Taking lives: Fill in the blank

[justanobserver]

I understand that perfectly well. But in normal circumstances, when you're not in war or defending your life, why is it wrong to take human lives?

I see what your asking. my bad. in generalities, I would say that it is wrong to take a life for the sake of taking as in what authority would/could you use to justify why your more important than any other human? Without delving into psychopathetic serial killers and others of similiar ilk, one just cannot on his own determine that he has the right to make the decision of who lives and who dies in society.

To do so would give the person some form of a "god" complex to think he would have that power and dominion I guess. ex: I dont like my drug dealing neighbors but even tho as much as the thought of "removing" the main dealer next door brings a slight smile to my old wrinkled mug, I know its wrong and I dont have that right to make that decision.

The only thing that would come to mind is a phrase thats used in more than one Luis LaMour novel (US westerns) - "some people just need killing". I have tried in the past to puzzle that out - what would be the context and then to look at the person in reference that gets killed - he is the "bad guy", the one shunned by society and cannot abide IAW basic laws of humanity. But then, he gets killed by the "good guy" who is not the law but someone who felt "he just needed killing" as the justification and the townspeople nod their heads and the saloons fills up with folks wanting to buy the gunslinger a drink. So, maybe its a societal issue then? I gots no ideas! I never took one class in college on logic and truth or philosophy - my schooling was US government issued - that should tell you I aint Mensa material.

I have no idea where I came up with this stuff or if it even makes sense. Guess I shouldnt be listening to Pink Floyd and tryingkeep my eyes open and post at the same time....but man, the music is sure cool.

The part about bacteria is consistent with what you said earlier about self-defense, but I'm not so sure about the other parts. With respect to the other animals and veggies, is it ok to kill humans so long as you think they are delicious? Just a few salient excerpts from my favorite short essay ever, Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal:

well the short answer is: we need to eat, require substance to exist and survive. whether its deliscious or not is open to personal interpretation. I have eaten best quality steaks prepared in fine restaurants, enjoyed my preferences of the local fare in numerous places professionaly cooked and served I been to and I have had jungle and desert survival stew sitting in the mud or sand in training courses in the military (to quote Crocodile Dundee "tastes like **** but it will keep you alive"). Its all relative I think. Intake of food is essential, taste is aquired and the choice of what you take in depends on locality, availablity/abundance, and of course whats on sale at the store.

read the excerpts - trying to decide if its a metaphore or the dude had way too much time on his hands trying to find out what the male will eat. forgive me, I am a little tired and my eyes are attached to the less that running optimal section of my brain.

nawwwww - this is just all nonsensible rambling on my part and tomorrow I will wake up, log on here and re-read this and think "my God! I need to up my meds!"

I get the feeling I didnt answer your quesiton again. will quit while I am behind.

 

[kopilo]

Hmmm...

Taking human life is wrong because it directly affects the human, that is actually a pretty good cursory summary for why I feel its wrong to take human life. But, I noticed your faith icon (you're a Christian), and I hope you don't mind me stereotyping, but I'm willing to bet you have some objections to abortion. You probably have objections to abortion in spite of the fact that an unborn fetus has no experiences; by all rights, the unborn fetus is no more affected by a woman having an abortion than a plant is affected by being pulled out of the ground. And there are also some cases like euthanasia of humans in a perpetually vegetative state, those humans cannot be affected at all.

Well by no means am I a stereotypical christian.. On the matter of abortion, I try to stay clear of saying I'm pro or against, proberly at the most I am pro choice. However if a mother wants to terminate her fetus for reasons such as it's not a girl or it has a possibility of a learning disability or just because they weren't planning to have one, I find that to be a little selfish, if you know what I mean, bit like chopping down a tree because it doesn't match the white picket fence.

Having said that, do you think its wrong to take the lives of certain humans whose lives will never be affected at all?

I'm not sure what you are talking about but I think it would be a very rare case and unless it was the person taking their own life, then it depends on the situation.

I can agree with the cases of bacteria and mould, but I'm not sure how you feel about animals. We don't actually need to kill animals for our own continued survival, as evidenced by 900 million vegetarians and vegans all over the world (including Hindi, Buddhists, Shintos, and PETA members). You say its wrong to kill humans because of the way its affects them, but certainly animals are affected to the same extent as at least a human infant for being killed; so do you feel its acceptable to kill animals with an equivalent (or greater) mental and feeling capacity as any human infant?

Yes I am very aware that humans can live without eating animals, and the way/when an animal is killed can have a significant affect. Personally I try to eat the least amount of meat as I can, and I do not agree with meats such as veal ( I do rely on some meat for certian vitims). However our teath seem to be made for eating meat as well as plants. So maybe with some animals it might be ok to have a set life expectancy.

I also agree with culling animals if they are being a nucience (I live in Aus), such as rabbits because not only are they an introduced species but because almost over-night they could almost wipe out a whole native species if they were allowed to breed too much, or not kept under control.

 

[uhhh_i_forgot]

I'm not exactly sure why your rule applies to animals, but not to humans. Perhaps this is your moral compass being too close to iron ore? I've never understood how people can draw moral lines along the species boundary, because being a member of a certain species is no more morally relevant than being a member of a certain race or sex. Certainly, species-based moral lines are no more rational than race- and sex-based moral lines; the moral rules that use must be applied to all species, races, and sexes equally.

Maybe it is, but I also look in nature and one animal that stands out in my mind as an example is a bear. A bear is an omnivore like us, eats meat but could also eat berries and honey. Like us, it kills animals for food, but what happens when anything tries to harm her kids? It's different to her just as it's different to us. Wolves are another example, they kill other animals to eat, but stick together. Lions do this as well. So there is a sense of...idk togetherness in animals of like species, so they dont kill each other. In my view, to do so would be against a natural/universal law. Now, why do i feel it is okay to eat meat? well? like you said, moral lines must be used to apply to all species, races, and sexes equally. If those animals do it, and it is called natural, then why is it a "sin" when humans do it.

However, I noticed you seem to think there is some value in letting a cow live a little longer rather than just killing them nonchalantly.

yes, I have. I take one month out of every year not to eat meat. Last time i thought about making the change permanent. Thank you for noticing.

If a cow living just a little while longer is a good thing to you, than have you considered that it would be an even greater good if we could let both cows live out the rest of their natural lives by not eating or cutting up the cows for food and clothing? If the man could live reasonably well by wearing cotton clothes and being a vegetarian, do you think he should do that?

Yes, I think he should, but that is for him, not me to decide. I feel it would be a great choice, that he would be rewarded for it, but that there are no laws saying that he must go without killing animals.

 

[levi501]

Poor babies, toddlers, senile, severely retarded, and anyone with an illness that would cause them to die before they could ever have a chance to enter into a contract with you, and any other marginal humans lacking the cognizant capacity to value your life I'd certainly hope you'd care about those individuals who don't have the capacity to value your life anymore than animals.

Potential for a contract plus empathy for those I hope would treat me with as much respect if I was in the same situation.

try again.

 

[levi501]

So killing people is wrong, because it might affect you?

put simply, yes.
to be more specific... not supporting a system that puts value on human life could harm me.

Its not clear to me why anyone should care what happens to you, they can form a reasonable moral system that doesn't take into account any of your needs at all.

I'm not talking about anyone... I'm talking of mob mentality and empathetic social conditioning.

But I'm sure you don't mean it affects "you" in particular, but just a system which affects only the people that affects anyone we care about. However, we can imagine a system that sections off a certain population of humans for use in food, clothing, agriculture, medicine, and so on, but it also protects everyone you happen to care about;

This group has the capacity to value my life. I can empathize with them and would find this situation if unecessary immoral.

for instance, white nationalists or Muslim extremists don't care non-members of their own race or religion, so they might consent to doing some really horrible things to non-race and religion members for the benefit of themselves and everyone they happen to care about. Its not clear to me why your system is superior to a white nationalists system, except that you just happen to care about people that white nationists do not.

Obviously in times of war or when faced with a fellow human that wishes me ill I would cease to respect their life.

And if a human happened to lack the capacity to care about life?

I remember you mentioning this in a previous post, you said that you care about humans who happen to "potentially" care about you... nevermind that you think a woman's rights matter more than any potential contracts which indicates you measure the value of human life according their capacities without respect to the contracts they may or may not be a part of, but lets say a human has a disease like cystic fibrosis, and it just so happens we know that human will not survive beyond 3 years old. No matter how you spin it, that human is not a member or your contract, and never will be. Does that human matter more than a piece of furniture?

Same answer as this post.
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=21880367&postcount=24

 

[FSTDT]

Poor babies, toddlers, senile, severely retarded, and anyone with an illness that would cause them to die before they could ever have a chance to enter into a contract with you, and any other marginal humans lacking the cognizant capacity to value your life I'd certainly hope you'd care about those individuals who don't have the capacity to value your life anymore than animals.

