A Moral Dilemma?

[phyllo]

In Western thought, sanctity of life is usually applied solely to the human species (anthropocentrism, sometimes called dominionism), in marked contrast to many schools of Eastern philosophy, which often hold that all animal life is sacred―in some cases to such a degree that, for example, practitioners of Jainism carry brushes with which to sweep insects from their path, lest they inadvertently tread upon them

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctity_ ... _religions

[henry quirk]

It's wrong because they have a natural right to life, liberty and property.

Persons do.

Are Gary's creepy-crawlies persons?

[henry quirk]

In Western thought, sanctity of life is usually applied solely to the human species (anthropocentrism, sometimes called dominionism), in marked contrast to many schools of Eastern philosophy, which often hold that all animal life is sacred―in some cases to such a degree that, for example, practitioners of Jainism carry brushes with which to sweep insects from their path, lest they inadvertently tread upon them

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctity_ ... _religions

None of that has anything to do with Gary's or, I'm sure, Harbal's moral dilemma.

they are living beings and it feels wrong to me to kill them

[Harbal]

I've been squashing roaches and flushing baby snakes down the toilet

Flushing snakes down the toilet is definitely wrong, Gary; can't you just take them outside, and let them go.

I suppose you're right. I could throw them outside.

Or you could just put them outside, unless the urge to do something unpleasant to them is just too much to resist.

[phyllo]

It's wrong because they have a natural right to life, liberty and property.

Persons do.

Are Gary's creepy-crawlies persons?

It's interesting that persons decide that they have natural rights and that non-persons don't have natural rights.

And I posted the "sanctity of life" quote to show that Western ideas differ from Eastern ideas.

It's something to think about.

[Harbal]

In Western thought, sanctity of life is usually applied solely to the human species (anthropocentrism, sometimes called dominionism), in marked contrast to many schools of Eastern philosophy, which often hold that all animal life is sacred―in some cases to such a degree that, for example, practitioners of Jainism carry brushes with which to sweep insects from their path, lest they inadvertently tread upon them

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctity_ ... _religions

None of that has anything to do with Gary's or, I'm sure, Harbal's moral dilemma.

Don't some types of Buddhism say that all living creatures are human reincarnations, and that is why all life must be respected? That's not why I think that killing things is wrong, and I don't believe that life, even human life, is sacred. I just have an aversion to killing things; it feels wrong, and it's as simple as that.

[Harbal]

It's wrong because they have a natural right to life, liberty and property.

Persons do.

Are Gary's creepy-crawlies persons?

It's interesting that persons decide that they have natural rights and that non-persons don't have natural rights.

Yes, I imagine even the simplest of living organisms sort of feel they have a right to life, although very few will be able to articulate the reason why.

[Gary Childress]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctity_ ... _religions

None of that has anything to do with Gary's or, I'm sure, Harbal's moral dilemma.

Don't some types of Buddhism say that all living creatures are human reincarnations, and that is why all life must be respected? That's not why I think that killing things is wrong, and I don't believe that life, even human life, is sacred. I just have an aversion to killing things; it feels wrong, and it's as simple as that.

I'm not sure if Buddhists believe that all living creatures are human reincarnations or else all creatures reincarnate into each other, including humans. I suspect it might be the latter.

[Will Bouwman]

Yes, I imagine even the simplest of living organisms sort of feel they have a right to life, although very few will be able to articulate the reason why.

Well, despite our best efforts, neither can we.

[Gary Childress]

Yes, I imagine even the simplest of living organisms sort of feel they have a right to life, although very few will be able to articulate the reason why.

Well, despite our best efforts, neither can we.

That's true.

[phyllo]

Basic Buddhist Precepts With Regard to Non-Human Animals

The first two precepts of the Buddhist Golden Rule maintain a moral way of living, and says:

1. To abstain from taking the lives of living beings.
2. To abstain from taking that which is not freely given.

The first precept, is based on compassion and prohibits killing, hurting or harming animals or another living being, for any reason including for food. The second precept forbids (direct) stealing, actions supporting stealing, and actions analogous to stealing, which can be related to animals in the stealing of their newborn babies, their milk that was meant for and destined to nurture their newborn offspring, and stealing their lives from them, by killing them. These basic precepts are a guide for living a moral way of life:

Buddhists try to do no harm to animals
Buddhists try to show loving-kindness to all beings — to human and non-human animals
The doctrine of right livelihood teaches Buddhists to avoid any work connected with hurting or killing animals
The doctrine of karma teaches that any wrong behavior will have to be paid for in a future life — so cruel acts to animals should be avoided (including the eating of meat or any foods made from animals)
Buddhists treat the lives of human and non-human animals with equal respect, they have equal nature, and are sentient

https://humanedecisions.com/buddha-said ... ing-being/

[Gary Childress]

Basic Buddhist Precepts With Regard to Non-Human Animals

The first two precepts of the Buddhist Golden Rule maintain a moral way of living, and says:

1. To abstain from taking the lives of living beings.
2. To abstain from taking that which is not freely given.

The first precept, is based on compassion and prohibits killing, hurting or harming animals or another living being, for any reason including for food. The second precept forbids (direct) stealing, actions supporting stealing, and actions analogous to stealing, which can be related to animals in the stealing of their newborn babies, their milk that was meant for and destined to nurture their newborn offspring, and stealing their lives from them, by killing them. These basic precepts are a guide for living a moral way of life:

Buddhists try to do no harm to animals
Buddhists try to show loving-kindness to all beings — to human and non-human animals
The doctrine of right livelihood teaches Buddhists to avoid any work connected with hurting or killing animals
The doctrine of karma teaches that any wrong behavior will have to be paid for in a future life — so cruel acts to animals should be avoided (including the eating of meat or any foods made from animals)
Buddhists treat the lives of human and non-human animals with equal respect, they have equal nature, and are sentient

https://humanedecisions.com/buddha-said ... ing-being/

I'll be happy if I'm never reincarnated. Life has been bleak enough as a human being.

[henry quirk]

I imagine even the simplest of living organisms sort of feel they have a right to life, although very few will be able to articulate the reason why.

You're anthropomorphizing biological Roombas.

[henry quirk]

It's interesting that persons decide that they have natural rights and that non-persons don't have natural rights.

Well, a person can decide while a non-person cannot.

[Harbal]

I imagine even the simplest of living organisms sort of feel they have a right to life, although very few will be able to articulate the reason why.

You're anthropomorphizing biological Roombas.

I'm not sure what you mean, but if you observe just about any living creature that is under physical threat, it will put just as much effort into staying alive as any human being will. I do think human beings are a special case when it comes to the value of life, but I only think that because I happen to be a member of the species. To nature, the universe, or "natural law", however, we hold absolutely no privilege. Where you think me guilty of anthropomorphizing, I consider you to be unjustifiably setting us apart from the rest of nature.