Removing the Cullens from the picture, “normal” SM vampires are void of humanity. Maybe void is too strong a term, but by drinking human blood, their humanity is suppressed to such a point, that they no longer can relate to humans, (similar-but not the same- as how we cannot relate to cattle). While yes, we do have dreams, ambitions, and desires, these vampires do not understand or acknowledge them. If their humanity is suppressed, how could they understand a woman’s desire to have a child, or a child’s desire to grow up and be a teacher?
Shakespeare wrote:I would say that they aren't more immoral than us, which is one of the reasons why I don't easily accept that the Cullens are "good" vampires. Examining this from a purely logical viewpoint, predators have an extremely important role in an ecosystem. Removing them often causes more harm than their kills. In some ways, nature does not merely give them a right to prey on humans, but also a duty to kill us.pubesy wrote:So are vampires really more immoral than us? Or do we just have a hard time dealing with being removed from the top of the food chain, moving from hunter to hunted?
But, to examine this from a moral standpoint, we are vastly inferior to vampires. We know we can think consciously, but we also know from Midnight Sun that Edward would rather stare at designs in plaster than listen to our innermost thoughts. We know we have hopes and futures, but we also know that the timeframe of our lives is insignificant compared to the immortality of vampires. Considering this, is it actually wrong for them to think that they are above us? To them, we are petty, slow, weak, and temporary. Why is this different to the relationship between a pig and a farmer? A pig can develop a personality, but it will always seem like another animal to us because our thoughts are much more developed than its thoughts/instincts.
Shakespeare wrote:In fact, I think that it is extremely out of character that he does let them commit murders....I found it unnerving that he would just let the other Cullens kill people. After all, as the creator, wouldn't he feel some amount of guilt for the deaths he has indirectly caused?
December wrote:If vampires are inevitably damned -- or have no afterlife -- it's making a Faustian bargain on their behalf you have no right to be making. (Which makes me curious, Cullengirl, whether you're worried that Edward might be right about vampires’ souls after all). This is why it's essential that Carlisle (of all the Cullens) believes that vampires are not damned per se. But it still leaves him on dodgy moral ground, given what a struggle it is for vampires to abstain from murder, and how greatly he's magnified his family's chances of damnation by changing them. Once you factor heaven and hell into the equation, diverting someone's natural progress through life and death looks less like an innocuous gift after all....
Shakespeare wrote:We know we can think consciously, but we also know from Midnight Sun that Edward would rather stare at designs in plaster than listen to our innermost thoughts.
destani wrote: I don't get mad a lion for eating a zebra, I don't get upset at a human for eating meat, so I do not question the right of a vampire to feed on humans. They are superior to us in nearly every way and, although they were humans before being changed, they are not human now. If they work at it hard enough they can maintain some of their humanity, but I still got the impression that even those that live the veggie lifestyle still view us as lesser beings. They don't kill humans out of pity and compassion, not because they look at humans as their equals.
cullengirl wrote: Excellent observation! This just dawned on me. What is the benefit of saving one life when many other lives are in danger?
Li'lBit wrote:I suppose I can forgive Carlise more easily for his choice to create Edward and the others because I can't concieve of a universe where others are punished in an eternal way for a bargain that someone else has made, aside from natural consequences (eternal consequences are a very different thing to me). For example, if someone shoots me I may die and my family may suffer as a result of that action - but I can't imagine then arriving at the pearly gates and being told "Oh, if only you'd been hit by a truck instead. Gunshot victims are consigned to Hell I'm afraid." If there is a heaven and a hell in this make-believe universe then the only just way to deal with such things is to deal with the person who made the choice, and not the "victim". In this case Carlisle would be risking only his own place in heaven with no thought of risking that of his creations. I guess this is why it never seemed inconsistant with Carlisle's character to me. I can see where coming at this from a completely different philosophical viewpoint would make it seem wildly out-of-character for him.
pubesy wrote:time for a new subject?
how about the one mentioned earlier.
Is the reason for a newborn's thirst to part from seeing themselves as "like a human" and for the newborn to make the transition for seeing humans as "people" to seeing them as "prey" easier?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests