Killing: Just How Uncool is It?

            So I think we can agree that killing is generally wrong. Killing a person is basically one of the worst things that thon can do, other than killing a bunch of people. A neighbor’s pets are also off limits as far as recreational life ending, and endangered species should probably not be used for the testing of knife sharpness… or pointiness. But what about laboratory mice, spiders, or non-native cane toads? I think this is a job for philosophical discourse.

            I’ll start with the killing that I believed to be justified. First is any game animal that hunting or fishing has become an integral part of their ecology. “Harvesting” such animals so that they remain below the carrying capacity of the environment is good. I personally would rather be shot than starve to death, and they go to some use this way. Speaking of death for a useful purpose, I believe some lab testing is acceptable. This doesn’t mean that I think we should go see how much shampoo a rabbit can eat before it dies, but cancer research and understanding how brains work seem like sufficiently important studies to allow for some casualties. We all die, but we don’t all die FOR SCIENCE. Self Defense is naturally cool too since it doesn’t matter if it’s a charging bear or ax murderer, you are allowed to act in self-interest. With the exception of if the bear just caught you stealing its children (or the ax murderer for that matter). Other than those situations, I struggle to outright condone the intentional ending of life.

Killing can be a very powerful scientific tool

            There are some common types of killing that I definitely don’t believe are okay. Is a spider’s life really worth less than the 30 or so seconds that it would take you to put it outside? Impulsive killing like this is not cool by me, especially when motivated by fear or malice. Those are not good emotions to let dictate your actions, so I don’t care how afraid of snakes or annoyed with pigeons you are, that doesn’t give you the right to kill them. I know it isn’t easy, but being right rarely is. Killing purely for sport or trophies is also something I can’t agree with. It doesn’t matter how good it looks on a wall, it looked better alive, and the story can never outdo a life story. My opinion anyway.

Are you going to eat that lion?

            Now for the hard bit, as these are the ones I’m not sure about. Invasive species are a topic that I have divided feelings about. The pro-extermination feelings tell me that these animals are causing the destruction of environments and the deaths of other animals, and it is probably our fault so we should fix it. On the other hand, these are still natural species, and is the act of one animal effectively out-competing all rivals something that should be punished? In theory we might be doing the environment a favor by introducing more fit breeds of animal. Genetic diversity is nice from a “life is beautiful” standpoint, but evolution is about efficiency. Another scenario I’m undecided on is creatures that compete with humans. Is a man justified in shooting a wolf because it eats a cow before he does? A bear might kill a puma over food, but aren’t we a higher form of intelligence? You could also frame it a punishment for theft, but you wouldn’t shoot another human who stole your livestock (I hope). You can’t reason with a fox to keep it from eating your chickens, but killing it just seems like the cheap and easy way out. I guess the jury is still out.

Is stealing corn a capital offense?

            In the end killing is really easy to do. Life is pretty fragile, and even simple accidents can end it. It can be challenging to avoid senseless cessation of sentience, but I think a person would be better for it.