A Sin: Killing Man, Killing Beast

Remember this: It is said there is no sin in killing a beast, only in killing a man. But where does one begin and the other end? ~Gwen Conliffe, The Wolfman~

I am going to say out the gate, this was something else. This phrase has nothing to do with animals in the real world but the inner realm of a human being that can present as good, bad, and neutral. Everyday, we can log onto the internet and see men as beasts in their hearts with the destruction of human life, habitat, cultures, and everything under the sun is in constant threat. The Great Mystery did not make this world for that quality of negativity. Yet here we are. 

Do you ever wonder where you learned long held beliefs? Beliefs about sin, separation of man and animal, Man's dominion over the Earth? Superstition that flies by night? How did Man elevate himself above the World with the support of the Spoken Word, or internal thought? Is it true that to realize God one must look inward but the eyes staring back are of a beast? Or is it something else? Sinister or serene? Is it healthy for the collective to acknowledge the concept of Man and his sin, whatever that may be? Is it the albatross around our necks since birth when we are told "you are corrupt"? If it is said that God is within, then what does it bode when what is inside is less than Godly? Or is it less than Godly? 

When you look at the Global stage today, you see a strange sort of creature that walks. It argues over resources and indiscriminately wounds, tortures, and kills for the sake of a lick-back, dominion, or monopoly. Surely, it is better to be a beast in the forest than a man that is a beast in his heart. Maybe we should come up with a better term. Beasts are honest about their motives, some humans are not. 

I am having a problem using the word beast. Animals are what they are but do we expect better from humans? These are deep seated questions.

Upon pondering this question, the answer can be found in a individual's moral and ethical compass. Determinants of morality in any given action must be considered, as one would following any process. Joseph Rickaby gives us a good layout of considerations to take. Let us review them. 

This is an excerpt from his published work, " Moral Philosophy: Ethics, Deontology and Natrual Law, Section II": 

"1. The morality of any given action is determined by three elements, the end in view, the means taken, and the circumstances that accompany the taking of the said means. Whoever knows this principle, does not thereby know the right and wrong of every action, but he knows how to go about the inquiry. It is a rule of diagnosis.

2. In order to know whether what a man does befits him as a man to do, the first thing to examine is that which he mainly desires and wills in his action. Now the end is more willed and desired than the means. He who steals to commit adultery, says Aristotle, is more of an adulterer than a thief. The end in view is what lies nearest to a man's heart as he acts. On that his mind is chiefly bent; on that his main purpose is fixed. Though the end is last in the order of execution, it is first and foremost in the order of intention. Therefore the end in view enters into morality more deeply than any other element of the action. It is not, however, the most obvious determinant, because it is the last point to be gained; and because, while the means are taken openly, the end is often a secret locked in the heart of the doer, the same means leading to many ends, as the road to a city leads to many homes and resting-places. Conversely, one end may be prosecuted by many means, as there are many roads converging upon one goal. 

3. If morality were determined by the end in view, and by that alone, the doctrine would hold that the end justifies the means. That doctrine is false, because the moral character of a human act depends on the thing willed, or object of volition, according as it is or is not a fit object. Now the object of volition is not only the end in view, but is not only the end in view, but likewise the means chosen. Besides the end, the means are likewise willed. Indeed, the means are willed more immediately even than the end, as they have to be taken first.

4. A good action, like any other good thing, must possess a certain requisite fulness of being, proper to itself. As it is not enough for the physical excellence of a man  to have the bare essentials, a body with a soul animating it, but there is needed a certain grace of form, color, agility, and many accidental qualities besides; so for a good act it is not enough that proper means to be taken to a proper end, but they must be taken by a proper person, at a proper place and time, in a proper manner, and with manifold other circumstances of propriety. 

5. The end in view may be either single, as when you forgive an injury solely for the love of Christ: or multiple co-ordinate, as when you forgive both for the love of Christ and for the mediation of a friend, and are disposed to forgive on either ground separately; or multiple subordinate, as when you would not have forgiven on the latter ground alone, but forgive the more easily for its addition, having been ready, however, to forgive the former alone, but forgive the more easily for its addition, having been ready, however, to forgive the former alone; or cumulative, as when you forgive on a number of grounds collectively, on no one of which would you have forgiven apart from the rest.

6. Where there is no outward action, but only an internal act, and the object of that act is some good that is willed for its own sake, there can be no question of means taken, as the end in view is immediately attained. 

7. The means taken and the circumstances of those means enter into the morality of act, formally as they are seen by the intellect, materially as they are in themselves. This explains the difference between formal and material sin. A material sin would be formal also, did the agent know what he was doing. No sin is culpable that is nor formal. But, as has been said, there may be a culpable perversion of the intellect, so that the man is the author of his obliquity or defect of vision. When Saul persecuted the Christians, he probably sinned materially, not formally. When Caiphas spoke the truth without knowing it, he said well materially, but ill formally. 

8. In looking at the means taken and the circumstances that accompany those means, it is important to have a ready rule for pronouncing what particular belongs to the means and what to the circumstances. Thus Clytemnestra deals her husband Agamemnon a deadly stroke with an axe, partly for revenge, partly that she may take to herself another consort; is the deadliness of the blow part of the means taken or only accompanying circumstance? It is part of the means taken. The means taken include every particular that is willed and chosen as making for the end in view. The fatal character of the blow does make to that end; if Agamemnon does not die, the revenge will not be complete, and life with Aegisthus will be impossible. On the other hand, the fact that Clytemnestra is the wife of the man whom she murders, is not a point that her will rests upon as furthering her purpose at all; it is an accompanying circumstance. This method of distinguishing means from circumstance is of great value in casuistry. 

9. It is clear that not every attendant circumstance affects the morality of the means taken. Thus the blow under which Agamemnon sank was neither more not less guiltily struck because it was dealt with an axe, because it was under pretence of giving him a bath, or because his feet were entangled in a long robe. These circumstances are all irrelevant. Those only are relevant which attach some special reasonableness or unreasonableness to the thing done. Thus the provocation that Clytemnestra had from her husband's introduction of Cassandra into her house made her act of vengeance less unreasonable: on the other hand it was rendered more unreasonable by the circumstance of the dear and holy tie that binds wife to husband. The provocation and relationship were tow relevant circumstances in the case. 

10. But it happens sometimes that a circumstance only affects the reasonableness of an action on the supposition of some previous circumstance so affecting it. Thus to carry off a thing in large or small quantities does not affect the reasonableness of the carrying, unless there be already some other circumstance attached that renders the act good or evil; as for instance, if the goods that are being removed are stolen property. Circumstances of this sort are called aggravating—or, as the case may be, extenuating—circumstances. Circumstances that of themselves, and apart from any previous supposition, make the thing done peculiarly reasonable or unreasonable, are called specifying circumstances. They are so called, because they place the action in some species of virtue or vice; whereas aggravating or extenuating circumstances add to, or take off from, the good or evil of the action in that species of virtue or vice to which it already belongs.  

11. A variety of specifying circumstances may place one and the same action in many various species of virtue or vice. Thus a religious robbing his parents would sin at once against justice, piety, and religion. A nun preferring death to dishonor practices three virtues, chastity, fortitude, and religion.

12. The means chosen may be of four several characters:—(a) A thing evil of itself and inexcusable under all conceivable circumstances; for instance, blasphemy, idolatry, lying.(b) Needing excuse, as the killing of a man, the looking at an indecent object. Such things are not to be done except under certain circumstances and with a grave reason. Thus indecent sights may be met in the discharge of professional duty. In that case indeed they cease to be indecent. They are then only indecent when they are viewed without cause. The absence of a good motive in a case like this commonly implies the presence of a bad one.(c) Indifferent, as walking or sitting down.(d) Good of itself, but liable to be vitiated by circumstances, as prayer and almsgiving; the good of such actions may be destroyed wholly or in part by their being done out of a vain motive, or unseasonably, or indiscreetly

13. It is said, "If thy eye be single, thy whole body shall be lightsome." (St. Matt., vi., 22.) The eye is the intention contemplating the end in view. Whoever has placed a good end before him, and regards it steadily with a well-ordered love, never swerving in his affection from the way that reason would have him love, must needs take towards his end those means, and those only, which are in themselves reasonable and just: as it is written: "Thou shalt follow justly after that which is just." (Deut. xvi., 20.) Thus I am building a church to the glory of God; money runs short: I perceive that by signing a certain contract that must mean grievous oppression of the poor, I shall save considerable expense, whereas, if I refuse, the works will have to be abandoned for want of funds. If I have purely the glory of God before my eyes, I certainly shall not sign that contract: for injustice I know can bear no fruit of Divine glory. But if I am bent upon having the building up in any case, of course I shall sign: but then my love for the end in view is no longer pure and regulated by reason: it is not God but myself that I am seeking in the work. Thus an end entirely just, holy, and pure, purifies and sanctifies the means, not formally, by investing with a character of justice means in themselves unjust, for that is impossible,—the leopard cannot change his spots,—but by way of elimination, removing unjust means as ineligible to my purpose, and leaving me only those means to choose from which are in themselves just

14. With means in themselves indifferent, the case is otherwise. A holy and pious end does formally sanctify those means, while a wicked end vitiates them. I beg the reader to observe what sort of means are here in question. There is no question of means in themselves or in their circumstances unjust, as theft, lying, murder, but of such indifferent things as reading, writing, painting, singing, travelling. Whoever travels to commit sin at the end of his journey, his very travelling, so far as it is referred to that end, is part of his sin: it is a wicked journey that he takes. And he who travels to worship at some shrine or place of pilgrimage, includes his journey in his devotion. The end in view there sanctifies means in themselves indifferent.

15. As a great part of the things that we do are indifferent as well in themselves as in the circumstances of the doing of them, the moral character of our lives depends largely on the ends that we habitually propose to ourselves. One man's great thought is how to make money; what he reads, writes, says, where he goes, where he elects to reside, his very eating, drinking and personal expenditure, all turns on what he calls making his fortune. It is all to gain money—quocunque modo rem. Another is active for bettering the condition of the laboring classes: a third for the suppression of vice. These three men go some way together in a common orbit of small actions, alike to the eye, but morally unlike, because of the various guiding purposes for which they are done. Hence, when we consider such pregnant final ends as the service of God and the glory of a world to come, it appears how vast is the alteration in the moral line and coloring of a man's life, according to his practical taking up or setting aside of these great ends

16. We must beware however of an exaggeration here. The final end of action is often latent, not explicitly considered. A fervent worshipper of God wishes to refer his whole self with all that he does to the Divine glory and service. Yet such a one will eat, drink, and be merry with his friends, not thinking of God at the time. Still, supposing him to keep within the bounds of temperance, he is serving God and doing good actions. But what of a man who has entirely broken away from God, what of his eating, drinking, and other actions that are of their kind indifferent? We cannot call them sins: there is nothing wrong about them, neither in the thing done, nor in the circumstances of the doing, nor in the intention. Pius V. condemned the proposition: "All the works of infidels are sins." Neither must we call such actions indifferent in the individual who does them, supposing them to be true human acts, according to the definition, and not done merely mechanically. They are not indifferent, because they receive a certain measure of natural goodness from the good natural purpose which they serve, namely, the conservation and well-being of the agent. Every human act is either good or evil in him who does it. I speak of natural goodness only.

17. The effect consequent upon an action is distinguishable from the action itself, from which it is not unfrequently separated by a considerable interval of time, as the death of a man from poison administered a month before. The effect consequent enters into morality only in so far as it is either chosen as a means or intended as an end, or is annexed as a relevant circumstance to the means chosen. Once the act is done, it matters nothing to morality whether the effect consequent actually ensues or not, provided no new act be elicited thereupon, whether of commission or of culpable omission to prevent. It matters not to morality, but it does matter to the agent's claim to reward or liability to punishment at the hands of human legislators civil and ecclesiastical.

18. As soul and body make one man, so the inward and outward act—as the will to strike and the actual blow struck—are one human act. The outward act gives a certain physical completeness to the inward. Moreover the inward act is no thorough-going thing, if it stops short of outward action where the opportunity offers. Otherwise, the inward act may be as good or as bad morally as inward and outward act together. The mere wish to kill, where the deed is impossible, may be as wicked as wish and deed conjoined. It may be, but commonly it will not, for this reason, that the outward execution of the deed reacts upon the will and calls it forth with greater intensity; the will as it were expands where it finds outward vent. There is no one who has not felt the relative mildness of inward feelings of impatience or indignation, compared with those engendered by speaking out one's mind. Often also the outward act entails a long course of preparation, all during which the inward will is sustained and frequently renewed, as in a carefully planned burglary." ( Rickaby 31-40)

Is this true?

When you consider the relationship between Man and beast of the wilderness, the difference is humans are held to a higher standard with a ethical, spiritual and moral dilemma. The animal are perceived to be held without moral perception and act on instinct and are undeserving. 

Here the beast is that inner world of the human that is not equal or has similarities with animals. This gets into the realm of the human soul and being made in the image of divinity, making murder a sin while consuming animals for sustenance. So thereby, the animal is not the beast in this moniker. The moniker for the darker part of the soul could be referenced as a beast. The line begins with moral accountability, rational thought, and prohibition but when you turn the mirror onto the eyes of the Man and he sees the beast within him, there under the surface could be brewing a creature that is terrifying, boundless, and unreliable. 

Here you could use the phrase, "the punishment should fit the crime". So when asked, "It is said there is no sin in killing a beast, only in killing a man. But where does one begin and the other end?", it really depends. What did the beast within the human do? What standards do we hold against the beast within to measure its wake? Do we judge and pass sentence on a human creature that when over the bounds of its moral and ethical compass? If so, do we leave the door open for it to fail and do more damage? After seeing the outcome of its horrible endeavors, should we let it live?

After, in biblical passages humans are the only creation that is rebellious. Does this mean that God's nature is rebellious? 

I think we should go dig around in the Jungian World for an expansion plan on this. The answer to this question is in the duality of man and the beast within. Let's go! 

Photography by Ps. Studio21

Just reflect. Grab some snacks.

~Courtesy of the AOFH~

© 2026 All Rights Reserved AOFH LLC

.....................I am Killing a Woman.

Remember this: You are not going to read this in Field & Stream.

I went to the doctor's office for an ear infection. When I walked in there was this man I knew that I really don't care for. Like some relationships the wife got in an accident, got a pay out and divorced him. Undoubtedly there is some unresolved issues there. I was sitting in an exam room minding my own business when I hear the loud public conversation between the nurse and this man about deer hunting. In brief this was what it was about:

Man X states to the nurse he has been hunting. He brags he has been shooting anything that moves with a hit number of four. The nurse tells him just make sure it has horns. He tells her that every time he shoots a deer he imagines he is shooting and killing a woman.

With this being said, this could have been a woman. Fair is fair. It just happened to be a man on this day.  Why I am the one that hears this is beyond me? I was reading a book where the tendency to have homicidal fantasies was pretty close on female and male parts.

I sat in the exam room disturbed. I have been in the same area hunting with this man. What if he decided to cap me and call it an accident because I am of no importance?  I told my dad and I don't think he believed me, but my dad is always taking other peoples' sides. This goes to show you, when you are standing beside a stranger, you have no idea what kind of person they are, what their thoughts are,  and if they are a good enough pretender,  can try to pull the wool over your eyes if opportunity presents itself.

I assumed  this whole attitude was from a life crisis that wasn't dealt with appropriately. I wondered about the attitude of people to put a gender into a box and judge everyone accordingly, just because they have a vagina. Here this man's wife had harmed him in his mind, he didn't deal with it in a healthy way, if he dealt with it at all, and now he was punishing everything female, human and animal. Of course when you have couples issues, each individual is only dwelling on the 'me' of the situation. That is probably how they got there in the first place; lack of consideration for the other and no compromise. (I exclude people that are truly evil and torment their spouse because that is a whole separate beast.)

My reasoning behind this is how hunting can become a violent outlet for germinating psychological problems and how the hunter can cross that blurred line of right and wrong to become something much darker.   Also the blanketing of a group through a form of internal resentment without justification to the punishment that is doled out to innocent victims. The person hurts so they hurt others. This doesn't seem to make sense as it causes more suffering to a greater variety of people and things. You could consider this the bubonic plague of pain because it spread all over the Europe of our life, killing everything in its path until you find a cure. The cure is coming to terms with  yourself for your failings, vulnerabilities, and schemes you've concocted to foil other people through manipulation and lies.

People in bad relationships do not seek the help they need to overcome issues. Most people are afraid to go to a therapist because someone might call them crazy. Trust me when I say if you kill someone they are going to call you crazy anyway. You whole memory on Earth will be tarnished. Is that a way for people to exit the world? In the negative?  They would rather tell a friend or minister that is not bound by law to spread their drama. Yet the whole community finds out and each party, depending on who is in the right or wrong, loves to get the sympathy for the tragedy while the other is the villain. Once your break-up is old news, no one cares anymore and they move on. The problem is in your mind, you don't. You stay in this horrible festering place of darkness that bleeds out into everything thing around  you from your perspective.

In consideration of the man's behavior,  I wondered how it could be contrasted with another sort of situation. I then thought that this could be applied to the behavior of people who hunt on social media.  In this excerpt you have an imaginary social situation:

"we asked subjects to imagine the same scenario: that they were at a party and that a classmate they knew spilled a drink on them and failed to apologize. Their choices were to (1) hit the person (2) insult the person to his or her face (3) push the person or (4) get in person's face (all forms of direct aggression); or to (5) talk behind the person's back, (7) try to exclude the person from a social group, or (8) make up a lie about the person (all four being forms of indirect aggression)." (Kenrick 33)

Sounds vaguely familiar. In this day and age you would think people would have learned by now that violence doesn't solve all problems. It just causes more.

I would say to the hunter or huntress sitting in the stand with a gun pointing towards a target: If you are holding a gun and seeing a person that you think you hate, put it down and find some help. There are therapists available or counselors to help you work through your problem.  Don't trust anyone else to keep your secrets because the first time you piss them off they are going to tattle it all in good time. This will only make you feel more betrayed. Betrayal drives a lot of murders along with obsessive thoughts of ownership or possessions.

Here is a personal story as to the nature of potential toxic relationships.

I went on a horseback riding trip with a older man I thought was a friend. His designs weren't that way. I blamed it on the moon.  He was very possessive and like to crowd you. One day when we were riding in the moonlight he told me how he tried to load a young horse into a trailer. The horse wouldn't buge. Horses tend to be claustrophobic and depending on the color of the trailer interior or if there is a panel will not load without the smarts of the loader. Some horses will even scramble at full speed in a horse trailer. You don't want to traumatize the animal or cause it to harm itself because I have seem horses flip over in a paneled two horse trailer to land on its back upside down. Very dangerous stuff. This man told me he got a whip and beat the horse until it couldn't stand and was tied to the trailer. I was just quiet. I knew right then being a friend with him just wouldn't work because he would probably get mad one day and do the same to me. Sure enough when I tried to separate myself from him he started showing up to my job. One of the older ladies that worked with me told me to stay away from him because I didn't need someone violent or unstable that couldn't be counted on. Who wants to have to wake up every morning, wet their finger and see which way the wind is blowing?

This is an example of a calling card of a potential toxic or bad relationship. Heed it. I can imagine when the obsessive person doesn't get their way and wants the animal to mind they are capable of anything. I am glad I escaped with no more than the stank eye. That is the worrisome thing. You have someone sitting in their house visualizing heinous things in their head that are accumulation of memories where these images re-enforce anger that turns into pure out murderous hate. The other person that these emotions are directed at never see it coming or know it but don't want to believe their life is in peril.

Don't get me wrong,  there are people that wave the old red flag in peoples' face causing their own demise. This kind of person is  living in Delusional City. They have no concept their lives are in danger, the things they do can cause other people to get killed, and think they know the other person so well that it can't possibly happen. These types of people go right back for more punishment. I call them Dumb As A Rock. The person thus shows up somewhere packing a murderous fury that ends in a string of connected lives being destroyed and all for naught. The man above did come to my work out the blue angry and I wasn't even in a relationship with him. I had only been on less than three outings and I am sure I couldn't make that big of an impression on him. He could have been thinking of doing me harm and I wouldn't have even known it. We are not gifted with telekinesis or Sookie Stackhouse-like powers.

Given the situation above, anything can happen. When it comes to hunting and having a weapon, once again, if you visualize killing someone that you are temporarily mad at, stop, put the gun down, and go find help. I say this because, when you start developing distorted rationale your life becomes hindered for the negative in all kinds of ways.  These feelings are temporary if you decide not to hold onto them. Most people can't let go of the past. Not that you should forget a wrong done you but don't let someone repeat it again. Shame on you the second time. You don't have to be violent or punish the next person for someone else's crimes against your heart.

Remember not to pick the same person over and over. The habit is to pick a person that is familiar but not exactly the same. You're only getting the person from your past relationship and you will try to do the same things thereby committing the same errors. Its human habit. Be still inside yourself and learn from  your mistakes. If you have to make more mistakes make sure the whole situation and person is different. Get out the relationship rut. Learn to communicate and stop being a selfish  "I am right all the time" douche. You are in control of your mind, actions and thought. Blaming someone else continuously doesn't get you off the hook. Above all else,  move on. Become the nomad of love for love's sake until you find that fruitful valley to settle down. Don't settle; you'll only become angry, cheated, and miserly.

Rethink your thought process and question what is passing through your mind. Test, challenge the thoughts to see if there is proof. If not,  think something positive to counter the bad thought. You have the power in  you to do that. The bad thought doesn't control you. You really do have a choice.

The other mindsets to counter this killing image is: you will lose your life or the freedom to live your life. People that kill others tend to kill themselves, once they realize acting on this behavior has caused their life to be ruined with jail, guilt, and public condemnation to name a few. If you kill someone and hide the body,  you'll always be looking over your shoulder.

If you go to jail, all you will see is other people that could kill you and have to think about  the freedom and life you lost. If you kill someone, you can't reanimate them to right a wrong. Dead is dead. If you believe in religion, you will be damned to infernal Hells, pits of fire, and eternal torture. How is that for scary?

Say it once more with feeling....Hell fire.

On the other hand, you can forgive yourself, forget the other person, move on and find nirvana in life.
You can hunt because you're not in jail. You can eat deer meat because you didn't commit suicide in lieu of murder. You get to drink coffee on some mountainside while glassing for mountain goats. Why ruin your life? The person is not worth a wasted life. There is a more worthy person that will love and tolerate you.  If you throw down bad relationship habits and get brave to learn from other people, a licensed therapist or God forbide you pick up a book and read it; life will change. You are not the only person in the world to ever have their heart broken. Nor are  you  the only one that could ever think about doing someone in. It's the execution of that desire that will ruin you. Don't do it. Hunt another day when your mind is right.

With that being said, it is my hope that hunters and huntresses leave the relationship problems in the therapist office where they belong, and not in the deer stand.

Otherwise, the other option is be happy with yourself. You are whole, in control, and don't have to sully your good life because of a bad person. They can buy a one way ticket to Forget You.
Don't ruin your life because of a couple of  bad apples. The worms and ground get them in the end.

~Courtesy of the AOFH~

Copyright © 2026 All Rights Reserved.


Literature Cited:

Kenrick, Douglas. T. Sex Murder and the Meaning of Life. New York, NY: Basic Books. (2011). pp. 33