Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of a human being by another human being with malice aforethought. In other words, only humans can be murdered and only humans can murder (because only we have the moral agency to allow us to be held accountable for unlawful homicides).
Two congressmen pushing for a new law banning videos that depict animal abuse–which depending on the details, would be fine with me–misuse the word in support of their bill. From their column:
Last week, the House of Representatives voted to outlaw the sale and distribution of graphic videos depicting the murder or abuse of animals by an overwhelming margin, passing the Prevention of Interstate Commerce in Crush Videos Act, 416 to 3.
This may seem like a small thing, but it really isn’t. Using the word “murder” to describe the unlawful killing of animals is just another way to blur the crucial distinction between us and fauna. Animals can certainly be abused. They cannot be murdered.
July 29th, 2010 | 11:31 am
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Vince Humphreys, Stand In The Gap. Stand In The Gap said: BIOETHICS WATCH => Words Matter: You Can’t “Murder” Animals http://dlvr.it/396jH #912 #ocra #ucot #rs #tcot #tlot #sgp [...]
July 29th, 2010 | 10:21 pm
It seems like a small thing and is. Yes, they should have used the word “killing”. Do you also agree that abortion is not “murder”?
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
July 29th, 2010 at 11:06 pm
Abortion is clearly not murder because it is legal. If it is not legal, it is criminal abortion. However, fetuses can be murdered–even today under many state laws. Ironic no?
July 30th, 2010 | 1:54 am
But Wesley, you state, rightly, that abortion cannot be murder, if it’s legal. But if these horrendous “crushing” videos are banned, because they depict th unlawful killing of animals, wouldn’t this newly banned video depict murder? the logic seems clear that one could rightly call the activity, in the banned videos, murder.
And, if you’re willing to call a certain type of treatment of animals, “abuse”, it seems logical, that you’re being arbitrary, by claiming that you cannot call another type of treatment, of animals, murder. After all, maybe there’s some REALLY hard core anti-animal erights people out there, who think that you’re going soft, and by grant that aniamals can be abused, YOU”RE further fuzzing the important line against fauna and people (as you put it).
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
July 30th, 2010 at 9:48 am
Bret: Only people can be murdered. That’s because we are in a unique category. Humans are executed, animals are destroyed. Humans have children, animals have litters or whatever. We are different so there are different words often used to describe activities involving us.
July 30th, 2010 | 9:46 am
Unfortunately not a small thing. This is a tactic used by AR folks to sneak unintended meaning into a law that they can exploit later. It’s an attempt to legally redefine “murder” to include the death of animals. Then they can demand the “murder” laws be applied to animal deaths on farms, research labs, etc.
Recently a group sued the University of Wisconsin for doing decompression experiments on sheep on the grounds that state law prohibited killing sheep via decompression. The purpose of that law was to prohibit decompression as a method for persons euthanizing or butchering sheep, that is, who were actively trying to kill sheep. Because the law was written vaguely, the group was able to stop decompression research that used sheep, even though they were not trying to kill the sheep.
That research is considered to have yielded results valuable to humans who work underwater under high pressure, say, for instance, guys fixing busted deep sea oil rigs.
This “murder” thing, in my view, is somebody’s attempt to set up the same kind of scenario.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
July 30th, 2010 at 10:28 am
padraig: I certainly think that can be true. Not sure it is in this case. But you are right, they will pull any lever, push any button–correct and incorrect–to thwart human animal industry.
July 30th, 2010 | 1:54 pm
“Murder” is one of those words which may be used both in a strict legal sense and in a more colloquial one. (When Shakespeare wrote that Macbeth had “murdered sleep” few complained that he had blurred the crucial distinction between us and anthropomorphised natural processes). Lots of people use it merely as a term for morally repugnant killing and I think that’s how it’s being used here (the bill itself, based on a cursory inspection, contains no such reference).
July 30th, 2010 | 4:00 pm
You know, after a discussion like this I could murder a pint.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
July 30th, 2010 at 4:05 pm
Hoist one for me. Pale ale.
July 31st, 2010 | 2:35 am
the problem Wesley, is you’re making assertions, as if theyre self evident. They’re not. You need to provide an argument or arguments for them, and maybe you”ll succeed, but as Raven aptly pointed out, in another post, regarding animals, you seem to speak in a way analogous to the Pope issuing a declaration on matters of faith. who can argue with that?
I agree with you that the word “murder”, is inappropriate, to use when referring to animals being killed. But that’s because it’s a legal word, and unless a statute has been passed calling it murder, it cannot be called murder. You seem to accept this, when it comes to abortion, but you seem to, in principle, reject the murder description, vis a vis animals, EVEN if it’s passed by a legitimate legislature.
You seem to have two arguments. One, that I agree with, that the word “murder”, is a legal definition, and two, that it’s a logical/philosophical definition.
And, you’ve shown that the latter trumps the former, when you claim that only humans can be murdered.
But how can you logically claim that animal rights activists, who use the word “murder”, when referring to the killing of animals, is illegitimate? Obviously you disagree, but if you’re going to use the word murder in a philosophical sense, how can you object to animal rights people using it in a philosophical sense, even though, obviously, it’s the opposite conclusion you have?
Also, there’s an incosistency in your willingness to use the word “abuse”, for mistreatment of animals, but not “murder”. Isn’t murder, just the most extreme form of abuse? And what would be your retort, to someone, who argued that only humans can be abused?
August 1st, 2010 | 4:40 pm
Bret: ‘You seem to have two arguments. One, that I agree with, that the word “murder”, is a legal definition, and two, that it’s a logical/philosophical definition.’
True.
‘And, you’ve shown that the latter trumps the former, when you claim that only humans can be murdered.’
False. When you’re writing legislation the legal definition is the most important. When the legislators confuse social definitions with legal definitions, you get really bad laws.
Legal terminology has to be very direct and non-ambiguous. In fact, French is a popular language for international law largely because it has no passive tense. A law that says “citizens may not kill animals for entertainment” is clearer than “animals may not be killed for entertainment.”
August 1st, 2010 | 5:19 pm
I’m afraid, Padraig, you’ve misunderstood the point of my comments. Too bad Wesley has chosen not to answer them, is it because he can’t?
August 2nd, 2010 | 10:31 am
Bret, you’re trying to justify the misuse of language in order to promote your personal views via propaganda.
So I didn’t miss your point.
August 2nd, 2010 | 8:17 pm
Padraig, I respect you, and your views. But if you CAREFULLY read my comments, I was making a somewhat subtle logical point, that’s irrelevant to “personal views”. I could restate my point, but it’s probably better, if you care, for you to just reread my comments.
August 3rd, 2010 | 1:17 pm
[...] Wesley J. Smith objects to use of the term “murder” when discussing the killing of animals: Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of a human being by another human being with malice aforethought…. Using the word ‘murder’ to describe the unlawful killing of animals is just another way to blur the crucial distinction between us and fauna. [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact