Hi Martha,

>Lets say that:
>a)  Killing humans is morally wrong except in self- or other-defense, and
>b)  Human life is not more 'sacred' than animal life.
>Now, you may disagree with a and/or b, and then fine.  But IF you accept
>a and b then you also have to accept:
>c)  Killing animals  is morally wrong except for self- or other-defense.
>?N'est-ce pas?
>If my logic is flawed, I'm open to hearing why.

Your logic does not take into account, that animals and humans have con-
siderably different mental abilities.
Assuming that a cat has no understanding of what time and future mean
(this assumption may be wrong!) it will not be disturbed in its life-plan
if killed. But a human will be.
Also a cat might have no understanding what its death means while a human
can understand this and be in fear of it.
Communication between humans could tell them, that there is someone
killing them and humans may be in fear, if they are in certain situations.
(E.g. if it is known, that a murderer has escaped prison; people living in
the environment could be in fear to be killed.)
This is something a cat will not have to fear.

There are more reasons, that would allow killing an animal but forbidding
to kill a human being.

See Peter Singer: Practical ethics (got the title now),
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1979.

Best regards,

Stefan

E-Mail: Stefan Joest <[log in to unmask]>