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

[zehydra]

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.

Killing and hurting require seperate moral questions and answers. That is, to rob something of life is different than giving pain to something. That is, the question of whether or not is right/wrong to make an animal suffer, is not the same as asking if it is right/wrong to kill an animal.

 

[zehydra]

Hm. Either 45% of Escapists are vegetarians, or there are an awful lot of hypocrites voting.

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?

I don't find killing humans wrong because I consider human life to be valuable. The right to life is independent of what other humans mean to me, personally.

I find it's wrong to kill humans because we're all human.

 

[peruvianskys]

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.

Most doctors would agree that the average vegetarian is far healthier than the average meat eater. You can be healthy and still eat meat, but it is incorrect to say that a vegetarian diet is in any way deficient as a lifestyle.

Let's say there's an old woman who lives above you that you don't like, but you know she's very wealthy. Is it moral to sneak into her bedroom and kill her in order to take all of her money? What if you do it "painlessly?" Do you think it's wrong to knock off humans in their sleep, and if not, why?

Chickens are alive and like all animals, they want to keep on living. Any entity that has the desire to survive (like chickens, pigs, humans, rats, etc.) has the right to not have its existence ended for another's gain. It's that simple. Animals do not consent to their use by humans and killing them "nicely" is the same as molesting a child "gently" or poisoning someone in their sleep (logically, not in moral equivalency). Just because they don't comprehend what's going on doesn't mean that it's even remotely okay to end the lives that they clearly desire or abuse the bodies that they clearly control.

Like I said before, chickens are the same as us when it comes to the right of self-determination and self-control. If it's not okay to kill a retarded child and eat it, then it's not okay to kill a pig and eat it because both have the same basic desire and right to exist. Obviously here are certain things pigs cannot do that we can, like vote, and affording cattle the right to the ballot is silly because they don't have the capacity to even comprehend that right - they do, however, have the clear desire to continue living and should be afforded that basic right.

 

[Falconsgyre]

I don't find killing humans wrong because I consider human life to be valuable. The right to life is independent of what other humans mean to me, personally.

I find it's wrong to kill humans because we're all human.

I'm not saying you find killing humans wrong because of what they mean to you. I'm saying the qualities of humans which make killing them wrong have nothing to do with mere genetics. What possible moral standing could having 46 chromosomes give you?

 

[Falconsgyre]

Double post. Ignore/delete.

 

[zehydra]

I don't find killing humans wrong because I consider human life to be valuable. The right to life is independent of what other humans mean to me, personally.

I find it's wrong to kill humans because we're all human.

I'm not saying you find killing humans wrong because of what they mean to you. I'm saying the qualities of humans which make killing them wrong have nothing to do with mere genetics. What possible moral standing could having 46 chromosomes give you?

What I'm saying is that morality against killing of others is only justifiable for humans. You could say that it's wrong to kill other animals as well, but it would be either arbitrary, or based on emotional attachment to animals.

But to answer your question, Life lives off of other life. We as living beings are required to kill in order to continue living. However, some people want to say that "killing sentient animals" is bad, or "killing animals" is bad, but I never see a real reason for it other than "they're like us".

Basically my view is that Killing is a necessary part of life, for consumption, and that deciding to deny other forms of life their rights to life over others because "they're like us" always felt way too arbitrary or emotionally-based for me.

 

[Dimitriov]

It is okay to kill and to hurt anything if you believe it be in your own best interest, or if you deem it to be in the best interests of a group you are a part of.

Humans are animals, and social animals at that, it is in our nature to protect our own lives and those of our own population. Whether one's own population consists of all of humanity, or just your own family members or anywhere in between is a variable.

Failure to hold yourself and your own kind as being the most important is to me abhorrently unnatural.

 

[tthor]

the way i see it, the more a creature doesn't want to die/fears death, then the more it deserves to live.

It is okay to kill and to hurt anything if you believe it be in your own best interest, or if you deem it to be in the best interests of a group you are a part of.

Humans are animals, and social animals at that, it is in our nature to protect our own lives and those of our own population. Whether one's own population consists of all of humanity, or just your own family members or anywhere in between is a variable.

Failure to hold yourself and your own kind as being the most important is to me abhorrently unnatural.

<link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development>Stage 2, Pre-Conventional

 

[Falconsgyre]

What I'm saying is that morality against killing of others is only justifiable for humans. You could say that it's wrong to kill other animals as well, but it would be either arbitrary, or based on emotional attachment to animals.

I know that's what you're saying. I'm challenging you to establish why, and I think that you'd at the very least have to say that any sentient aliens deserve the same rights as humans. In other words, that species identity is irrelevant when it comes to determining if it's right or wrong to kill.

A different argument would be required to establish why killing non-sentient animals is wrong. One way is to simply ask if you'd kill a human with the intellect of a dog. If you said no, and also agreed to the condition above, then it should be just as wrong to kill a dog as that human.

But to answer your question, Life lives off of other life. We as living beings are required to kill in order to continue living. However, some people want to say that "killing sentient animals" is bad, or "killing animals" is bad, but I never see a real reason for it other than "they're like us".

So what if we're not really required to kill? It's medically very well established that humans can live off a vegetarian diet just as healthily as an omnivorous one (and at the very least, you could drink milk and eat eggs without killing). And why is "they're like us" a bad argument? What's different about the human that makes killing it more wrong than a sentient animal? If there is no real difference between the two, then doesn't it logically follow that it's just as wrong to kill one as the other?

Basically my view is that Killing is a necessary part of life, for consumption, and that deciding to deny other forms of life their rights to life over others because "they're like us" always felt way too arbitrary or emotionally-based for me.

In my view, it's deciding that humans are somehow more important that's arbitrary. Why on earth should my species matter when deciding my moral status? And my decision in this regard was motivated far more by logic and intellectual honesty than by emotions. I wouldn't eat a dog because I love dogs and the thought sickens me. I couldn't care less about pigs (who have comparable intelligence and sociability), but I don't eat pork, either.

(Note that I do think humans have qualities that make us more important than animals, morally speaking, though. They just don't have anything to do with what our species is.)

 

[zehydra]

What I'm saying is that morality against killing of others is only justifiable for humans. You could say that it's wrong to kill other animals as well, but it would be either arbitrary, or based on emotional attachment to animals.

I know that's what you're saying. I'm challenging you to establish why, and I think that you'd at the very least have to say that any sentient aliens deserve the same rights as humans. In other words, that species identity is irrelevant when it comes to determining if it's right or wrong to kill.

A different argument would be required to establish why killing non-sentient animals is wrong. One way is to simply ask if you'd kill a human with the intellect of a dog. If you said no, and also agreed to the condition above, then it should be just as wrong to kill a dog as that human.

But to answer your question, Life lives off of other life. We as living beings are required to kill in order to continue living. However, some people want to say that "killing sentient animals" is bad, or "killing animals" is bad, but I never see a real reason for it other than "they're like us".

So what if we're not really required to kill? It's medically very well established that humans can live off a vegetarian diet just as healthily as an omnivorous one (and at the very least, you could drink milk and eat eggs without killing). And why is "they're like us" a bad argument? What's different about the human that makes killing it more wrong than a sentient animal? If there is no real difference between the two, then doesn't it logically follow that it's just as wrong to kill one as the other?

Basically my view is that Killing is a necessary part of life, for consumption, and that deciding to deny other forms of life their rights to life over others because "they're like us" always felt way too arbitrary or emotionally-based for me.

In my view, it's deciding that humans are somehow more important that's arbitrary. Why on earth should my species matter when deciding my moral status? And my decision in this regard was motivated far more by logic and intellectual honesty than by emotions. I wouldn't eat a dog because I love dogs and the thought sickens me. I couldn't care less about pigs (who have comparable intelligence and sociability), but I don't eat pork, either.

(Note that I do think humans have qualities that make us more important than animals, morally speaking, though. They just don't have anything to do with what our species is.)

You have excellent points, and I'm still trying to figure out a response. One thing I would like to note though, is that WE ARE required to kill to survive. I don't think you can actually live on milk and eggs alone, although that's largely speculation. I'm willing to leave the possibility open until I see evidence one way or another.

