School year calendars

[Scott5114]

I do see people wanting to eliminate an unwanted wildlife all the time... So what is the fundamental difference between a groundhog or chipmunk damaging your driveway and a neighbor flooding your basement?

Because one of them is a fellow human being, and the other two are animals.  I figured that fundamental difference was obvious.  If you don't see a moral difference between killing an animal and killing another person, then your moral compass is off.

I don't think either one is generally okay. It's just that you'll probably come across more situations in which killing an animal will be justified (food, self defense/safety) than you will a human.

Or to put it another way, I don't think it's morally okay to go out to a rural area and kill all the field mice just to kill mice. But if mice try to move into my house, they could cause a safety problem by damaging the house or spreading disease, so it's justifiable to try to kill them to prevent that.

Likewise, I don't think it's okay to kill random pigeons that happen to be in my area. But I am fine with someone killing a chicken on my behalf so I can eat it.

[kalvado]

I do see people wanting to eliminate an unwanted wildlife all the time... So what is the fundamental difference between a groundhog or chipmunk damaging your driveway and a neighbor flooding your basement?

Because one of them is a fellow human being, and the other two are animals.  I figured that fundamental difference was obvious.  If you don't see a moral difference between killing an animal and killing another person, then your moral compass is off.

Which is a part of indoctrination (as you pointed in a "eye for eye" story).
And while that is about history of treating humans as bad as animals, story doesn't end there.
There are people who are willing to extend same moral protection to animals, btw - so the difference isn't that obvious after all.

[kphoger]

There are people who are willing to extend same moral protection to animals, btw - so the difference isn't that obvious after all.

As they say, common sense isn't as common as it used to be.

[kphoger]

Because one of them is a fellow human being, and the other two are animals.  I figured that fundamental difference was obvious.  If you don't see a moral difference between killing an animal and killing another person, then your moral compass is off.

I don't think either one is generally okay. It's just that you'll probably come across more situations in which killing an animal will be justified (food, self defense/safety) than you will a human.

Or to put it another way, I don't think it's morally okay to go out to a rural area and kill all the field mice just to kill mice. But if mice try to move into my house, they could cause a safety problem by damaging the house or spreading disease, so it's justifiable to try to kill them to prevent that.

Likewise, I don't think it's okay to kill random pigeons that happen to be in my area. But I am fine with someone killing a chicken on my behalf so I can eat it.

Tell me you still see a moral distinction between (a) going next door and killing my neighbor's dog because it's annoying and (b) going next door and killing my neighbor because she's annoying.  Do you think I should have to serve the same jail time in either case?

[Scott5114]

Tell me you still see a moral distinction between (a) going next door and killing my neighbor's dog because it's annoying and (b) going next door and killing my neighbor because she's annoying.

No. The species of the thing you killed is an arbitrary distinction.

[kphoger]

Tell me you still see a moral distinction between (a) going next door and killing my neighbor's dog because it's annoying and (b) going next door and killing my neighbor because she's annoying.

No. The species of the thing you killed is an arbitrary distinction.

So what non-arbitrary distinction is there between killing my neighbor's dog and killing a housefly on the window, or a cricket on the driveway, or a grasshopper on a brick wall?  Is there one?

(And, if your answer is "central nervous system", then how is that distinction not arbitrary?)

[Scott5114]

So what non-arbitrary distinction is there between killing my neighbor's dog and killing a housefly on the window, or a cricket on the driveway, or a grasshopper on a brick wall?  Is there one?

Killing the fly on the window is an act of self-defense, as flies can spread disease, and it is safer for you to not have that in the house.

There is no reason to kill a cricket in the driveway or a grasshopper on a brick wall, so killing those is wrong.

[formulanone]

There are people who are willing to extend same moral protection to animals, btw - so the difference isn't that obvious after all.

As they say, common sense isn't as common as it used to be.

I conclude it was never "common" at any point in time because it was always an artificial construct in the first place.

It's a nicer way to say "what an idiot" from the bleachers, I suppose.

[kphoger]

There is no reason to kill a cricket in the driveway or a grasshopper on a brick wall, so killing those is wrong.

So...  in your perfect world, that would carry the same criminal punishment as homicide?

[kphoger]

Killing the fly on the window is an act of self-defense, as flies can spread disease

Humans spread disease.

[Scott5114]

There is no reason to kill a cricket in the driveway or a grasshopper on a brick wall, so killing those is wrong.

So...  in your perfect world, that would carry the same criminal punishment as homicide?

No, simply because prosecutorial resources are finite, and you cannot call a cricket's family to testify in court against its killer.

Killing the fly on the window is an act of self-defense, as flies can spread disease

Humans spread disease.

Now do you understand the covid thread better?

[kphoger]

Humans spread disease.

Now do you understand the covid thread better?

Not really, because I don't believe we should be allowed to kill people just because they're contagious.

[Rothman]

There are people who are willing to extend same moral protection to animals, btw - so the difference isn't that obvious after all.

As they say, common sense isn't as common as it used to be.

I conclude it was never "common" at any point in time because it was always an artificial construct in the first place.

It's a nicer way to say "what an idiot" from the bleachers, I suppose.

I hope to be on the bleachers this Saturday.