Debate: Is Slaughtering Ants Justifiable?
Side: Yes, kill them all!

On the issue about whether or not ants have use:First, nobody is arguing for the complete slaughter of all ant kind, just whether or not it is morally bad for one individual to kill part or all of a single colony of ants. Second, ants are capable of reproducing at a rate that will replace any losses of the scale dealt with in this debate within days. Third, for that reason any use ant-kind may have as a whole is not significantly diminished by the action being debated. Fourth, ants are designed for specific environments where they have the uses talked about, whereas this debate clearly occurs in an urban or semi urban environment because it deals with human interactions with ants, and therefore the use is marginal at best. Fifth and most importantly, the moral status of ants (and therefore the morality of killing them) is not based on their utility to human kind. This is because someone’s, or something’s, right to life has nothing to do with whether or not you, or any other human, or humanity as a whole, or the environment as a whole finds them useful, nor should it, otherwise it would be okay to kill anyone that is deemed to be not a net benefit to society when the terms “benefit” and “society” are so nebulous as to be useless.So where does moral status come from if not utility?First, it comes from a things personhood, its ability to be conscious and aware of its surroundings in an experiential way. It may be true that ants have a nervous system that is capable of transmitting signals equivalent to “pain” but there is simply no reason to believe that they are complex or differentiated enough to have a conscious identity that is capable of “suffering” because of that pain. Second, because it is impossible to determine in every individual’s case what their level of conscious awareness is, it is okay to make judgments based on species, using the best of that species as the standard. This is why it is still not okay to slaughter the brain-dead or those with severe mental disorders, because we assign moral status to species rather than to individuals to ensure maximum protection of those who have a reasonable potential of making the standard, and to ensure maximum taboo against taking a life with that potentiality. Next, let’s ask what it means for something to be justifiable. Firstly, “justifiable” must be different from there just being a reason to do something. Otherwise the reason to slaughter ants could just be “it’s fun”. That might not be a particularly palatable reason, but it is a reason. Secondly, because of that “justifiable” ought to mean “there is both a reason to do something, and it is morally permissible to do something”. There is not just a binary between “morally good” and “morally bad”. There is ground which is “morally neutral”. Such an action does not deserve condemnation for being against morals, but does not deserve to be praiseworthy, either. Such an action is justifiable, simply because there is no reason it is unjustifiable. Thirdly, killing ants does not do anything that infringes on another being that has moral status, and therefore an ability to assert rights that it would be immoral to break. Because of this it is a morally neutral action, and therefore permissible. Killing ants may be unpalatable, but morally there is no case against it.