> I am in
>principle against killing, I would not kill a living thing myself, at
>least when I do not have to,
Getting someone else to do it for you is the same thing really. Personally, I have killed many animals and yes, it useful to kill things before you eat them.
It takes a bit of getting used to, slicing the throat of animals and holding them still while their life drains out. Putting a bullet into their brains and seeing them go down and thrash about. It is hard not to have some empathy for the creature you kill, I can understand why some people might decide, on principle, that eating meat doesn't justify killing animals.
I think there's a bit more to it than that though, so I have come to a different conclusion. I could argue the practicalities of administering birth control to millions of cows and chickens and the costs of feeding them for the remainder of their lives. But I suppose the real reason is that I just like eating meat. So I won't kid you, or myself.
Bottom line is, I put a much higher value on human life for the very selfish reason that I am a human. As a result, I take a dim view of your insinuation that killing a human being is no worse than killing cows, or chickens, or sheep.
The sheep might have a different view, they might agree with you that their lives are as valuable as a human's.
>
>So if one does not object too much to the above listed acts of killing,
>why would one object to killing a criminal?
Because the criminal is human. Like us. By putting a value on his life, we reinforce the value of our own lives. Plus, unless you plan to eat the prisoner after you have killed him, it serves no justifiable purpose. It is not at all the same as killing an animal to eat it, or killing an animal or human to end its suffering.
>to by the killee and (ii) it is a two edge sword: a convicted murderer
>did not respect the will of the person he killed, why then we should
>respect his?
Simply because we take the view that murdering another person is wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right.
>I guess that it is the most rational position resulting from the
>categorical imperative: a "rational" norm of behavior is the one that we
>wish to be universal. Universal abstaining from killing is absurd,
>whereas accepting killing in some circumstances (self-defence,
>euthanasia, animals) but not in other (convicted criminals) violates the
>norm of universality.
Basically, it comes down to your belief that the life of an insect is no less valuable than the life of a human. This is all very well in the abstract, but what it boils down to is that you regard human life to be as expendable as that of insect life. That's a slippery slope mate, not an increase in the value of insect life, but a massive devaluation of human life.
Hitler also equated human life with insect life. Look where that got us. Don't go there.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas