“Thou shalt not kill.”
Surely everyone marvels at life. The entire notion that matter can somehow be assembled so that is grows and moves and reproduces and perpetuates its species is mind-boggling and garners the utmost respect from virtually everyone who spends time thinking about these matters. Yet, we cannot survive to appreciate the wonders of life without destroying some of it. In other words, we have to kill.
We have to eat, and the only food source that currently is in sufficient supply is other life. This, of course, doesn’t mean that we have to kill the plants and/or animals we choose to ingest; we can eat those portions that don’t destroy the given organism. For instance, we can survive on fruits and grains, husks and leaves, milk and blood, without killing the given tree, shrub, grass or mammal. But we do kill the bacteria and other “germs” on the surfaces of those foods. As a result of washing, cooking, irradiating or digesting, those microorganisms lose their lives. So, “Thou shalt not kill” is obviously a relative term.
We each, for ourselves, must decide on when the killing associated with our survival is permissible, and we each make distinctions based on our own fairly arbitrary criteria. It seems universal that no one concerns ermself with those bacteria; they are simply too small to worry about. Some of us, however, worry about a nervous system. Because plants, it is assumed, don’t have any sensations, such persons find it okay to kill plant life forms. Others draw the line at mammals. For them, fish and poultry are okay, but cows and sheep are not. The relationship we have with the given type of mammal is key for many. Dogs and cats – our pets – are definitely out (although that is a culturally-driven criterion). Some look at the level of endangerment to the species. Black bears can be eaten, but giant pandas – even without the laws protecting them – would be off-limits. The level of intelligence is weighed heavily by some. Cries are heard from many when a dolphin is caught in a tuna net, but not a peep is heard out of concern for the tuna.
Similar relatively arbitrary distinctions are made when we kill for other reasons. Tons of plants and trees are killed when we clear the way for a road, a home, a business or a farm. We undoubtedly kill numerous insects and perhaps rodents as well during these endeavors. Many, however, won’t put the given structure or field at the price of losing a Redwood tree or a Spotted Owl. Some will kill a mammal for food, but not for recreation. Those who do hunt for recreation might be willing to shoot a pheasant or quail, but not an eagle or falcon. Others might only shoot an eagle or falcon, believing that the chase involved in catching a ground bird is not challenging enough.
Some will take only adults, wanting to give the young a chance to have a full life. Others will take only the young, so that the adults can continue to reproduce. Fisherman might take only the large trophies; others might put those back out or respect for the survival skills of the given catch.
Killing for our protection is fairly standard. We put to death flocks of chickens that might harbor avian flu, and kill herds of cattle at the first sign of Mad Cow disease. Many also kill if there is a mere annoyance. A mosquito will be slapped not usually because of its potential to carry malaria or West Nile virus, but because it stings. Spiders are often killed merely because of their looks. Weeds are killed because they disrupt the uniformity of a lawn, and a woodpecker may be shot for putting a hole in our home.
In short, “Thou shalt not kill” is not an absolute. Even when limited to humans – which will be the subject of the next Sermon – this “Commandment” is filled with ambiguities and moral judgments. We’ll provide the FACTS viewpoint at the end of the Sermon to come.