Animal cruelty vs Murder?

[Magrus]

I've just read Vicsun's posting of his new thread of the news about some kids beating ducklings to death. The kids will be faced with animal cruelty if caught. Yay? Shouldn't it be murder? As was discussed in a thread recently between myself and Lestat, as a noun, murder is defined as unlawful killing. It is illegal to simply kill ducks randomly, so why is it not murder, just simple cruelty to animals?

Does murder not go above and beyond cruelty in the US? By that same token, as humans are animals, why should I not get off with beating some random old lady to death at a park with just a charge of animal cruelty then?

[ellipsis jones]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magrus as a noun, murder is defined as unlawful killing of one human being by another

Fixed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magrus By that same token, as humans are animals, why should I not get off with beating some random old lady to death at a park with just a charge of animal cruelty then?

Because humans are a subset of animals who enjoy greater rights and protection under the law.

It's that old logical fallacy - all cats have four legs; my dog has four legs; therefore, my dog is a cat. All humans are animals, and killing an animal is animal cruelty, but killing a person is something more than mere cruelty, because humans and animals are not identical categories any more than 'four-legged creatures' and 'cats' are.

[Magrus]

Well, you seem new to SYM. Welcome.

*grunts* I don't like that definition, it's discriminatory. Which, is the basis of this thread I suppose. Random, wanton killing is just that, regardless of species. At least in my opinion. Those ducks weren't in someone's home, taking their food, or attacking someone. They were simply in a place, and were summarily attacked and killed.

[Chimaera182]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ellipsis jones Fixed. Because humans are a subset of animals who enjoy greater rights and protection under the law. It's that old logical fallacy - all cats have four legs; my dog has four legs; therefore, my dog is a cat. All humans are animals, and killing an animal is animal cruelty, but killing a person is something more than mere cruelty, because humans and animals are not identical categories any more than 'four-legged creatures' and 'cats' are.

One shouldn't go fixing other people's definitions without at least quoting a dictionary source. I consulted two dictionaries on "murder," and both put human in paranthesis, which implies it is not necessary to consider murder only limited to humans. And both my American Heritage and Oxford American Dictionaries say the same thing, with human only included in paranthesis because it's not necessary to consider it murder only among humans.

dictionary.com:

v. mur·dered, mur·der·ing, mur·ders
v. tr.
To kill (another human) unlawfully.
To kill brutally or inhumanly.
To put an end to; destroy: murdered their chances.
To spoil by ineptness; mutilate: a speech that murdered the English language.
Slang. To defeat decisively; trounce.

Ducklings are also a subset of animals, and the only reason they don't enjoy greater rights and protection under the law is because they are human laws with mostly human interests in mind. No one cared about the possibility of random duckling beatings to be included in the laws of a country.

As for your four-legged arguement, it doesn't track. That kind of classification may work for physical classification, but we're talking about something that's not physical. We're talking about morals, people's thoughts on the subject, and that can never be compared to a physical entity. So instead of thinking of comparing humans to other, harshly-imposed, so-called lesser lifeforms, you should wonder why it is you think the murder of baby ducklings, who will never know a life in this world due to the gross conduct of humans you're so willing to side with, is somehow lesser than killing a person, who will never know a life in this world, either.

[Greg.]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magrus *grunts* I don't like that definition, it's discriminatory. Which, is the basis of this thread I suppose. Random, wanton killing is just that, regardless of species. At least in my opinion. Those ducks weren't in someone's home, taking their food, or attacking someone. They were simply in a place, and were summarily attacked and killed.

Should it be changed to sentient species? Although whether dolphins/chimpanzees/George Bush can be considered sentient is another matter.

[dragon wench]

Sure it's a double standard... and it is directly related to the Judeo-Christian notion of human supremacy over the whole of the natural world.

In general, I agree with your stance Mag....

But let me place you in a hypothetical situation for a moment...
Assume that a close friend or relative is ill with a terminal disease... Then along comes a treatment that could potentially save them.. Problem is... it has been tested on animals..

What would you do?

I ask this because my views were once very close to your own on this subject. Then my mother was diagnosed with terminal cancer... It made me revise my thoughts a little....

btw, I know this is somewhat different from the original topic.. but I do think it is worth raising... Hope you are okay with that

[Chimaera182]

The experimentation on animals and the brutal killing of animals are two different things. After all, PETA members rebuke such animal testing but they certainly don't balk at basking in the benefits of such.

