Rationality behind killing a animals/ bug? ?

Question

okay so i killed a bug that i found in my shower. it was harmful. I could have just put it outside. But no I killed it. What followed was immense pain Abe guilt for my thoughtless actions. But it raised up a good question. What is sentient being and what is right to kill bugs or animals (for meat)? And what would you do if you do beilieve that animals have minds then what would you do if you had the choice between saving a starving child or a starving dog ( donating money). Which life takes the advantage and why? reason with me here and thank you for the answers
now I will leave you with a quote that will help with this disscussion:

The 18th-century philosopher Jeremy Bentham compiled Enlightenmentbeliefs in Introduction to the PrinciplesofMorals andLegislation (second edition, 1823, chapter 17, footnote), and he included his own reasoning in a comparison between slavery and sadism towardanimals:

The French have already discovered that the blacknessofthe skinis noreason whya humanbeingshould be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor [see Louis XIV's Code Noir]... What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason, or, perhaps, the faculty of discourse? But a full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day, or a week, or even a month, old. But suppose the case were otherwise, what would it avail? The question is not Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?

Answer 1

It depends on human mind. Some people may practice non-violence in thought, word and deed. I mean it depends on the philosophical outlook of the individuals.

Answer 2

First of all it's called a space bar, but to answer your question, I use a very severe level of extremity to boost difference in sentiment towards life because in this instance the degree of extremity isn't relevant in the example that suppose your wife was asleep and a tarantula crawled on her back meanwhile you happened to serendipitously be carrying a military grade fly swatter. Now you could kill it and save your wife or you could watch it kill her because trying to remove it would result in her death anyways.. What would you do? Generally in life, the significance of insects and other animals is greatly reduced, not only because of their abundance in population and reproduction, but because of the actuality of making an impact on the majority. While you may save a bear by letting it kill a boy, the odds are that some animal will make a far less impact as a minuscule ordinary forest creature, than the infinite potential man is offered. What if that child was Abraham Lincoln? Or Mother Teresa? Or JFK? In matters of life and death, to protect life from the random equality in fate, we must preemptively judge, sometimes seemingly cruel, the potential one has. Not for humans, however because the sentiment of one human to another is a different story entirely, but the point is that for an animal to die is so common and so frequent that if it really mattered in the scheme of things they wouldn't be worth saving as opposed to a person.

Answer 3

Hmmm interesting. We, as humans, are animals by instinct. But at the same time, society has conditions us into having compassion only for things that are directing involved in our lives. Meaning, a large part of the population would, and does, have no concern for the well being of something that society has deemed unnecessary or bad. Killing a bug, in theory, is no different than killing any other living thing. Yet if someone kills a dog, most people would feel great guilt for their actions because society has conditioned us into feeling compassion for a dog as a pet. But we have been conditioned to view bugs as pests and things that ultimately need to be killed (even though bugs are accountable for the world we live in because of the circle of life and their place in the food chain).



As far as you question regarding the starving of a child or a dog -- we life in a time where both can be fed equally so I wouldn't choose either of them to starve. If I was in direct control over both I would lessen my portions or starve myself so that they both would live. But, as far as the last part of that question ("(donating money)"), my father worked for Save The Children for 6 years and I know how crooked those non-profit donations companies are. If donation was the only option then I wouldn't save either because I know only 2% would actually go to either the dog or the child. Yeah, I know its the thought that counts and the doing of the action that makes the difference. But meh.

Answer 4

What you did was evil, but it is not always evil to kill life. as long as you respect life, life can be killed. But if you disrespect life, it cannot be killed. murder is disrespectful to life, and you murdered the fellow brother. I sincerely regret for myself killing insects in the past. ihate myself for it. but also, plants are sentient too and must not be murdered. we can conlude what sentience is and what has it by using science and science proves that humans, animals, plants, and quantum particles all have the same level of sentience.



here is something i wrote up one time: "90.It is Better to Let a Million Wicked Die Than to Let One Righteous Die



An important question comes along: if you have a group of people in danger, and you have to save some, but not others, who should you save? The answer is you should save whoever is the most righteous of them all. I ask you: take two men in danger of dying: one is wicked and one is righteous. Which one should be saved? For they are both one person; how then should you choose? Remember before in the plane example I showed how if your plane’s engine went out, and thus you were forced to choose where the impact would be in your vicinity, if there were people inhabited everywhere in your vicinity, if you knew nothing about the people, you would be obligated to kill the least number of people? And why is that the obligation? Because I showed how it is evil to choose greater evil rather than a lesser evil. And so, in the case of the righteous and the wicked man, choosing the wicked man rather than the righteous man would be choosing greater evil to happen, which as I prove in this book, is very evil. And so, then, now, let’s ask once again, on this same principle: if you were in the control tower that had limited control of a bomb, and you were unable to deactivate the bomb, if the system was programmed so that if no specification was entered into the control tower’s system, then the bomb would kill both parties, but if you choose to set in advance one party or the other by entering that party into the system, at the time the bomb was set to go off; if thus your selection does not cause any deaths, but is the means of saving lives, and there are two parties: one party with one trillion evil male children, and one righteous elderly woman who is blind, deaf, and paralyzed, which of the two parties should you save? The answer is that you should save the elderly woman, because she is righteous. For if you save the one trillion evil children, you have chosen an inconceivable amount of evil to exist; very evil indeed. But if you choose the one righteous woman, you have chosen a righteous woman, and as such, no evil will come from her life. And so what of animals and plants? If you had to choose between saving one righteous weed or saving one trillion wicked humans, which should you choose? The answer is you should save the weed and not the humans; for on the same principle as previously discussed, righteousness is preferable to wickedness. And furthermore, plants and animals are equal to humans except in that we can kill them for non-punishment reason, and thus, while we are obligated to kill animals and plants for the sake of humans if it is for an acceptable end, we are obligated to not kill them if it is not for an acceptable end, as I will soon prove a little later in this book. But what if both parties involved are righteous? If both parties involved are righteous, then what should be chosen is whichever will lead to the least evil. Sometimes certain leaders should be chosen over the masses, because the masses are spiritually inadequate to take over the role of that leader. And other times the masses should be chosen instead of the leaders because the masses will lead to a greater spiritual influence of righteousness than would be if the leaders had been chosen instead. And what if you do not know anything about the people involved? At that point, you should then choose based on quantity; as in, choose in such a way so that the least number of individuals die. But some will contest this saying is it unjust and unfair to the wicked, and that it is better to save the wicked so that they may be saved. But this is not so, for do you really think saving the wicked will lead to more people being saved? If you save the wicked rather than the righteous, all the saved that would have been brought about by that righteous one would not be saved, and if you save the wicked rather than the righteous, how many more will not be saved due to the influence of that evil one? It is quite evident thus that it is morally obligatory and logically preferable to save the righteous rather than the unrighteous."

Answer 5

Simply that we are creatures from hell. Come on man! Humans! We kill.

Answer 6

"Do what you know to be right, say what you know to be true, and leave with faith and patience the consequences to god!" - F.W. Robertson



"Do NOT do to 'others' what you don't want done to you!"

(EVERYTHING in the Universe, ALL INCLUSIVE, is 'others'; people, 'bugs', rocks, the air...!!!)