I suppose you're right. Basically it must be immoral to kill everything living, humans as well as animals and plants.

"And my decision in this regard was motivated far more by logic and intellectual honesty than by emotions. I wouldn't eat a dog because I love dogs and the thought sickens me. I couldn't care less about pigs (who have comparable intelligence and sociability), but I don't eat pork, either."

this is the kind of arbitrariness that I dislike, btw. Preferring pigs over dog because of emotional reactions is not logic-based morality.

I suppose that when I'm attributing the issue of "killing" other life, normally I think of one kind of killing, "killing humans", and another, "killing food". Since it seems that it would be arbitrary to create a distinction between who gets the right to life (humans or other life), then all life must have the right to life. But this would mean that killing life for food would be immoral, unless we add the notion that "killing life for food" is somehow justifiable whereas other forms of killing are not. Since humans don't kill other humans for food (normally, I'm ignorant as to how this goes nutritionally), then we must rely on other species for food. Humans are exempt from the question of "killing for food", because we are the ones doing the killing.

 

[Falconsgyre]

You have excellent points, and I'm still trying to figure out a response. One thing I would like to note though, is that WE ARE required to kill to survive. I don't think you can actually live on milk and eggs alone, although that's largely speculation. I'm willing to leave the possibility open until I see evidence one way or another.

Well, I can point to official sources that state vegetarianism is okay. I'll start with the Wikipedia page, which links to better sources such as the American Dietic Association. While I'm not really sure being a vegetarian is actually better for your health, as some claim (the kind of people who tend to be vegetarians are the kind of people who'd tend to be healthier anyway), I think the evidence shows that it's at least not worse for your health. The only source of concern is B vitamins for vegans, but consuming dairy products and eggs gets you those pretty easily if you're just vegetarian. You can decide for yourself whether or not to trust the evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism#Health_benefits_and_concerns

I suppose you're right. Basically it must be immoral to kill everything living, humans as well as animals and plants.

Well, I actually draw the line at anything below about fish-level intelligence. And sometimes fish, too, since they're on the border. To me, the relevant capability is if something can meaningfully suffer. Anything that doesn't have a brain is definitely fair game for me, and anything that doesn't have a limbic system or frontal lobe is on the menu, too.

this is the kind of arbitrariness that I dislike, btw. Preferring pigs over dog because of emotional reactions is not logic-based morality.

Yes, I can see how that might be annoying. I wish people would follow their convictions to their logical consequences more often.

I suppose that when I'm attributing the issue of "killing" other life, normally I think of one kind of killing, "killing humans", and another, "killing food". Since it seems that it would be arbitrary to create a distinction between who gets the right to life (humans or other life), then all life must have the right to life. But this would mean that killing life for food would be immoral, unless we add the notion that "killing life for food" is somehow justifiable whereas other forms of killing are not. Since humans don't kill other humans for food (normally, I'm ignorant as to how this goes nutritionally), then we must rely on other species for food. Humans are exempt from the question of "killing for food", because we are the ones doing the killing.

To me, it's more that minds have a right to exist than "life" does. I don't care what happens to a stone. The stone has no emotions, no interest in its own existence. The same can be said of a plant. You can even say it of most invertebrates, as they aren't terribly more complicated than the computers we have now. Otherwise, the general principle is just that you shouldn't kill unless something equally valuable is at stake. Killing for food is different, I think, if you need to to it to survive. Your life counts for a lot, too. If it's kill or be killed, if you have to kill something for food to survive, then very few people would say you should die. So if we really, truly needed to eat meat to survive, then I'd be fine with eating meat. But today, it turns out we don't. We've domesticated cows and chickens, so we can get our nutrition from dairy products and eggs even without resorting to more complicated dietary planning and multivitamins. So it seems that the only reason to kill animals for food now is because we like the taste, and that just seems too trivial a reason to kill. My interest in a half hour of slightly better tasting food does not outweigh the interest a cow has in its own continued existence.