Potential for a contract plus empathy for those I hope would treat me with as much respect if I was in the same situation.

Nonsense. If you were in any of those positions, you'd lack the cognizant capacity to care, and in the case of a permanently retarded person or a senile individual, they are no longer potential contractarians; they are permanently removed from the contract, making them no better off than cattle. I'm afraid I don't see why should have empathy for them at all, or why if you were in a similar situation anyone would have an obligation to you.

All of those individuals could be used to your own ends until the end of your natural life, provided you had enough actual members of your contract to care about you. I presume you only value the lives of potential contractarians because they can benefit you in some way, but certainly you know that you don't need to value all of them?

So killing people is wrong, because it might affect you?

put simply, yes.
to be more specific... not supporting a system that puts value on human life could harm me.

I'm afraid I don't see any rationale in what your saying, because there is no indication that anyone should care about your life if they can harm you without consequence. If the reason for killing people has nothing to do with how you actually affect others, but how it comes back to affect yourself, then the only thing holding back a suitably strong opponent from killing you is your opponents irrational sympathy for you.

Certainly, your objection to kind of system is that it harms you, but why should your suitably strong opponent care what harms you?

Its not clear to me why anyone should care what happens to you, they can form a reasonable moral system that doesn't take into account any of your needs at all.

I'm not talking about anyone... I'm talking of mob mentality and empathetic social conditioning.

Run that by me again, I don't understand what you're saying.

But I'm sure you don't mean it affects "you" in particular, but just a system which affects only the people that affects anyone we care about. However, we can imagine a system that sections off a certain population of humans for use in food, clothing, agriculture, medicine, and so on, but it also protects everyone you happen to care about;

This group has the capacity to value my life. I can empathize with them and would find this situation if unecessary immoral.

On what basis is it immoral? I'd already said the group sections off a population that doesn't include your or the people you care about. That population, by all rights, values your life.

If its just how you are affected that matters, then I can't see on what basis you can say a system that protects all human life is superior to a system that protects only members of your own race, a system that protects only members from the town you born in, a system that protects only members of your own religion (or lack thereof), or a system that protects only creatures who can feel pain, or a system that protects only people who are roughtly your height and build, or a system that protects creatures that metabolizes. Each system values your life equally and protects you to the same extent, but I'm afraid I don't see anything but irrelevant opinions for preferring either of them.

Obviously in times of war or when faced with a fellow human that wishes me ill I would cease to respect their life.

Self-defense is a good thing, but why is it wrong for someone to kill you? At best, you provided a few conditions for why you might respect certain lives and favor certain systems, but no explanation for why anyone should be bound to it or refrain from killing people.

lets say a human has a disease like cystic fibrosis, and it just so happens we know that human will not survive beyond 3 years old. No matter how you spin it, that human is not a member or your contract, and never will be. Does that human matter more than a piece of furniture?

Same answer as this post.
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=21880367&postcount=24

Read what I said again: its a human being who is not a member of your contract, nor will ever be one, because he'll die before he's rational enough to consent to any social contracts at all. Terminally ill children are no better off than a pet rat (actually, they might be worse off, because rats live longer than three years). Do you, or do you not protect non-members of your contract?

 

[Futuwwa]

Just a few questions on the value of lives:

Taking human life is wrong because ___(your answer here)___. Fill in the blank.

Taking non-human life (animals, plants, bacteria) is acceptable because ___(your answer here)___. Fill in the blank.

Taking human life is wrong because the creator and the sustainer of the universe forbids it.

Taking non-human life is acceptable because the creator and the sustainer of the universe permits it.

Simple as that.

 

[FSTDT]

Taking human life is wrong because the creator and the sustainer of the universe forbids it.

Taking non-human life is acceptable because the creator and the sustainer of the universe permits it.

Simple as that.

I appreciate your answer, but its not simple at all. Its fundamentally impossible for anyone to know what the gods approve or disapprove of; anyone can say that God's approve or disapprove of anything, but no one can read God's mind. Moreso, not everyone is a member of your religion, Hindis for example believe in a creator but they believe their creators forbid killing non-human animals.

Don't take this the wrong way, but I feel every imagined God and moral command by God is completely manmade. I replied to christianmarine about this earlier in the thread:

I think most of the moral rules commanded by God are actually manmade. People have many different beliefs about what God wills, and I think this makes divine morality a kind of moral relativism that is dressed up as a will of God, where people say "I believe X is moral, and God agrees with me".

