Animals can not be Murdered

[RetiredGySgt]

Sorry to burst any bubbles but you can kill an animal but you can not murder it. And the law will punish you if you do not have just cause to kill an animal but they will never charge you with murder.

 

[FactFinder]

...but those with the heart so cruel have a strong possiblity of taking that next step.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

...but those with the heart so cruel have a strong possiblity of taking that next step.

I agree. In fact a lot of killers get started by killing animals first. Doesn't change the fact you can NOT murder an animal.

 

[FactFinder]

I agree. Stiffen the penalties for heartless abuse but another step in the wrong direction would be to categorize the animal kingdom the same as the human one.

 

[Agnapostate]

As was mentioned in another thread, what is the morally relevant difference between killing a human fetus and killing an animal with similar capacities for basic sentience and self-awareness?

And no, answering "A fetus is human," is not a legitimate response. I'm challenging the premise that human life is inherently superior to animal life, instead positing that the moral value of life should be determined by specific organisms' capacity to suffer. The vast majority of humans would thus remain superior to animals in this regard.

 

[FactFinder]

As was mentioned in another thread, what is the morally relevant difference between killing a human fetus and killing an animal with similar capacities for basic sentience and self-awareness?

And no, answering "A fetus is human," is not a legitimate response. I'm challenging the premise that human life is inherently superior to animal life, instead positing that the moral value of life should be determined by specific organisms' capacity to suffer. The vast majority of humans would thus remain superior to animals in this regard.

One has human potential. Your argument could be extended to children.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

As was mentioned in another thread, what is the morally relevant difference between killing a human fetus and killing an animal with similar capacities for basic sentience and self-awareness?

And no, answering "A fetus is human," is not a legitimate response. I'm challenging the premise that human life is inherently superior to animal life, instead positing that the moral value of life should be determined by specific organisms' capacity to suffer. The vast majority of humans would thus remain superior to animals in this regard.

Humans ARE superior. And WE run the roost. Animals are USED by us. While I agree one can LOVE an animal, I have 3 dogs that are part of the family, they are NOT human.

Let me put it another way.... if we decide animals have human rights we will be unable to feed ourselves, make medical advances, create new sciences that require animal testing, etc etc etc.......

Declaring an animal can be murdered would be attributing to an animal the same rights as humans, which would mean the animals rights idiots would then have the foot hold to oppose killing animals for food, keeping pets, using animals in any experiment of any kind, claiming hitting an animal on the road was murder.... etc etc etc......

 

[FactFinder]

another of those slippery slopes that too many are eager to fall there on. I guess they have no perception of what awaits at the bottom.

 

[Diuretic]

Animals have rights if we say they do. We humans (this is not my cat typing this....although....) invented human rights, we can invent animal rights. We invented morality, we can extend it to wherever we wish. Granted some of those extensions might be a bit laughable but that's how rights work, we invented them, we get to say who has them.

 

[FactFinder]

Since you have not proved the non existence of God, I'll stick with the God given rights. Thank you very much but fickle man can all too easily take them back.

 

[Diuretic]

Since you have not proved the non existence of God, I'll stick with the God given rights. Thank you very much but fickle man can all too easily take them back.

That makes no sense at all. Sorry to be so blunt. If you want to argue that our rights are God-given then first you need to prove God's existence.

Good luck with that but if you do manage it you might want to follow up with why the indifference?

Check what man has done here and so far God hasn't intervened:

Commodore Frank Bainimarama has been reappointed as prime minister 24 hours after the president of the volatile South Pacific state abrogated the constitution and assumed executive power.

Fiji military chief back as PM after Constitution overturned | smh.com.au

Our rights are a human invention. Good invention though.

 

[Agnapostate]

One has human potential.

That it is indeed the case, but this has no bearing on the fact that at the time of its death, an aborted fetus has not reached its potential. We can similarly recognize that the acorn is not morally equivalent to the oak tree, or more pertinently, that the egg is not morally equivalent to the chicken. Suppose that an egg (and yes, I'm aware that most humans do not consume fertilized eggs), were to be dropped into a pot of boiling water. We would accurately recognize that this act is not morally equivalent to dropping a chicken into a pot of boiling water because the increased sensory capacities of the chicken endow it with a greater capacity to suffer from being dropped into the pot of boiling water than the egg, despite the fact that the egg is a "potential chicken."

Similarly, at the time of its death, an aborted fetus is not a self-aware being and does not possess the capacity to suffer from its own death, since it cannot conceptualize its own death. This is fundamentally different from the death of a normal human, who possesses an awareness of his or her own existence, and accordingly, has formed preferences and interests about the future. So as with the analogy involving the chicken and the egg, though a fetus might be a "potential person," that is irrelevant to the suffering it endures at the actual point of its death because it is not yet endowed with the capacities to suffer from death in the same manner as a normal human.