 

[zehydra]

Well, I actually draw the line at anything below about fish-level intelligence. And sometimes fish, too, since they're on the border. To me, the relevant capability is if something can meaningfully suffer. Anything that doesn't have a brain is definitely fair game for me, and anything that doesn't have a limbic system or frontal lobe is on the menu, too.

This is something I've been wondering about. What about if it's a swift death? What if there is no pain involved?

You see, the question of life has little to do with its ability to suffer. I consider the question of killing and the question of hurting two seperate issues.

 

[effilctar]

If it isn't for food, defence or justice then I might tut a bit.

 

[Falconsgyre]

Well, I actually draw the line at anything below about fish-level intelligence. And sometimes fish, too, since they're on the border. To me, the relevant capability is if something can meaningfully suffer. Anything that doesn't have a brain is definitely fair game for me, and anything that doesn't have a limbic system or frontal lobe is on the menu, too.

This is something I've been wondering about. What about if it's a swift death? What if there is no pain involved?

You see, the question of life has little to do with its ability to suffer. I consider the question of killing and the question of hurting two seperate issues.

This is a pretty important point, come to think of it. Suffering matters far more to me than killing. I'd rather kill something than see it live in pain for the rest of its life. I don't think the two issues are unrelated, though. The ability to suffer is a hallmark of the ability to have an interest in your own continued existence. Killing seems to be wrong because you stop something from existing that would have rather gone on existing. You deny something the life it could have experienced, which was presumably a good one. If something can't suffer, that implies that it doesn't have much of a vested interest in its own existence, and if that's the case, why should I care what happens to it?

 

[zehydra]

Well, I actually draw the line at anything below about fish-level intelligence. And sometimes fish, too, since they're on the border. To me, the relevant capability is if something can meaningfully suffer. Anything that doesn't have a brain is definitely fair game for me, and anything that doesn't have a limbic system or frontal lobe is on the menu, too.

This is something I've been wondering about. What about if it's a swift death? What if there is no pain involved?

You see, the question of life has little to do with its ability to suffer. I consider the question of killing and the question of hurting two seperate issues.

This is a pretty important point, come to think of it. Suffering matters far more to me than killing. I'd rather kill something than see it live in pain for the rest of its life. I don't think the two issues are unrelated, though. The ability to suffer is a hallmark of the ability to have an interest in your own continued existence. Killing seems to be wrong because you stop something from existing that would have rather gone on existing. You deny something the life it could have experienced, which was presumably a good one. If something can't suffer, that implies that it doesn't have much of a vested interest in its own existence, and if that's the case, why should I care what happens to it?

That's probably the most comprehensive rundown of that view that I have ever seen. I am of the opposite view, that living is always better than not being alive, (as long as there is no afterlife). It's a tough position to defend, but I believe it has merit.

As for suffering, it's not necessarily tied to a being's desire to live, although I don't actually know of any creatures that are intelligent enough to have desires and not feel pain. Perhaps flies?

 

[Scrubiii]

It depends entirely on the situation. If the only way to stop a psychopath from killing hundred of people is to kill him, then it is right.

If an animal is not self aware, it is still wrong to torture it for no reason.

 

[Falconsgyre]

That's probably the most comprehensive rundown of that view that I have ever seen. I am of the opposite view, that living is always better than not being alive, (as long as there is no afterlife). It's a tough position to defend, but I believe it has merit.

As for suffering, it's not necessarily tied to a being's desire to live, although I don't actually know of any creatures that are intelligent enough to have desires and not feel pain. Perhaps flies?

To some extent, things would rather suffer and be alive than die, so that position does have some merit. But there's always a point at which it tips. In the most extreme end, if something is in constant, agonizing pain for every second of its life, there will be a point at which it desires to die.

"Suffering" and "pain" aren't concerned directly with a desire to live, but do show a concern for self. Anything that can suffer has a preference that should be given weight. Conversely, I'm not sure anything that can't suffer can be said to have preferences or desires at all. Flies are too simple to really have minds, in my opinion. They don't desire any more than an automatic process on my computer does. They just react- they're no more than biological machines of stunning complexity.