Only if they are not human beings.
So why is it OK to kill non human beings but not humans (lets see if you can show any sort of consistency- my bet is that you can't)
The two things are not mutually exclusive.
Actually they pretty much are, espcially how you phrase them .You have not thought out any sort of moral framework.
Try harder.
Eran
I am advocating a moral standard that views murder of innocents as wrong. That moral standard inherently applies to all times and places. In other words, the standard is "it is always wrong to murder innocents", rather than "it is wrong to murder innocents when such murder is considered wrong by prevailing society".
Except that some people think human fetuses are innocents and other people think that they aren't. Then there is the utiltarian (using the proper meaning of the word) that the sacrifice of a few innocents for the greater good is morally acceptable. For example (true story) the SOE in world war two killed several people who knew the exact date and place of D-Day when SOE knew that most if not all of them were almost certainly no risk at all. The risk of teh germans finding out the details would have put tens of thousands at risk. This was accepted by both the UK and US governments of the time as being unpleasant but necessary.
You can logically reject my standard. Most human societies have indeed done just that. In practice, most human societies (selectively) reject that standard even today.
So essentially you refute your own claim that there is a universal moral standard. All you are really claiming is that YOU have a baseline moral standard. I have baseline standards too just as Kman has no baseline standards- he just justifies his own previously held praxis....indeed this is what most people do.
But just because some people (here and elsewhere, now or in the past) fail to acknowledge that standard doesn't exempt them (in my eyes, or the eyes of people who share my moral sentiments) from compliance with it.
But this moral standard of yours is entirely subjective. I am not subject to your moral whims as you ,no doubt, reject the moral whims of a Marxist or a Salafist Islamist.
I'd be happy to articulate what I consider to be the minimal standards of morality (namely to avoidance, with the possible exception of emergencies, of aggression against others).
Lots of people have their own moral standards. Some actually rationally think them through, most ,like Kman, don't
I fully acknowledge my inability to "demonstrate" that my standards must apply universally at the standard of mathematical or scientific proof
No one has ever been able to do that because morality is utterly subjective. If like Kman you are a meat eater then you are morally corrupt in my eyes. I extend the no harm save in self defence to all sentient beings I don't award myself a incompatible get out clause just because I like eating meat.
Here in PoFo, byw, my record of success has been abysmal.
I respect you said that. We are both from the same dirction of the political spectrum (ie pointing at half past four) (just noted that 'tea time' is libertarian) so I sympathisewith your position but I have to accept that it is just a position.
I'd be interested to learn more about them (both the standards and the axioms).
My primary axiom isa rule constrained reverse utilitarianism aka painism. That 'the good' is that we should take actions that minimise suffering(rather than maximising pleasure) within a framework of basic human rights.
Essentially that means that you only have a duty to respect the boundaries of others, not steal from them, attack them, defraud them. If someone is drowning then you have no duty to aid them although it is "good' were you to aid them. I extend that to all sentient beings on thenasis that if you feel pain then you have an interest in not doing so. I do not give myself easy get out clauses,