For instance, liberal and conservative Christians believe in the same God, but believe God wills different things; Muslims raised in an environment where its acceptable to kill infidels will believe God wants them to kill infidels; slave holders in both early America and ancient Greece believed God wanted them to have slaves; abolitionists believed God condemned slavery; and so on. I don't believe divine commands are divine at all, but they are man-made opinions dressed up like the will of God. Even if God exists, I don't think its possible to know what he commands or condemns.

However, I believe if God exists, he is a smart guy, and he doesn't just make moral rules simply because he likes to be obeyed (I'd hope he's not a megalomaniac). If God makes a rule for something, he would have very good reasons for making that rule, and I'm certain those reasons can be stated. If the reasons are good, then they can be accepted by theists and people with little brain faith icons alike.​

I'm certain God makes his moral prescriptions for good reasons, so good good in fact that they can be appreciated by people who are not members of your religions. So, could you explain why its wrong to kill humans and ok to kill non-humans on a somewhat religion neutral basis, as just the logical inferences your god uses to base his commands? After all, I am not a member of your religion, nor do I believe in any gods, why reasons should I obey your god's commands?

 

[uhhh_i_forgot]

like you said, moral lines must be used to apply to all species, races, and sexes equally. If animals such as bears, wolves, and lions do it (eat animals other than their own species), and it is called natural, then why is it a "sin" when humans do it?

 

[Fares]

-

Taking human life is wrong because ___(your answer here)___. Fill in the blank.

religion level :
I did not give him life, So I can not take it from him
I am not God !
I can not take judgement into my own hands .
Jesus, God, taught us to forgive and love those who hate us .
One of the 10 commands are not to kill !


non_religion level :
By killing you dont just kill him, I destroy an entire family !
This person had dreams, friends, family, responsabilities, hobbies and plans !
I am not animal, I can try to solve it in a civilized way !

Why kill him when you can torture him mouahahahahaha ( just a joke )

Taking non-human life (animals, plants, bacteria) is acceptable because ___(your answer here)___. Fill in the blank.

religion level :
God created the animals for us human to eat !

non_religion level :
I dont want to eat vegetables for the rest of my life, I aint a cow ! Meat good good

-

 

[FSTDT]

like you said, moral lines must be used to apply to all species, races, and sexes equally. If animals such as bears, wolves, and lions do it (eat animals other than their own species), and it is called natural, then why is it a "sin" when humans do it?

Because unlike those animals, you're a rational creature. Being rational, you don't have to look to animals for moral guidance, you have the capacity to reflect morally on the rights and wrongs of your dietary habits, and you can make a choice to minimize the harm that you cause.

See also "no is implies an ought".

 

[uhhh_i_forgot]

Because unlike those animals, you're a rational creature. Being rational, you don't have to look to animals for moral guidance, you have the capacity to reflect morally on the rights and wrongs of your dietary habits, and you can make a choice to minimize the harm that you cause.

So, correct me if im wrong, but you think moral lines should be drawn across all species, but only humans, who can rationalize their behavior, should follow them.

I read the site you gave me, and i know i havent changed much, but i have a question about it, what if animals are fully sentient, can not only feel pain, but think, love, and make their own choices? idk, its just a thought. i already know that you've probably already won.

 

[LiberatedChick]

Taking human life is wrong because ___(your answer here)___.

..because it's not mine to take and I shouldn't go inflicting pain and fear on others.

Taking non-human life (animals, plants, bacteria) is acceptable because ___(your answer here)___.

Taking animal life is not acceptable to me for the same reason I wouldn't take human life...it's not mine to take and I shouldn't go inflicting pain and fear on others. I still have to eat something and taking plant life is acceptable to me.

 

[FSTDT]

So, correct me if im wrong, but you think moral lines should be drawn across all species, but only humans, who can rationalize their behavior, should follow them.

Yep, thats basically right. It has to do with the concept of moral responsibility: you are only genuinely responsible for your actions provided (1) that you know what you're doing and (2) that your intentions and desires play some role in the outcome of your actions. Animals, unlike humans, don't know what their doing, so they cannot take responsibility for their actions.

I read the site you gave me, and i know i havent changed much, but i have a question about it, what if animals are fully sentient, can not only feel pain, but think, love, and make their own choices? idk, its just a thought.

If animals are fully sentient, feel pain, and have a capacity to make choices, then by all rights they have an equivalent mental and feeling capacities as almost every human adult. We'd be obligated to treat them as we treat human adults, the animals would be obligated to behave like rational human adults.

 

[FSTDT]

..because it's not mine to take and I shouldn't go inflicting pain and fear on others.



