I actually think that it has some important implications for some stuff you said in this thread, though. Specifically, you said something to the tune of "unnecessary death = unnecessary death," and that it doesn't really matter what preceded it, as the killing is what's most morally repugnant about both. Correct me if I'm wrong on that point.
But, if I'm not, I'd say that my oyster question has something to say about that. I would submit that killing a pig has moral implications which do not apply to killing an oyster, and for one reason: the pig experiences pain (perhaps pig was a bad choice, as they experience a lot more than pain, but too late now), and the oyster, so far as we can tell, does not. So, I'm arguing that the infliction of pain carries moral consequence in addition to the taking of life. Why I think that applies to the aforementioned premise, if I'm not confused about it, is that if the perception of pain adds to the moral consequence of an action, then it may do so in degree. In that way, unnecessary infliction of pain may exacerbate the moral repugnance of unnecessary death.
A question to illustrate the point, which builds off a question you posed to what's-his-face:
Someone gives you a choice between two alternatives:
1.) You die via single high-powered rifle wound to the heart.
2.) You die via some fucked up tortuous bullshit.
Which do you choose and why?
