that suicide as a way to escape from depression or emotional issues is wrong, particularly teen suicide, since they have so much to live for but may not realise it. However I feel that euthanasia is justified if the subject is under constant, excrutiating pain, with no signs of recovery, and that the subject, the subject's doctors and their family support it.

iii) Murder: I think that murder is wrong unless it is purely in self defence and the other person would have killed you had you not killed him first, and that there were no other viable solutions. I don't approve of war or the death penalty for the most part, though I can concede that war is sometimes necessary (analogous to self-defence)

Those are my views for the most part. I hope it's mostly consistent for anyone who reads this.
 

CarlMin

New member
Jun 6, 2010
1,411
0
0
zehydra said:
CarlMinez said:
zehydra said:
If it is human. The nature of survival is that species survive at the expense of others. While I believe killing a person is wrong, it's not because of pain (that's a totally different issue), it's denying them life.

If we go and say then, "killing ALL living things is wrong because it is denying them life", then we would have no way of living. We would all starve to death. All other limitations, such as "capable of pain" or "sentient" are arbitrary in the context of the question of the right to life.
I'm not sure If I agree with that.

There is no logical reason to value a life over another life simply because it's a member of homo sapiens. I value human life because humans are emotional, intelligent creatures. Just like most mammals and birds, and I value their lives as well.
There is no logical reason to value human or mammalian life simply because it is emotional or intelligent.
Yes there is. Because their death and discomfort adds to the amount of suffering the world. If you take ethics into consideration I guess. You could just say that you don't give a fuck about suffering and then your argument would be really understandable. But I think this subject sorta requires that you take ethics and morality into consideration.
 

Thundero13

New member
Mar 19, 2009
2,392
0
0
"It has a soul/other religious reasons."
...
Soul = religous? Lulwut?
Anyway, I think it's when something is capable of conscious thought that it becomes wrong to inflict pain on it, then again, I suppose you could ask what exactly pain would be if it wasn't conscious but felt pain anyway...
 

Falconsgyre

New member
May 4, 2011
242
0
0
Hm. Either 45% of Escapists are vegetarians, or there are an awful lot of hypocrites voting.

zehydra said:
There is no logical reason to value human or mammalian life simply because it is emotional or intelligent.
Sure there is. Why do you value human life in the first place? Because you can look at someone and determine if their genome allows them to mate with members of the species "homo sapiens?" I doubt it. You value human life because of the kinds of things humans do and the mental qualities of humans that you interact with. Depending on where you draw the line of what these qualities are, you might also include many animals. As a thought experiment, would you value the life of an alien species which looked and acted exactly like humans?
 

Phoenixlight

New member
Aug 24, 2008
1,169
0
0
If something can feel pain or fear then it's not right to kill it, abotion is great though we ne to control population levels.
 

platinawolf

New member
Oct 27, 2009
84
0
0
Sometimes the ends justify the means. Killing one to save the universe? Condemning one soul to eternal damnation in order to save everyone else. But it all depends on the context. And who's point of view you have.

A king might order a thief tortured just to create order. A shop-owner might shoot the thief to keep his things safe. Who's to say whats right and wrong? We are but tiny insignificant bugs in gods great design.
 

Blue2

New member
Mar 19, 2010
205
0
0
Zakarath said:
I'd say what matters is not the creature's sapience but rather your motivations for killing it.
You see it as a threat? Okay.
You're killing it for food? Okay.
You're killing it just for the hell of it? Not okay.
I'm the same way but I trend to use killing/hunting as a last resort. I have no issues eating meat but I can't seem to kill anything but in case I have to for to survive, I'm pulling out the knife and make meat meals. Also If I can scare (the animal) or talk down the attack (to the human), I would do that first before the defend by the blade/gun.