Taking animal life is not acceptable to me for the same reason I wouldn't take human life...it's not mine to take and I shouldn't go inflicting pain and fear on others. I still have to eat something and taking plant life is acceptable to me.

w00t! Your answers are identical to what I would have said

Theres another reason why its ok to take plant life, because they can't suffer.

Once on this board, I mentioned that it is wrong to make moral judgments based on species membership or giving preference to the interests of beings simply because they're members of your own species (speciesism), because its no more rational than giving preference to beings because they're members of your own race or sex (racism and sexism). And I got the most unusual reply:

Why do you only extend your arguments to the animal kingdom then? KINGDOMIST
(source)

I think theres a law of nature that says "in every discussion of animal rights, at least one person has to accuse the AR activist of being a kingdomist for eating plants", but thats beside the point. I used to have a winded response to that claim, but it comes up so often that I've reduced down my automatic response to a 5-word reply: "Animals suffer, plants do not." Suffering matters morally, so thats the moral difference between killing plants and animals.

And because I'm on a typing spree, I feel like adding this: usually, that 5-word answer above satifies most people, however I've seen some people get very defensive. I've actually come across people who will say "how do you know animals really suffer" or even "how do you know plants can't suffer". These are always the most strange questions, because the are asked in the utmost seriousness... but, I've never once seen anyone ask these questions outside of the context of animals rights, not once. I've never been asked "how do you know animals really suffer" by a person who actually believes animals can't suffer, and I've never been asked "how do you know plants can't suffer" by a person who actually believes plants suffer. Those questions are so silly and disingenuous that I won't even acknowledge them.

 

[uhhh_i_forgot]

and im out of ideas. I enjoyed this, it was enlightening. Can't wait to see other things you put up on these boards. thanx for putting up with me.

 

[levi501]

Nonsense. If you were in any of those positions, you'd lack the cognizant capacity to care, and in the case of a permanently retarded person or a senile individual, they are no longer potential contractarians; they are permanently removed from the contract, making them no better off than cattle. I'm afraid I don't see why should have empathy for them at all, or why if you were in a similar situation anyone would have an obligation to you.

All of those individuals could be used to your own ends until the end of your natural life, provided you had enough actual members of your contract to care about you. I presume you only value the lives of potential contractarians because they can benefit you in some way, but certainly you know that you don't need to value all of them?

yet I do.
What can I say, empathy is a very strong emotion.

I'm afraid I don't see any rationale in what your saying, because there is no indication that anyone should care about your life if they can harm you without consequence. If the reason for killing people has nothing to do with how you actually affect others, but how it comes back to affect yourself, then the only thing holding back a suitably strong opponent from killing you is your opponents irrational sympathy for you.

Certainly, your objection to kind of system is that it harms you, but why should your suitably strong opponent care what harms you?

I could care less about the will of one individual nor do I plan to poll everyone in the world to ask them if they agree to my contract. I can't speak for the moral system of one person, specifically this strong opponent so I don't see your point. Obviously I'll cease to value his life if he wishes me ill.

Run that by me again, I don't understand what you're saying.

I don't care if one specific individual values my life.
We live in a society that put values on human lives. We condition our children from an early age to empathize with others. Our social system with it's quirks is built around the golden rule, therfor my moral system to a degree mirrors that. Whether individuals buy into this system out of empathy or fear of punishment, ie imprisonment, I'm unconcerned with. That's what I meant by mob mentality. You want to break it down to the individual and I see no necessity for that.

On what basis is it immoral? I'd already said the group sections off a population that doesn't include your or the people you care about. That population, by all rights, values your life.

If its just how you are affected that matters, then I can't see on what basis you can say a system that protects all human life is superior to a system that protects only members of your own race, a system that protects only members from the town you born in, a system that protects only members of your own religion (or lack thereof), or a system that protects only creatures who can feel pain, or a system that protects only people who are roughtly your height and build, or a system that protects creatures that metabolizes. Each system values your life equally and protects you to the same extent, but I'm afraid I don't see anything but irrelevant opinions for preferring either of them.

Empathy... spare me the race, religion white supremacist garbage. You still haven't jumped this one little hurdle no matter how many times you ignore it.
Empathy. Call the emotion irrational but it doesn't change the fact that it's still a very powerful emotion in my life and it's built on the idea of the golden rule.
I can see where you're going here. Call empathy a superstition if you must. A belief that if I respect people that they with their capacity to do the same will in return. Empathy is not something I can just simply turn off and it's the core of my moral system albeit a selfish one.

