Animal cruelty vs Murder?

Magrus · Post by **Magrus** » Sun May 28, 2006 12:55 pm

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 · Post by **ellipsis jones** » Sun May 28, 2006 1:14 pm

[QUOTE=Magrus]as a noun, murder is defined as unlawful killing of one human being by another[/QUOTE]

Fixed.

[QUOTE=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?[/QUOTE]

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 · Post by **Magrus** » Sun May 28, 2006 2:20 pm

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 · Post by **Chimaera182** » Sun May 28, 2006 2:29 pm

[QUOTE=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.[/QUOTE]
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. · Post by **Greg.** » Sun May 28, 2006 2:30 pm

[QUOTE=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.[/QUOTE]

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

dragon wench · Post by **dragon wench** » Sun May 28, 2006 2:44 pm

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 · Post by **Chimaera182** » Sun May 28, 2006 3:05 pm

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 · Post by **Vicsun** » Sun May 28, 2006 3:16 pm

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:

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 · Post by **Chimaera182** » Sun May 28, 2006 3:25 pm

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

Magrus · Post by **Magrus** » Sun May 28, 2006 3:25 pm

[QUOTE=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

[/QUOTE]

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. :laugh:

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

[QUOTE=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.[/QUOTE]

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 · Post by **ellipsis jones** » Sun May 28, 2006 3:29 pm

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=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.[/QUOTE]

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=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
[/QUOTE]

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 · Post by **Vicsun** » Sun May 28, 2006 3:35 pm

[QUOTE=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.[/QUOTE]
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 · Post by **Magrus** » Sun May 28, 2006 3:36 pm

[QUOTE=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]

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

[QUOTE=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.[/QUOTE]

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

[QUOTE=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.[/QUOTE]

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=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.[/QUOTE]

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=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.[/QUOTE]

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 · Post by **Ravager** » Sun May 28, 2006 3:43 pm

[QUOTE=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.[/QUOTE]
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 · Post by **Vicsun** » Sun May 28, 2006 3:47 pm

[QUOTE=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.[/QUOTE]
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

Magrus · Post by **Magrus** » Sun May 28, 2006 3:47 pm

[QUOTE=Ravager]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.[/QUOTE]

Why is it any more ridiculous than a human seeing nothing wrong with killing an ant that steps into their house and seeing something terribly wrong with a human being killed? I have been subjected time and again by human cruelty, my dreams shattered, the love of my life taken away from me by the same things. I have every reason to have less respect for the species I was born into than a cat, or a sparrow, or a dolphin. A cat isn't racist, a sparrow doesn't remove a species from the face of the earth because it threatens it's source of food. A dolphin doesn't randomly drown people who fall into water for it's own amusement. Humans do all of those things.

[QUOTE=Vicsun]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 [/QUOTE]

Not necessarily, it's my view that I respect what deserves respect, and others should too. For the reasons mentioned above in my response to Rav, I lack respect for the human species. Granted, every species has the urge to preserve it's own safety and to see to it they survive. However....other species do not go out of their way to torment another creature for simple amusement. They kill for food. That's it.

Have you ever actually paid attention to what other creatures do when they see a dead creature of the same species on the ground in front of it? Ants, flies, etc, they all poke, prod, inspect the dead creature. Just because they don't speak English, Spanish, Chinese, whatever language you speak, doesn't mean they aren't trying to communicate with the dead creature. They react, and none of us are sure of how far that goes. No one has the ability to do so. Shrugging it off as "they aren't capable of doing as we are" is just ridiculous in my honest opinion. Just because we, as a species, are not capable of understanding what a fly is saying, does not mean it is incapable of communication.

Ravager · Post by **Ravager** » Sun May 28, 2006 3:50 pm

Just because you know many bad people that doesn't mean you should assume the whole species is the same.

Just as if there are the occasional predators that end up hunting for sport. Do you then use that as evidence to say that whole species hunts for sport?

Magrus · Post by **Magrus** » Sun May 28, 2006 3:55 pm

[QUOTE=Ravager]Just because you know many bad people that doesn't mean you should assume the whole species is the same.

Just as if there are the occasional predators that end up hunting for sport. Do you then use that as evidence to say that whole species hunts for sport?[/QUOTE]

You may disagree with this, but hunting for sport is completely different than randomly beating something to death for personal amusement. Predators who hunt for sport do so to keep in shape, to practice the skills they need to stay alive. That is an entirely different thing than random people beating something to death for amusement. People practice the trades they need to survive in order to stay good at them, animals do as well. They don't simply purchase food at a store, they have to hunt for it. Failure means they go hungry. Going hungry means they lack the energy they need to continue hunting. Successive failures means it becomes harder and harder to hunt. That means death.

Code: Select all

Ravager · Post by **Ravager** » Sun May 28, 2006 3:58 pm

My point is creatures like crocodiles and lions that learn to hunt for sport rather than survival. This does happen, just like humans can learn or be born into rascist or situations that encourage cruelty. Do you then judge an entire species on the acts of one such creature, even if the rest of that species was usually good and placid, just because you haven't had that experience?
Animals hunting for sport is the equivalent of some human randomly beating another for personal amusement.

Magrus · Post by **Magrus** » Sun May 28, 2006 4:07 pm

[QUOTE=Ravager]My point is creatures like crocodiles and lions that learn to hunt for sport rather than survival. This does happen, just like humans can learn or be born into rascist or situations that encourage cruelty. Do you then judge an entire species on the acts of one such creature, even if the rest of that species was usually good and placid, just because you haven't had that experience?
Animals hunting for sport is the equivalent of some human randomly beating another for personal amusement.[/QUOTE]

I don't see it that way. Sure, animals, and people can be trained to be cruel, or racist as in the human sense. Cassie, and my best friend Rachel were taught to be racist by their parents from a very young age. That isn't their fault, and they both got over it when other options were presented to them and they saw it wasn't right to think in such a way.

Hunting, in the traditional sense of the word, it stalking, and slaying a creature. You aim and shoot to kill. Not to torment. Killing an animal the most effective way you can, is what hunting is. That is completely different than random person clubbing a helpless creature to death. A hunter attempts to kill in one shot, a brutal beating includes many attacks. Animals can be trained to hunt, yes. By whom? PEOPLE.

Animals will hunt on their own if they are a predator, yes. This includes such reasons as a creature which is seen as a threat to their food source or shelter, being in need of food, and to keep their hunting skills sharp.

I watched cats attempt to play with flies, spiders etc. Cats are rumored to be cruel and mean. These cats, both my first cat, and Buddy, my last cat simply chased them around and jumped after them. They were careful not to seriously injure or harm the insects. They viewed it as a game. Just as when a dog chases a stick, or a person. They tend to bring the person down, and then leave it alone, unless the person is viewed as a threat to their domain.