See, that's the problem though, and why this question must inevitably be addressed. According to the food chain/population pyramid, a larger creature must eat more individual, smaller organisms to sustain itself. The same way a vampire has to kill multiple humans to continue living (well, except for faggy Twilight vampires), a meat eating human has to kill multiple animals. By killing multiple animals to sustain yourself, you're implying that your life is more valuable than theirs. If you do believe that, to what extent does it reach? Is your life more valuable than multiple plants, multiple unintelligent animals, multiple intelligent animals, multiple humans, multiple creatures more intelligent than yourself?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 sorry if I'm misreading this (and you'll probably tell me I am, but no matter), but it seems your statement counters your question. You ask if he considers himself more important than everything else (basically), but before hand you say larger organisms eat smaller organisms to sustain themselves. Surely then, he doesn't value himself over everything if he doesn't regularly kill/ eat other humans. The fact is, most omnivores still restrict what they eat to those they consider less intelligent or useful. How many people eat dog or horse? Christ, how many people even eat rabbit or gold-fish now-a-days?Glass Joe the Champ said:See, that's the problem though, and why this question must inevitably be addressed. According to the food chain/population pyramid, a larger creature must eat more individual, smaller organisms to sustain itself. The same way a vampire has to kill multiple humans to continue living (well, except for faggy Twilight vampires), a meat eating human has to kill multiple animals. By killing multiple animals to sustain yourself, you're implying that your life is more valuable than theirs. If you do believe that, to what extent does it reach? Is your life more valuable than multiple plants, multiple intelligent animals, multiple humans, multiple creatures more intelligent than yourself?Zakarath said:I'd say what matters is not the creature's sapience but rather your motivations for killing it.
You're killing it for food? Okay.
See, you're still answering the question whether you like it or not.
So would the same rule of useless killing apply to plants? If I was sitting in the grass and decided to pulled up some of the grass, would that be just as wrong? If not, what separates the grass from the insect?Ulquiorra4sama said:Yes it does you insensitive monster!!11!1 ...is what i'd say if i cared.Glass Joe the Champ said:Just to play devil's advocate, if I saw a bug on the ground and it wasn't hurting anybody, and I stomped on it, would that make me a murderer since I killed for no reason?TheFlyingMango said:Really to me its going to be only kill what you need to kill. For example if your hunting and you see two deer and you only need one to eat only kill that one. You never know someone else may need to eat it later why waste the extra effort. Now to humans if someone were to attack you by all means defend yourself and kill if it is needed. But just going around killing people isn't cool. >_<
On the topic of bugs it's really double edged. I squish spiders and flies and the likes when they get into my room, but i don't just suddenly stomp an innocent creature that's speeding along the pavement, minding it's own business. That just seems like unnecessary cruelty.
I'm not really a fan of killing anything, but if death would be a salvation to the creature in question then i'm not gonna object.
No, just a kind of a jerk.Glass Joe the Champ said:Just to play devil's advocate, if I saw a bug on the ground and it wasn't hurting anybody, and I stomped on it, would that make me a murderer since I killed for no reason?TheFlyingMango said:Really to me its going to be only kill what you need to kill. For example if your hunting and you see two deer and you only need one to eat only kill that one. You never know someone else may need to eat it later why waste the extra effort. Now to humans if someone were to attack you by all means defend yourself and kill if it is needed. But just going around killing people isn't cool. >_<
Agreed. OP never stated whether or not any of these options were situational. Any death is an optimistic thing if it is for the greater good, no matter how intelligent the being. As, a death is never a pessimistic thing if done out of sadism or apathy.loc978 said:My two cents: life has no intrinsic value, it's not sacred, and killing is regulated just fine (at least in theory) in most places. Natural law pretty much states "defend yourself or die". Human law generally states "only kill from necessity or in the name of your society"... and I'm fine with both.
Personally i don't apply the same rule to plants because there are some things you just can't get by without hurting something. The monks i mentioned would probably find some way, but personally i can't ever think of plants as more than decorations. Be it in nature or at home.Glass Joe the Champ said:So would the same rule of useless killing apply to plants? If I was sitting in the grass and decided to pulled up some of the grass, would that be just as wrong? If not, what separates the grass from the insect?Ulquiorra4sama said:Yes it does you insensitive monster!!11!1 ...is what i'd say if i cared.Glass Joe the Champ said:Just to play devil's advocate, if I saw a bug on the ground and it wasn't hurting anybody, and I stomped on it, would that make me a murderer since I killed for no reason?TheFlyingMango said:Really to me its going to be only kill what you need to kill. For example if your hunting and you see two deer and you only need one to eat only kill that one. You never know someone else may need to eat it later why waste the extra effort. Now to humans if someone were to attack you by all means defend yourself and kill if it is needed. But just going around killing people isn't cool. >_<
On the topic of bugs it's really double edged. I squish spiders and flies and the likes when they get into my room, but i don't just suddenly stomp an innocent creature that's speeding along the pavement, minding it's own business. That just seems like unnecessary cruelty.
I'm not really a fan of killing anything, but if death would be a salvation to the creature in question then i'm not gonna object.
See, that's what I'm trying to get to with this whole conversation! There's a distinction in your mind between an insect and a plant although neither can think or feel. Why is that, you think?Ulquiorra4sama said:Personally i don't apply the same rule to plants because there are some things you just can't get by without hurting something. The monks i mentioned would probably find some way, but personally i can't ever think of plants as more than decorations. Be it in nature or at home.Glass Joe the Champ said:So would the same rule of useless killing apply to plants? If I was sitting in the grass and decided to pulled up some of the grass, would that be just as wrong? If not, what separates the grass from the insect?Ulquiorra4sama said:Yes it does you insensitive monster!!11!1 ...is what i'd say if i cared.Glass Joe the Champ said:Just to play devil's advocate, if I saw a bug on the ground and it wasn't hurting anybody, and I stomped on it, would that make me a murderer since I killed for no reason?TheFlyingMango said:Really to me its going to be only kill what you need to kill. For example if your hunting and you see two deer and you only need one to eat only kill that one. You never know someone else may need to eat it later why waste the extra effort. Now to humans if someone were to attack you by all means defend yourself and kill if it is needed. But just going around killing people isn't cool. >_<
On the topic of bugs it's really double edged. I squish spiders and flies and the likes when they get into my room, but i don't just suddenly stomp an innocent creature that's speeding along the pavement, minding it's own business. That just seems like unnecessary cruelty.
I'm not really a fan of killing anything, but if death would be a salvation to the creature in question then i'm not gonna object.
If, for some bizarre insane reason, people organized events where they poured bleach onto dirty clothes for entertainment, would it be morally wrong because they're killing millions of bacteria for fun? If not, what's the distinction between bacteria and insects?emeraldrafael said:Its always wrong to hurt/kill, even if you're swatting a fly. What separates a fly from say a cat really, and makes it wrong to abuse one and not the other? Why can you organize stag beetle fights and not dog fights?