Should the morality of killing animals depend on Why they are killed?

Oregon’s proposed Initiative Petition (IP28) would remove many exemptions from Oregon’s animal cruelty laws, potentially applying those anti-cruelty laws to activities such as hunting, fishing, livestock production, animal research, wildlife management and potentially even pest-control, while retaining exemptions for veterinary care and self-defense.

Does intent rather than the act itself, carry greater ethical weight? Is killing an animal for food, ecosystem management, or medical research ethically different from killing an animal for entertainment, convenience, or cruelty?

If intent matters—as it often does in the killing of humans—perhaps the question isn’t simply whether harm occurs, but whether the purpose is deemed legitimate, necessary, and proportional to the harm.

Does an intent-based framework make for a more consistent ethical standard, or does it simply make it easier to justify actions we’d rather not examine?