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

Scabious

New member
May 6, 2011
17
0
0
http://www.iep.utm.edu/justwar/

For defence puposes, it's probebly just. Killing innocents probobly isn't.
 

pppppppppppppppppp

New member
Jun 23, 2011
1,519
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.
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?

Or, to put it another way, you say killing in something in self defense is okay, is killing 100 somethings in self defense okay? Shouldn't it depend on what that something is?

See, you're still answering the question whether you like it or not.
 
Dec 27, 2010
814
0
0
There is no answer. My morals tell me to end a the life of good man is wrong, your morals may say that killing any life-form that can feel pain is wrong, but in truth we're both wrong. Evil is in the eye of the beholder, thus it is undefinable.

Edit;
Glass Joe the Champ said:
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, 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?

See, you're still answering the question whether you like it or not.
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?
 

O maestre

New member
Nov 19, 2008
882
0
0
hunting is wrong when there is no danger or struggle involved... hunting with a spear or a knife against a large animal is fair game... because there is an actual chance of critical failure and injury.

a gun takes away any such risk. what is the point of shooting at something that cant fight back, true hunting is where you get your hands bloody, where you actually have to stalk, ambush and overpower your prey.

"hunting" with guns is just glorified target practice... its hunting for lazy idiots who actually think they are doing something manly.... there is nothing manly about killing an opponent that cannot pose a challenge to you. i cannot fathom that people actually get a sense of accomplishment from shooting animals from a distance.

bottom line if you are going to hunt, hunt old school.
 

pppppppppppppppppp

New member
Jun 23, 2011
1,519
0
0
Ulquiorra4sama said:
Glass Joe the Champ said:
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. >_<
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?
Yes it does you insensitive monster!!11!1 ...is what i'd say if i cared.

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.
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?
 

emeraldrafael

New member
Jul 17, 2010
8,589
0
0
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?

The true issue is when is it justifiable, to what means is it justifiable, and will society see it as justifiable? and all of that is subjective to morals really.
 

The Lunatic

Princess
Jun 3, 2010
2,291
0
0
Everything is okay to kill, just depends on the reason why to kill it and the time it takes to do so.

Instant death with good reason? Fair enough for most living things.
 

kittii-chan 300

New member
Feb 27, 2011
704
0
0
I answered your question that everything is okay to kill. but it seems you are also asking at what point would a thing be classed as "living".

I think that if something believs it is alive it is. if it believes it is not then it is not.
 

Rawne1980

New member
Jul 29, 2011
4,144
0
0
No-one will ever agree on this subject.

On the one hand you have people who would never kill anything.

On the other you have those who revel in wanton slaughter.

And then you have all those inbetween.

I'm ex military and did it for career. I've killed bugs in my house aswell because I don't like bugs. When we've had a pet thats been so ill it needs putting to sleep i've done it myself.

I can tell you with hand on heart honesty that if anyone was to harm one of my children or my wife then that person would cease to be breathing.

Some people believe all life is precious. Call me a callous bastard but the only people who's health I have a vested interest in are my wife and kids.
 

scar_47

New member
Sep 25, 2010
319
0
0
I went with the everything is okay to kill option but its all dependant on circumstance, wether I kill a person in self defense an animal for food or a pest to controll disease the act is the same I have ended a life. I never understood the argument that killing animals for food is wrong but killing a plant for food and shelter and for a meriade of other reasons is fine you've still killed something that was living so whats the difference?
 

Kiwilove

New member
Apr 2, 2011
37
0
0
Glass Joe the Champ said:
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. >_<
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?
No, just a kind of a jerk.
OT: in answer to the revised question, and leaving aside the question of vegetarianism, probably not. If it's not hurting you or someone else, don't hurt it. If you can reason with it, do so. Never initiate violence. There are exceptions, of course. You should be able to swat a stinging insect before it bites you, put down a rabid or sick animal, remove an invasive species, and so on.
 

werty10089

New member
Aug 14, 2011
210
0
0
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.
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.
 

Ulquiorra4sama

Saviour In the Clockwork
Feb 2, 2010
1,786
0
0
Glass Joe the Champ said:
Ulquiorra4sama said:
Glass Joe the Champ said:
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. >_<
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?
Yes it does you insensitive monster!!11!1 ...is what i'd say if i cared.

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.
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?
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.
 

pppppppppppppppppp

New member
Jun 23, 2011
1,519
0
0
Ulquiorra4sama said:
Glass Joe the Champ said:
Ulquiorra4sama said:
Glass Joe the Champ said:
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. >_<
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?
Yes it does you insensitive monster!!11!1 ...is what i'd say if i cared.

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.
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?
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.
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?
 

CarlMin

New member
Jun 6, 2010
1,411
0
0
I think the OPs moral position is more or less waterproof.

If it feels physical pain then it's wrong because it adds to the total amount of suffering in the world. This includes most animals. If it's also a creature who is intelligent and has a rich emotional life and is capable of great psychological stress, like practically all mammals and birds, then it is even more wrong.
 

Hitokiri_Gensai

New member
Jul 17, 2010
727
0
0
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.
 

pppppppppppppppppp

New member
Jun 23, 2011
1,519
0
0
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?
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?