Do you define murder as the unnecessary killing of any being human or otherwise?

Question

I know some people will be tempted to get out a dictionary but I ask this in the platonic absolute metaphysical context as I believe even ethics to have an objective value even if often the various situations makes ethics complicated to comprehend.

The reasons I 'm asking this in the vegetarian and vegan section is if my understanding of what murder is correct then it has implications for all peoples who have options to survive without meat but still chose to still do so. These people are under ethical obligation to stop doing so and live a more compassionate mindful existence. I write this without judgment as often "we know not what we do" before seeing the light so to speak.

"A human can be healthy without killing animals for food. Therefore if he eats meat he participates in taking animal life merely for the sake of his appetite." ~Leo Tolstoy~

Answer 1

if my relative is dead- murdered or faced an accident or whatever- but i'll lament over it. Let that relative be nothing for me but ask his value from his kids , his wife, his parents or frnds.

We have seen kittens playing, chickens fighting, animals mating etc--- even we get attatched to the pets n weep when we loose them, when a dog is taken away frm his 2 yr old master n then brought back to him after a month, it stops staying away frm master in fear of loosing him again. So who says animals dont attach to humans or fellow animals... n we kill them n hurt their relations ...

Enough said. Now its on u all ...

live n let live is my motto... cant say what u all live for

Answer 2

Although a carnivore, I will state that my brother, who is one of the world's greatest all time red meat lovers, went on a tour of the now defunct Chicago Stockyards, many years ago, and when he finished the tour, he did not touch meat for 5 years. Also, after I read The Jungle by Upton  Sinclair, I avoided meat and chicken for a long time. Sinclair, a Socialist, said of his book:"I aimed at America's heart and hit it in the stomach."

His purpose in writing the book was to expose the tremendous disparity between the classes, but it was the conditions he described while gathering his undercover research in the stockyards that shocked the entire country right down to the President of the USA, Teddy Roosevelt, who was so appalled at what he read he immediately put into effect the Pure Food and Drug Act.

One line from the book:

"Mary had a little lamb

And when she saw it sicken--

She shipped it off to Packingtown

And now it's labeled chicken."

If you read the book today it is still as powerful as it was then, and as horrifying.

As to murder, yes, it would have to fall under that catoegory.

Answer 3

No. I consider murder intentional killing with malice aforethought. That is, you plan ahead and your intention is to harm. If someone eats meat, they kill animals with the intention of eating them. In some cases, this is survival, in other cases, this is preference. They are killing not with the intention of inflicting pain or destroying something (for pride, advancement, etc), but with the intention of using it. The killing is not motivated by anger, hatred, or any other emotion of passion. Intention is how I differentiate between different kinds of killing.

I would consider hunting for sport (if you don't use any of what you kill) and dog fighting both to be forms of murder, though some might disagree with me. (The killing is "entertainment." Gross.)

Your definition of murder is unfortunate, as it also makes you culpable even as a vegetarian. Ecosystems are destroyed by wheat and soy production. Take prairies for example. They have been severely depleted (which means that animals like buffalo are losing their habitat) to make way for farms. Granted, a huge percentage of the grain grown worldwide goes to feeding animals. That doesn't change the fact that by consuming these foods, you are supporting an industry that is unnecessarily killing animals by taking away their homes. "Grasslands" is a great book that talks about the environmental impact of farming.

Answer 4

the act of killing another human being with malicious intent.

Your understanding and interpretation is not supported by either historical precedent nor current legal standards. No court will even convict a human being of murder for killing an animal.

To assign human rights to animals contradicts the very definition of human itself and opens a Pandora's box of contradicting definitions and standards. For example, if animals are considered to have the same rights as  humans, can a human then marry his pet animal (the term pet itself will also be obsolete)? Rights are absolute and cannot be tailor made to fit a certain opinion of a specific cause oriented group only. So if they have rights equivalent to humans, then they should have ALL rights accorded to humans not just what suits the arguments of pro vegetarian/vegan societies or animal rights activists.

Answer 5

Aren't humans physically meant to eat meat? Why else would we have the type of teeth we do? Maybe animals should stop eating other animals then too. Maybe then we could have all the species populations out of proportion.

Answer 6

Murder is the unnecessary killing of another human by a human, by definition, regardless of your "carrot in front of the horse" leading away from that.

You see, if you wish to expand murder to encompass other forms of life, you have to include ALL forms of life. It is not your right to draw the line as to where the taking of "life" ceases to be murder in that scenario.

Answer 7

Oh, you're talking about that vegetarian c**p.  Listen, if I was starving I'd eat bugs and not complain.  I know some people in France who eat rabbits because it's what got them through the n**i occupation (rabbits don't make noise, so they weren't confiscated and eaten).  Guinea pigs are a vital source of protein in Peru and I could eat them.  I could eat horse, too.  That "murder" nonsense only shows how closed minded you are.

Answer 8

murder is murder

Answer 9

I have to admit the question has been on my mind many times. Ethically speaking  I'm completely opposed to consuming or using animal products. Both due to environmental ethic and my moral views about taking life. I believe we do not have the right to take the life of another sentient animal simply to satisfy our taste buds and our appetites. I also believe it's our moral responsibility to protect those more vulnerable than us.

I don't understand how people can pet their cat or dog with the same hand they use to eat their steak or pork. It is so contradictory and doesn't make logical sense. Why is it ok to eat a cow but love your dog? It's speciest and contradictory.

I refuse to eat meat because I have no moral right to eat meat. It's not my right to take the life of another living sentient being. I don't think we should take the life of another living creature especially when it is unnecessary. There are so many alternatives to killing, why should we resort to the cruelest course of action when there are so many other options, sans death, torture and pain.

Animals have the same desires and natural instincts as humans. They seek warmth, shelter, a mate, family, food, water, and to live a comfortable uninhibited life. We as humans seek the same basic principles. Why is it fair to inflict pain, suffering, restrictions, and death, all in the name of lunch, dinner, shoes or a coat? Just because we can't understand animals that doesn't mean they don't seek the same essential things in life.

Unfortunately the law reflects this deeply ingrained speciest approach through legislation. Killing is only legally considered murder when it's the life of a human we are referring to. We legislate against the rights of other beings just to conserve human interests.

For me killing any thing unnecessarily, to me, is fundamentally wrong. It's morally unjustifiable and I consider it murder, but that just my personal moral choice.

Answer 10

murder would only be for humans.wich is why i don't eat them nomatter how tasty they may be

Answer 11

if you hit a squirrel in your car it is unnecessary, yet I wouldn't quite call you a murderer.

Answer 12

not unnecessary but an intentional killing.

Answer 13

I'm eating a juicy red steak dripping with blood right now it's delicious. You sure you don't want any.

Answer 14

no