I believe animals have rights. Not in the PETA sense because they seem to afford animals all the same rights as humans. But I do believe that their rights are from the same source as ours come from.
So, when I say "killing with a beneficial purpose" I mean that killing an animal for sustainance is a justified act.
Killing an animal for no reason is not. Should you face murder charges if you kill an animal for no good reason and leave it on the side of the road? Nope.
The initiated act of aggression is always a consideration. It is supposedly always wrong. There are two ways to deal with this regarding animals. Claim that they are merely property and you may do with your property as you see fit no matter how cruel. However, this requires that you say that animals have no rights at all.
In which case, if a man were to become your property, the initiation of aggression principle could be ignored.
Clearly, slavery is not a question of morality as God condoned slavery if you believe the bible.
So does it immediately become moral to kill a man then if he is now your property and a slave? Of couse not. The same follows with animals in my opinion. Owning an animal does not give you the right to initiate aggression against it unless that aggression will actually help sustain a human life. Humans eat meat. Killing animals is beneficial to humans who eat meat.
I was being a little obtuse.. I know what you meant.. and I see your point. (I also agree, BTW)
I was just making the point that when property right's are an absolute, issues like this can arrise.
And they can push Libertarianism into a kind of grey area.. Something unusual for the Libertarians..
They seem to like everything spelled out in black and white. Nice and crisp and sharp..
Perhaps so, but for your idea on proscribing the unnecessary suffering of animals I have much more respect for you than I had before. Now if we can move along to the idea of proscribing unneeded suffering among human beings, that would be great.