Consider this phrase: "killing people is wrong".

From a purely sociological standpoint it is correct - no society could remain stable for long if people were allowed to kill each other without being reprimanded.

However, does the phrase hold true when applied to those who are either outside or against the society?

Nations have been at each other's throats long before history began, and for some reason no one ever questions the logic behind the fact that killing an enemy soldier is considered an act of "heroism".
Most nations still employ the practice of "capital punishment" - is that also exempt from being a "sin"?

The "laws" and "morals" are there, but I do not see anyone in power actually following them. In fact, it appears that the only people who even care about the notion of "human rights" are the same secular, forward thinking individuals who suspect humans to be nothing more than soulless mammals with no free will.

Though if that's the case, then wouldn't it be logical to assume that a human life has no more value than that of a chicken or a horse? And that the actions of dictators in the third world are no worse than those of KFC and its animal factories?

So, answer me. Morally speaking, why is killing people "wrong"? And does a notion of "human rights" have any sense whatsoever, or is it just one of those shiny phrases used to gain votes at an election or to justify another war?

What do you mean by "soul"? Is it related to free will? Does that imply that animals are not free but people are?

Killing people is wrong as a simple consequence of the Golden Rule. I would not like to be killed unnecessarily, so it is wrong for me to kill unnecessarily. That's the fundamental basis of ethics.

Changing the viewpoint from one person to another essentially changes nothing. We are all the same, essentially.

Do you eat meat? I would argue that that is killing unnecessarily. Furthermore, by what evidence is the Golden Rule right? Note also that the Golden Rule comes from the Bible. You may want to change what you call this principle to better avoid dogma

When I said "soul" in my OP I implied the kind of "soul" that Christians believe in and atheists deny. I have yet to meet an atheist who would disbelief in the existence of God, but would believe that we have a soul.


That implies that there IS no difference between "animal" and "human". If you consider animals to be not free, then doesn't that imply that humans aren't free as well? If you consider that we have a right to enslave and kill animals, then why do you believe that we don't have a right to do the same with humans?


No we aren't.
If I recall properly, genetic code for humans varies up to 3% for each individual.

I thought we shares 99.9% of our DNA? I believe other primates have genetic variation closer to that range, but those species are much older. But to be fair, I believe we share half of our DNA with a banana, so you can see the huge variation in life even with vast similarities in coding.

"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets."

Mathew 7:12, but Confucius beat him to it by 500 years.

Whether it is 3 or .1 - that is still a lot. In genetics a small difference is a huge difference on the individual.

The still doesn't answer the real question. By what evidence is the Golden Rule right (other than your own intuition)?

Well, I thought I had addressed that. The solution lies in the identity theorem. If two things can't be distinguished, then they are the same. Harming another is actually harming one's self.

Certainly, one person is not another in the sense of location and material of the body, but essentially (what some might call soul), we are the same. The essence of pain for me is the essence of pain for you. People without empathy have been known to disagree with this assertion.

Shouldn't this then apply to animals as well, as they feel pain that you can clearly see?

Yes, it does apply. One should never cause suffering in an animal without a good reason. For feeding people, animals should be killed painlessly.

I sometimes ask my vegetarian friends if they think it would be OK to eat animals that eat people such as alligators and sharks.

"Do not do unto others what you do not wish to be done unto you "

Yes, when Confucius originated the Golden Rule, he phrased it in the negative. Mathew's version seems to be inverted to the positive.

Rick, I see You love chess... Do You know The Law of Asha -- Chess as the Law of Asha ?

Wouldn't it be undue suffering to kill animals period if you live in the United States then, as there are plenty of alternatives?

Being a vegan myself, I would say no, it would not be ok to eat such animals. We have the capacity to eat plants, a shark does not; what's more, we also have the ability to reason, and thus the ability to create right and wrong--based on your standard of right (which I happen to share) it is never justifiable to kill any animal that is known to feel pain.

Human life is more valuable than an animal's because we make the rules. Untill proven differently, we are the highest expression of life; and probably the first species on earth with the power to terminate it. The golden rule comes in very handy for us to move around safely within our social structures; but the rules seem to change when the interest of entire groups of people are at stake. And although the golden rule seems murky to some, depending on the circumstances, history has proved it to be a fundamental rule of thumb. The extent to which we deviate from this rule as a group of peope (for example as a nation) depends on the interest of the elite. Those with the power to sway society in whichever direction. They decide when killing humans is morally right; and find ways to get away with it. History usually comes in too late to catch up to these criminals. A good example of this is the present situation in Irak and the blatant usurpatory nature of our precense there.
Personally I don't think that killing another human being is justifiable, unless in self-defense. Even in extreme cases. Otherwise, somebody explain to me how can killing Usama Bin Laden for example, can cause him one minimal percentage of the suffering that he has caused to so many. He'd be laughing all the way to the gallows.

But suppose you could assure the animal a completely painless death? Then it would only be wrong to kill animals that know they are going to die at your hand.

I'm more concerned about the keeping of animals in such a way that they suffer in life. What would happen if we suddenly freed all cattle, chickens, etc. on farms?

I've never understood the standpoint of the extreme animal right activists. I am against cruelty to animals period, even for scientific gain (unless strictly regulated by a moral authority). But to say that to kill an animal is wrong, even when humanely done, is such a stretch; in MHO. Sometimes, and especially when it comes to earth's resources, good intentions can be just as harmful as bad ones; and extreme conservationists can be just as dangerous as poachers (not to be confused with hunters):

http://www.dnr.state.md.us/centennial/Hunt...onservation.asp


http://www.africanhuntingsafaris.net/ethical-hunting.html

I am not familiar with the Law of Asha. Please tell me what it is. "Pawn to king four and white wins by force" --Bobby Fisher.

Killing people is only wrong to people. Nature itself does not care.