At what point does killing become immoral?
 

A recent discussion in one of my ethics courses discussed the various degrees at which taking the life of a creature becomes immoral. There were many diverse opinions, and a couple of extreme views, and I was just wondering what folk around here thought.

For instance

Eating a vegetable. You killed a plant. Is it immoral? I'd say no. (there was actually a guy in the class who said 'yes')

Mass deforestation? I'm against it. Not sure if I'd say its immoral, but I definitely think its a stupid idea.

Eating a hamburger. Immoral? I'd still say no.

Fishing? Again, I'd say no.

Killing a deer/moose (Canadian after all) for food? Still no. I get a kick out of people who say its okay to eat burgers but not okay to hunt. It makes it seem like its okay to slaughter and abuse cows on mass scale, but not okay to undergo a natural process of predator-prey.

Killing a deer/moose for sport? More likely to be immoral than for food.

Killing an animal for research purposes? Shady. If done properly, and with no choice, I'd say no. Best to be avoided if at all possible though. People can also take extreme views... to quote "If killing an animal could create a cure for AIDS, I'd still be against." (quoted from cofounder of PETA) I'd kill the animal in that case. It should also be done humanely.

Killing an animal for fun? I think its definitely immoral.

Killing a person for research purposes? If I think killing animals is shady, I'm against killing a person for research purposes.

Capital Punishment? I'm somewhat pro-capital punishment. I'm willing to reconsider this if people give me good enough reasons though. I think once you're a murderer, you've forfeited your own right to live.

Self-defense? Again, I'm okay with this. Kill or be killed? I'll go with kill.

Murder...? I'm sure most of us are against this.

Killing in war? Here's a biggie. Enemy soldiers fall under the same theory as self-defense. Civilians who can't defend themselves fall under my mind as murder.

The thing is, at what point does killing become acceptable? Are there clear lines we can draw? Are there absolutes about who and what should die and who and what shouldn't?

Just a simple response, I don't like people killing anything for fun. But killing has been around longer than humans. Even some animals kill for fun. Does it make it wrong because we (we as in the human race) recognize the entropy? We're able to intellectualize death and the intentions surrounding it and because of that does that give us a responsibility to draw a line in the sand? I don't know. I think that if there's a better solution to a problem, be it aids, hunger or warfare, that doesn't involve people killing, or it only involves a minimal amount, that that's the path to be followed.

What if the scientific community announced they could get rid of sight problems forever so that everyone would have 20/20 vision.

What if the Process to do this was to kill 1 person?
What if the Process to do this was to kill everyone who has sight problems?
Is the Second Process worse than the first?

(ok I know this example is unrealistic but still)

As far as I can remember (with our very Western point of view; this doesn't hold water in other nations) killing has 'ground rules' as to 'okay' and 'not okay.'

'Okay' is to kill animals for food, or sport.
'Not okay' is to kill human beings for either.

Murder in war is kind of vague, however, because it's intentions is not "this man is killing this man," it's "We're fighting for our nation, and we need to kill people who are doing the same thing." So it's not really something which inspires either malice or some sort of flippant disreguard for human life.

The rest become vague territories to the extreme. As far as scientific research on animals, I'm 100% for it. I'm not going too much into specifics, because that's not the real debate here, but I'm much happier if random mice or rabbits are killed - out of the thousands that the race of animals that exists, the individual is completely irrelevent. While the same could be said about humans, humans carry the 'higher level of thinking' and therefore it's inhumane.

So, yeah. There really is no "general point" when it becomes immoral, unless you want to count in "Whenever it doesn't benefit humans."

Which kind of goes with all of human history.

Since morality is subjective, so is the question.
However I'd have to agree with Mirai Gen.

Just because I love hamburgers and peperoni and other meat related foods.
And I don't like killing humans.

Sport killing is useless so there is no morality there, just stupidity.

But the real question is, if a man was going to kill your family, Is it moral to kill him first?
I'd have to say yes, but it would haunt me.