Self-defense is a good thing, but why is it wrong for someone to kill you? At best, you provided a few conditions for why you might respect certain lives and favor certain systems, but no explanation for why anyone should be bound to it or refrain from killing people.

Because they risk being severely punished by society. And people shouldn't kill people because society as we know it would fall apart if it was tollerated and they in turn put their own temporal life at risk.

Read what I said again: its a human being who is not a member of your contract, nor will ever be one, because he'll die before he's rational enough to consent to any social contracts at all. Terminally ill children are no better off than a pet rat (actually, they might be worse off, because rats live longer than three years). Do you, or do you not protect non-members of your contract?

I protect members of whatever species is apart of my contract. The reason being empathy. Empathy isn't something I can turn off no matter how much you argue against it. Sorry.

 

[FSTDT]

yet I do.
What can I say, empathy is a very strong emotion.

And in saying that, you have a perfect reason to have empathy for Mr Bunny:

Self-defense is a good thing, but why is it wrong for someone to kill you? At best, you provided a few conditions for why you might respect certain lives and favor certain systems, but no explanation for why anyone should be bound to it or refrain from killing people.

Because they risk being severely punished by society.

Not only does this validate someones interest in killing another person so long as they can get away with it, but now you have no criticism of theistic morality that is often no more than "do as I say or I'll torture you forever".

 

[levi501]

And in saying that, you have a perfect reason to have empathy for Mr Bunny:

fruitless discussion... around and around we go.
Are you merely playing to the crowd, because I doubt anyone is seriously reading our exchange or is interested.
The empathy I have for animals is much less then for humans. As I find nothing wrong with eating them, forcing them to perform labor, ripping out their reproductive systems and animal testing. You know this, but you still haven't bridged the gap as to why my moral system is inconsistent because it doesn't include animals.

Not only does this validate someones interest in killing another person so long as they can get away with it, but now you have no criticism of theistic morality that is often no more than "do as I say or I'll torture you forever".

I am not following you. I care not for the moral system of the individual. I live in a society that values human life and strives to protect it. I'm merely doing my part in the system.

As far as theistic morality comparison, you convienently snipped off the rest of my answer. The obvious reasons not to kill someone is punishment. The reason I don't do it whenever I can get away with it is because I buy into this system that puts value on other humans lives including mine. I have strong empathy that fuels this compliance. Rationally though, I support this system because if I and other's did not society would fall apart and thus my life and the lives of people I care about would be in greater danger. So I'm simply doing my part in this system I support.

 

[chipmunk]

w00t! Your answers are identical to what I would have said

Theres another reason why its ok to take plant life, because they can't suffer.

Once on this board, I mentioned that it is wrong to make moral judgments based on species membership or giving preference to the interests of beings simply because they're members of your own species (speciesism), because its no more rational than giving preference to beings because they're members of your own race or sex (racism and sexism). And I got the most unusual reply:

I think theres a law of nature that says "in every discussion of animal rights, at least one person has to accuse the AR activist of being a kingdomist for eating plants", but thats beside the point. I used to have a winded response to that claim, but it comes up so often that I've reduced down my automatic response to a 5-word reply: "Animals suffer, plants do not." Suffering matters morally, so thats the moral difference between killing plants and animals.

And because I'm on a typing spree, I feel like adding this: usually, that 5-word answer above satifies most people, however I've seen some people get very defensive. I've actually come across people who will say "how do you know animals really suffer" or even "how do you know plants can't suffer". These are always the most strange questions, because the are asked in the utmost seriousness... but, I've never once seen anyone ask these questions outside of the context of animals rights, not once. I've never been asked "how do you know animals really suffer" by a person who actually believes animals can't suffer, and I've never been asked "how do you know plants can't suffer" by a person who actually believes plants suffer. Those questions are so silly and disingenuous that I won't even acknowledge them.

I seriously believe all living things are capable on some level of suffering. Do plants feel pain like us? Heck, no! Of course, a lobster and lots of animalia can't either. *shrug* I used to be a vegetarian, but my health (I have issues absorbing non-heme iron and B12) and a different perspective on life changed that. It's all a cycle. Not that I'm knocking you for what you do. If you want to be a vegetarian that's fine with me. It's healthier for you than eating a ton of meat is. I used to have the same reasoning until I started nursing sick plants back to health--I can't look at my "babies" and not see life and how they suffered under horrible care. I know they don't feel like I do, or like my rabbit, but there is something there. It's probably as unnoticed to people as animal's suffering is to others. *shrug*