In your situation, dw, you're talking about the testing on animals in order to cure or alleviate the suffering of a victim. In Magrus' example, taken from Vicsun, we're talking about the beating to death of helpless animals just for the sheer enjoyment of it. As you say, it is different from what was raised, and though it is an issue worth debating--and has been repeatedly--it's not exactly close enough to this issue.

[Vicsun]

I agree with ellipsis here - Chim quoted dictionary.com very selectively to support his argument . Here's the part he left out:

mur·der
n.
The unlawful killing of one human by another

I'd also assume that the parentheses in the definition he quoted mean that human is implied. Not that I think arguing semantics has any point whatsoever - what difference does it make if we have a different word for the slaughter of humans than for the slaughter of animals? If anything it's further underlining the fact that humans put more worth on their own species than other species, which is completely understandable - I can't remember the last time I saw a lion care about hyena. In that respect humans are nicer than most animals in the fact that we do grant them some privileges.

I do fail to see the point in the original question though. Are you suggesting that we try people with the same severity for the murder of ducklings as we do for humans, or are you just arguing semantics?

edit:

Quote:

don't like that definition, it's discriminatory. Which, is the basis of this thread I suppose. Random, wanton killing is just that, regardless of species. At least in my opinion. Those ducks weren't in someone's home, taking their food, or attacking someone. They were simply in a place, and were summarily attacked and killed.

I don't think you "get" laws
Laws, for the most part, aren't created to punish evil and reward good*. They are created by humans for humans as a means to an end, where the end is a happy and orderly society (as opposed to some sort of universal justice). A murder disrtupts society a lot more than the random smashing of a duckling's skull, however despicable the latter may be. As such, society naturally imposes a higher penalty. The only reason we have animal cruelty laws, at all, is because animal cruelty offends people's sensibilities and is as such disruptful to society.

Despite popular opinion, justice isn't some divine, untouchable concept and laws are little more than lubrication in the cogs of society. I'm also tired and probably rambling.

*And thank God for that. Seeing as how good and evil are arbitrarily defined lately, I can't think that any law which embraces ethics as opposed to practicality is a good law.

[Chimaera182]

I quoted murder the verb rather than murder the noun, since it is an act we are talking about, not an idea.

[Magrus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dragon wench Sure it's a double standard... and it is directly related to the Judeo-Christian notion of human supremacy over the whole of the natural world. In general, I agree with your stance Mag.... But let me place you in a hypothetical situation for a moment... Assume that a close friend or relative is ill with a terminal disease... Then along comes a treatment that could potentially save them.. Problem is... it has been tested on animals.. What would you do? I ask this because my views were once very close to your own on this subject. Then my mother was diagnosed with terminal cancer... It made me revise my thoughts a little.... btw, I know this is somewhat different from the original topic.. but I do think it is worth raising... Hope you are okay with that

Hmm, if my mother were diagnosed with terminal cancer, and the cure required the pain of other animals to cure her? I would let her die. Death isn't something I have ever been afraid of, I have been very comfortable with it since I was 4 years old.

Now, since we are going to into hypothetical situations? If some random animal were to be the way for me to get Cassie back? That would be a tough toss-up for me. If some random human were to be the only way for me to get her back? I'd put the bullet in that persons skull myself, no second thoughts. I have less respect for humans than any other species on the planet. I know how that girl thought, and she would be pissed if some bird were killed in order to get her back. A person? She wouldn't care.

What has always bothered me with what you have mentioned is the why of things being tested on animals. Yes, people babble about rats and such being close in DNA structure to humans. Who cares? Human A compared to Human B may react completely differently to certain chemical combinations, why go outside the species to test things in that instance? I am a perfect example of this. By all thoughts of the scientific community I dealt with, I should not be alive at the moment. A doctor poisoned me, and I should have died a long time ago from it. I survived.

I am of the firm view anything which is tested, should be tested only on the species it is to be used on. Anything else is idiocy and cowardice. If you want a medicine to work on humans, test it on humans willing to be subjected to such tests. A human is not an ant, rat or ape. It is a human. It reacts different to things because of that. Injecting a rat with a substance meant for a human to see whether or not it suffers is just....discrimination, fear of the unknown, and cruelty in my personal opinion.

A scientist unsure of his work, deciding to test the end result on a subject, is basically taking a guess at what he/she has done, yes? Why does the scientist feel better subjecting a rat to an experimental concoction than a human? Does it make the doctor feel better to know a rat may die rather than a human from the substance he/she created? If so, does that make the scientist a "good person" for preserving human life? Even if the above-mentioned rat died a horrible, pain-filled death?

What makes the killing of 30 rats in terrible, pain-riddled ways better than killing 30 humans in an attempt to create a new medical cure, or eye-liner, or whatever you can come up with? Divine right? I've seen what that does to the human species. It breeds dissention, murder, rape, abuse, war. The though of "my god is better than yours, and hence, you aren't worth of living".

Or is it because humans cannot understand other species, and humans fear what they cannot understand? Does the fact humans are so insecure as to believe that other species they have subjegated by force, killed for conveniance, or view as pests make them reject all possibility that perhaps these other species may be capable of thought beyond which they are given credit for? That it is impossible they defy human logic and thought in how they operate, and even if they do not have large brains which work the same as humans, they may not have the ability to feel, love, think and act?

@ Chim, Wonderful response. If you were a chick I would SO be all over you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GregtheSleeper Should it be changed to sentient species? Although whether dolphins/chimpanzees/George Bush can be considered sentient is another matter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by www.dictionary.com sen·tient Pronunciation Key (snshnt, -sh-nt) adj. 1. Having sense perception; conscious: “The living knew themselves just sentient puppets on God's stage” (T.E. Lawrence). 2. Experiencing sensation or feeling.

By definition 2 of the above, yes. I think so. Which, would include a lot more than your "dolphins/chimps/etc", would it not? My kicking a cat will garner results similiar to me kicking you. Both will end up hurt, and upset.

*sighs* The rum may preclude me from making arguments which aren't going to be ripped apart later, but screw it, it's my day off, and I have a half day tomorrow. I have enough rum to make reality dissapear, and it's going to happen!

@ Vicsun, The former. Why not try those people for multiple murder charges for deliberately beating ducklings to death? Those ducklings obviously were young and unable to fly away, or protect themselves from the people that killed them. Why not try the persons responsible for murder? They killed those ducks in cold-blood, purposefully KILLING them. Not just kicking them and tormenting them.

[ellipsis jones]

What Vicsun said. Certainly, the verb 'murder' can be used to refer to any brutal killing. But the original post was discussing the crime of murder, which has a specific legal definition.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chimera182 As for your four-legged arguement, it doesn't track. That kind of classification may work for physical classification, but we're talking about something that's not physical. We're talking about morals, people's thoughts on the subject, and that can never be compared to a physical entity.

Actually, we're talking about epistemology - how we organize things into conceptual categories. Do you think that 'animals' and 'humans' are identical categories? Should animals share all the same rights as human beings? Since you equate the life experience of a duck with that of a human being, I'm guessing your answer is a big yes on both counts. Well, by all means, try to change the legal code in your area to reflect what you think is the rightful status of animals. I don't imagine you'll get much support, though, since you'd basically be telling people that there's no difference in value between their parents, and say, earthworms. I suppose we shouldn't keep dray animals either, because it's enslavement. And we mustn't harvest wool without a sheep's expressed consent - it would be theft.

Of course animals are lesser creatures. That doesn't mean we have no responsibilities toward them, and it doesn't mean we can treat them in whatever manner we like. It simply means that the life of a bird, while valuable, is not as valuable as that of a person. Squashing ducks is a serious crime, but not a crime of the same magnitude as murder.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chimera182 the murder of baby ducklings, who will never know a life in this world due to the gross conduct of humans you're so willing to side with

Let's leave the hysterical ad hominem out of this, shall we? I don't think it's necessary to accuse me of sympathizing with a duck-smashing psychopath.

[Vicsun]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magrus Vicsun, The former. Why not try those people for multiple murder charges for deliberately beating ducklings to death? Those ducklings obviously were young and unable to fly away, or protect themselves from the people that killed them. Why not try the persons responsible for murder? They killed those ducks in cold-blood, purposefully KILLING them. Not just kicking them and tormenting them.

Yeah, I got that after I read your second post more carefully. Read my edit and reply to it if you feel like it

[Magrus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ellipsis jones What Vicsun said. Certainly, the verb 'murder' can be used to refer to any brutal killing. But the original post was discussing the crime of murder, which has a specific legal definition.

Says whom? I started the thread, and Chim is right on track with it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ellipsis jones Actually, we're talking about epistemology - how we organize things into conceptual categories. Do you think that 'animals' and 'humans' are identical categories? Should animals share all the same rights as human beings? Since you equate the life experience of a duck with that of a human being, I'm guessing your answer is a big yes on both counts. Well, by all means, try to change the legal code in your area to reflect what you think is the rightful status of animals. I don't imagine you'll get much support, though, since you'd basically be telling people that there's no difference in value between their parents, and say, earthworms. I suppose we shouldn't keep dray animals either, because it's enslavement. And we mustn't harvest wool without a sheep's expressed consent - it would be theft.

*nods* Exactly. If someone shaved you, and sold it for a wig, would you not be pissed?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ellipsis jones Of course animals are lesser creatures. That doesn't mean we have no responsibilities toward them, and it doesn't mean we can treat them in whatever manner we like. It simply means that the life of a bird, while valuable, is not as valuable as that of a person. Squashing ducks is a serious crime, but not a crime of the same magnitude as murder.

Says whom? Did some higher power tell you this, or does it tumble around in your own brain? And in the same vein of thought, chances are that I could tear you apart limb from limb, which would make me physically superior to you. Which, would that also mean that I would have the right to do so, since you are stronger than a duck, and I am stronger than you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ellipsis jones Let's leave the hysterical ad hominem out of this, shall we? I don't think it's necessary to accuse me of sympathizing with a duck-smashing psychopath.

Hmm, I think that's a matter of opinion. You hold the same viewpoints as the duck-smashing psycopath, that ducks are clearly inferior beings and shouldn't be treated with the same type of respect or treatment as human beings, correct? Granted, I see no evidence of you running around clubbing baby seals to death, or the urge to do so. However, you still think they are nowhere near as good as humans, and it's no big deal that ducks got killed. Just the fact some person was demented enough to do so, and should have his behavior corrected so such disturbing actions don't crop up to bother you again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vicsun I don't think you "get" laws Laws, for the most part, aren't created to punish evil and reward good*. They are created by humans for humans as a means to an end, where the end is a happy and orderly society. A murder disrtupts society a lot more than the random smashing of a duckling's skull, however despicable the latter may be. As such, society naturally imposes a higher penalty. The only reason we have animal cruelty laws, at all, is because animal cruelty offends people's sensibilities and is as such disruptful to society. Despite popular opinion, justice isn't some divine, untouchable concept and laws are little more than lubrication in the cogs of society. I'm also tired and probably rambling. *And thank God for that. Seeing as how good and evil are arbitrarily defined lately, I can't think that any law which embraces ethics as opposed to practicality is a good law.

I *get* laws. The purpose behind them is as you say, which truly, thoroughly bothers me. They are not being used for what they are touted for. They are security blanket to help fearful humans cope with reality. Having a law which makes the killing of another human being makes the feel safer than not having it. Having a law which says the priority of killing a human over a duck makes them feel as if their safety is more important than the ducks. That doesn't make it right. Which is my problem. If someone is going to be in control of how the masses think, they should at least do a good job of it.

[Ravager]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magrus Now, since we are going to into hypothetical situations? If some random animal were to be the way for me to get Cassie back? That would be a tough toss-up for me. If some random human were to be the only way for me to get her back? I'd put the bullet in that persons skull myself, no second thoughts. I have less respect for humans than any other species on the planet. I know how that girl thought, and she would be pissed if some bird were killed in order to get her back. A person? She wouldn't care.

Neither of you would have any problems ending the life of some random innocent person who would probably who cared for them a similar amount as you would want Cassie back? That's just ridiculous, IMO.

[Vicsun]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magrus I *get* laws. The purpose behind them is as you say, which truly, thoroughly bothers me. They are not being used for what they are touted for. They are security blanket to help fearful humans cope with reality. Having a law which makes the killing of another human being makes the feel safer than not having it. Having a law which says the priority of killing a human over a duck makes them feel as if their safety is more important than the ducks. That doesn't make it right. Which is my problem. If someone is going to be in control of how the masses think, they should at least do a good job of it.

I think a human considering his own safety more important than a duck's is something that is too natural to be debatable. I think every species (humans included) considers its safety the number one priority, and wanting humans to be except from this is judging them by a higher standard which is discriminating and also what you had a problem with in the first place. There's a catch-22 somewhere in this argument