What if I decide to torture dogs and slit their throats open just because it gives me a jolly good time? I'm killing an animal for sport, but I find it hard to rationalize that as being "moral".

Of course the question is subjective. I asked for opinions. That makes it subjective in of itself. However I don't always believe morality is subjective... i.e. I believe there are moral absolutes but thats not the point of the topic.

Here's a perfect example. A man killing your family for the sake of killing them is absolutely wrong as far as I'm concern. Others have the right to think its subjective, but I also have the right to think they're wrong and that there are no cases where 1st-degree-no-excuse-murder is acceptable.

Here's another little toss-up for you though... what if the man who was going to kill your family was only a child as of yet? It comes to something like if you could go back and time and kill Hitler when he was only a 5 year old child, would you and would it be moral? At that point in time he wasn't an evil person, merely a child. What if the man was only going to hurt your family? Such as rape your wife or sister or daughter? Is killing him okay then? What if he was going to murder your dog and the only way you could stop him was to kill him? Is it okay there?

See now that is a tough one, because Killing Hitler wouldn't nessesarily stop the holucaust. If there was a gaurantee that 6 million + people would be saved, then that would be more moral, but if he is a child, who could kill a child? That is too difficult of a scenario. I'd have to kill him after he decided to go through with it.
If it was Stalin, You bet your ass I'd kill him, again gauranteed that 11+ million people would be saved.

The rape of my mother and sister is an easy question. I wouldn't kill him, I'd simply remove his penis.

The dog question is even easier. Bricks to the head are often not fatal.

Alright, my first decloration is this: I'm a Christian. The murder of another human being is in direct conflict of the Fifth Commandment.

I'm alright with killing other's in war, as long as they are trying to kill you, too. Civilians and captives should be kept safe.

As for the killing of animals and plants... as long as it's quick, and relatively painless. I'm not a hunter, so I don't hunt for sport or food, but I'm alright with the other guys. It's when you kill an animal, and you make it as painful a process as possible, that's when I get angry.

I've thought it over. Killing is wrong when you do it for no other reason than you can, or when the reasons behind it are immoral (such as killing a guy because he beat you in poker), but it's alright in self-defence (such as in war). Capitol punishment... I always like to think that everyone can be forgiven, but I know that isn't always the case.

Well that's because your brain automatically reacts to the "Killing for fun" instead of "Hunting down a creature for fun".

There's a difference. Hunting is treated as an outdoorsman-style love of the hunt and of isolation. Killing randomly for fun sounds more like insanity.

For the most part I agree with you. I've hunted and killed ducks, moose, and rabbits. I don't consider myself excessively evil. Only a little bit. My question is, though, where do you draw the line? At what point does it go for the love of the hunt to complete narcissism and insanity?

I draw the line when it becomes more about the joy of killing something than for food or to express the natural male instinct to hunt. You sound similar, but do you think its a line, or is it a shady grey area?

Again... I'd agree with you, but I did mention that killing the guy was the only alternative to letting him do the bad things. I'm saying, at what point is it okay to kill? A lot of people say when there is a net benefit from killing versus a net loss from not killing, but I think thats an extremely slippery slope and can be used to rationalize acts of wanton murder. So is there a definite point at which killing is okay, or is there not?

It's a very tricky question, and I don't think we as people can always grasp all the consequences of such a major decision.

Again, you'll get total agreement from me. I'm also a Christian. However the argument 'Because the Bible says so' doesn't hold up well in the modern world, and I try to avoid using that when I can. Most of the biblical laws have perfectly rational reasons for them, so use the reasons for the law instead of the law itself. Also in terms of this forum, that argument is not considered a wise (or valid) one to use.

Thus said, can you rationalize why you believe things are right versus wrong, or at what point something goes from being right to wrong, without relying on faith? Most of us, Christian or not, will agree that murder is wrong. But there's lots of grey areas. Like TheSpacePope said, what if you knew the man was about to kill your parents, your spouse, your children? "Murder" is still wrong, but would killing that man be immoral or not?