Your argument could be extended to children.

By this, I assume you mean infants and very young toddlers. There is a crucial distinction between nonviable fetuses and infants, namely that of extrinsic moral value. For instance, whilst a fetus killed by an abortion is presumably unwanted by its mother, a healthy infant is presumably wanted and its mother and extended family would suffer from its death. (Before you ask about a father's desire for a fetus to live whilst inside the mother, her moral desires are more pertinent than his so long as the fetus relies on her body to survive.) Similarly, a healthy infant can be adopted by others, and no purpose can be served by killing a healthy infant, since it can simply be given to another if its mother does not want it. This cannot be done with a nonviable fetus.

Humans ARE superior. And WE run the roost. Animals are USED by us. While I agree one can LOVE an animal, I have 3 dogs that are part of the family, they are NOT human.

Let me put it another way.... if we decide animals have human rights we will be unable to feed ourselves, make medical advances, create new sciences that require animal testing, etc etc etc.......

Declaring an animal can be murdered would be attributing to an animal the same rights as humans, which would mean the animals rights idiots would then have the foot hold to oppose killing animals for food, keeping pets, using animals in any experiment of any kind, claiming hitting an animal on the road was murder.... etc etc etc......

I did not claim that animals should have rights equivalent to those of normal humans. I claimed that rights and moral value should be determined by organisms' level of basic sentience, self-awareness, and other capacities to feel pain and suffer. Hence, I would not claim that animals were morally equivalent to normal humans. I would, however, claim that certain animals (other great apes being the most obvious example), are morally superior to certain types of humans, such as fetuses, and for that matter, infants. Moreover, if you have no objection to animal experimentation, shouldn't you similarly lack an objection to embryonic stem cell research, or even the use of fetuses and infants for the use of such experimental or medical research? Or why not eat babies, for that matter? Can you maintain a consistent moral objection to that?

another of those slippery slopes that too many are eager to fall there on. I guess they have no perception of what awaits at the bottom.

Are you under the impression that we stand on solid ground as it is? I can assure you that we most certainly don't.

 

[Agnapostate]

Since you have not proved the non existence of God, I'll stick with the God given rights. Thank you very much but fickle man can all too easily take them back.

This is a logical fallacy known as the argumentum ad ignorantiam, or the "appeal to ignorance," the specific form in which you use it being a claim that a premise is true simply because it has not been proven false. More than that, I would posit that the burden of proof lies upon those who wish to assert the existence of an omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent entity rather than those who wish to deny it. Reference to Bertrand Russell's teapot analogy is appropriate here.

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

Such a failure on the part of theists to accept a burden of proof was the origin of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, of course.

 

[FactFinder]

One has human potential.

That it is indeed the case, but this has no bearing on the fact that at the time of its death, an aborted fetus has not reached its potential. We can similarly recognize that the acorn is not morally equivalent to the oak tree, or more pertinently, that the egg is not morally equivalent to the chicken. Suppose that an egg (and yes, I'm aware that most humans do not consume fertilized eggs), were to be dropped into a pot of boiling water. We would accurately recognize that this act is not morally equivalent to dropping a chicken into a pot of boiling water because the increased sensory capacities of the chicken endow it with a greater capacity to suffer from being dropped into the pot of boiling water than the egg, despite the fact that the egg is a "potential chicken."

Similarly, at the time of its death, an aborted fetus is not a self-aware being and does not possess the capacity to suffer from its own death, since it cannot conceptualize its own death. This is fundamentally different from the death of a normal human, who possesses an awareness of his or her own existence, and accordingly, has formed preferences and interests about the future. So as with the analogy involving the chicken and the egg, though a fetus might be a "potential person," that is irrelevant to the suffering it endures at the actual point of its death because it is not yet endowed with the capacities to suffer from death in the same manner as a normal human.

Your argument could be extended to children.

By this, I assume you mean infants and very young toddlers. There is a crucial distinction between nonviable fetuses and infants, namely that of extrinsic moral value. For instance, whilst a fetus killed by an abortion is presumably unwanted by its mother, a healthy infant is presumably wanted and its mother and extended family would suffer from its death. (Before you ask about a father's desire for a fetus to live whilst inside the mother, her moral desires are more pertinent than his so long as the fetus relies on her body to survive.) Similarly, a healthy infant can be adopted by others, and no purpose can be served by killing a healthy infant, since it can simply be given to another if its mother does not want it. This cannot be done with a nonviable fetus.

Humans ARE superior. And WE run the roost. Animals are USED by us. While I agree one can LOVE an animal, I have 3 dogs that are part of the family, they are NOT human.

Let me put it another way.... if we decide animals have human rights we will be unable to feed ourselves, make medical advances, create new sciences that require animal testing, etc etc etc.......

Declaring an animal can be murdered would be attributing to an animal the same rights as humans, which would mean the animals rights idiots would then have the foot hold to oppose killing animals for food, keeping pets, using animals in any experiment of any kind, claiming hitting an animal on the road was murder.... etc etc etc......

I did not claim that animals should have rights equivalent to those of normal humans. I claimed that rights and moral value should be determined by organisms' level of basic sentience, self-awareness, and other capacities to feel pain and suffer. Hence, I would not claim that animals were morally equivalent to normal humans. I would, however, claim that certain animals (other great apes being the most obvious example), are morally superior to certain types of humans, such as fetuses, and for that matter, infants. Moreover, if you have no objection to animal experimentation, shouldn't you similarly lack an objection to embryonic stem cell research, or even the use of fetuses and infants for the use of such experimental or medical research? Or why not eat babies, for that matter? Can you maintain a consistent moral objection to that?

another of those slippery slopes that too many are eager to fall there on. I guess they have no perception of what awaits at the bottom.

Are you under the impression that we stand on solid ground as it is? I can assure you that we most certainly don't.

Since you stubbornly refuse to recognize the fetus as a viable being with human potential, you certainly will not recognize that not only the father's rights but the rights of the fetus are being violated. I would rate the fetuses rights as greater than the mother as they are the weaker vessel and in greater need of support. Your argument supports self will gone riot and demonizing the fetus as worthless.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Murder or not, you kill my dog and you are one dead motherfucker.

 

[Agnapostate]

Since you stubbornly refuse to recognize the fetus as a vialb ebeing with human potential, you certainly will not recognize that not only the father's rights but the rights of the fetus are being violated. I would rate their rights as greater than the mother as they are the weaker vessel and in greater need of support. Your argument supports self will gone riot and demonizing the fetus as worthless.

In what manner does a fetus deserve such protection that an animal at a similar level of awareness does not, since such an animal would be a similarly "weaker vessel"? As to the father's rights, his preferences are merely extrinsic and do not address the intrinsic moral value of a fetus. Similarly, if an old spinster (I'm sorry for the stereotype), were to value her cats more than her neighbors, that would obviously not endow her cats with greater moral value than her neighbors. Conversely, the mother is a self-aware and rational being capable of forming preferences and interests about the future and suffering from their inhibition. The fetus, by contrast, lacks these traits of personhood and is thus incapable of forming such preferences. Hence, it would constitute a utility minimization for the preferences of the mother to be violated in preventing her from having an abortion, since the fetus is not capable of forming such preferences, and thus cannot appreciate a utility maximization.

 

[Diuretic]

I think a foetus has human potential. It jusn't hasn't got any human rights because it's a foetus and not a human post-partum.

If you want to argue that a foetus has human rights then I'm going to start a campaign for human rights for sperm (sexist pig I am).

No, I won't post another Monty Python YouTube clip

 

[editec]

Sorry to burst any bubbles but you can kill an animal but you can not murder it. And the law will punish you if you do not have just cause to kill an animal but they will never charge you with murder.

No bubbles burst.

Until somebody shoots MY dog, of course.

It won't matter, in that case, what THEY call it.

What I call it will matter tremendously, however.

 

[FactFinder]

Since you stubbornly refuse to recognize the fetus as a vialb ebeing with human potential, you certainly will not recognize that not only the father's rights but the rights of the fetus are being violated. I would rate their rights as greater than the mother as they are the weaker vessel and in greater need of support. Your argument supports self will gone riot and demonizing the fetus as worthless.

In what manner does a fetus deserve such protection that an animal at a similar level of awareness does not, since such an animal would be a similarly "weaker vessel"? As to the father's rights, his preferences are merely extrinsic and do not address the intrinsic moral value of a fetus. Similarly, if an old spinster (I'm sorry for the stereotype), were to value her cats more than her neighbors, that would obviously not endow her cats with greater moral value than her neighbors. Conversely, the mother is a self-aware and rational being capable of forming preferences and interests about the future and suffering from their inhibition. The fetus, by contrast, lacks these traits of personhood and is thus incapable of forming such preferences. Hence, it would constitute a utility minimization for the preferences of the mother to be violated in preventing her from having an abortion, since the fetus is not capable of forming such preferences, and thus cannot appreciate a utility maximization.

The problem with your argument is you have no kowledge what the fetus has or has not. Your demonization and characterization is based on conjecture and the common consensus of the abortion crowd.

 

[Agnapostate]

The problem with your argument is you have no kowledge what the fetus has or has not. Your demonization and characterization is based on conjecture and the common consensus of the abortion crowd.

Since even a live infant lacks traits of personhood (basic sentience, self-awareness, rationality, and other capacities to suffer), it's obviously reasonable to infer that a fetus lacks such traits also. The only pertinent criterion of suffering that must be considered in the case of aborting a fetus is that of physical pain, which would be an argument against saline abortions, for instance.