Is the unprovoked or deliberate killing (not in self-defense) of another living being wrong in and of itself or is such killing only deemed wrong depending on who is the victim or the consequence(s) of the killing?
Is the infliction of physical pain and/or injury (not in self-defense) on a living being wrong in and of itself or is such behavior only deemed wrong depending on who is the victim or the consequence(s) of the pain and/or injury?
These questions have to do with deontological vs consequentialist notions of morality.
Deontological theories of morality are frequently contrasted to consequentialist theories such as utilitarianism. While deontological moral theories typically hold that certain actions are either forbidden or wrong per se, consequentialist theories usually maintain that the rightness or wrongness of an action depends on the consequences of the act and hence on the circumstances in which it is performed.
As described by John Rawls, the distinction is between the right and the good: under deontology, what actions are right and what things are good are at least partially independent, whereas under consequentialism, an act is right if and only if it maximises the good....(source)I don't know about you but I tend to go into a sort of mental/emotional 'vaporlock' if I dwell on these sorts of things too much. I have to be content with what I expressed previously in my post on fairness. Ethical veganism is much fairer (enacts greater justice) than any other way of living that I'm aware of.