I think we have to ask ourselves how you define 'people' then. I would be reluctant to call those men human. I guess this is similar to what Edward was doing in his 'wild period' - taking away those people who are the real monsters.
But a life is still a life, is it not? And who should give Rosalie the “right” to kill those SHE considered monsters? If we accuse Carlisle of having a god complex for choosing who has the right to “live” or die, then shouldn’t we then apply this same sense to rose and Edward, for discriminating their prey (or whose lives they end?).
The whole vigilante discriminate killings during Edward’s rebellious years are interesting. Even though at the time Edward thought he was doing the right thing, by removing “bad guys” from the streets, the guilt from taking a life, as well as the burden of playing the role of “judge/god/juror” became too much. Maybe that is why other vampires kill indiscriminately – because death is indiscriminate. Rather than try to make their actions “less wrong” by choosing only “evil” people to feed upon, they take any life, considering all life as equal; thus avoiding further moral conflict.
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? Vampires do not age, nor can they have children – so these human desires would ring empty and feeble. They do not have Edward’s unique mind reading ability, so how would they hear these desires anyway? Vampires stalk their prey for only seconds or minutes, they don’t “get to know” their kill. They don’t get involved in human affairs, and live away from humans. To these vampires, it is merely hunter and prey. We are merely weak, feeble animals who are dying anyway. We are the only thing that can remove the burning pain they feel. Our lives mean just as much to them, as the chicken does to us. 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 in the case of the Cullens and the deaths they have caused, this won’t wash. They place the same value we do on human life. They have embraced our culture.
Agreed. Since the Cullens DO abstain from blood, their humanity returns, hence they cannot see humans the way normal vampires do.
But should the cullens be shunned and slammed for their actions of “accidental” killings? I am no sure.
Do you shun and slam, a recovering heroin addict, when in a moment of weakness, they use once more? While you may feel that strongly voicing disapproval would be necessary, chances are, if the addict REALLY does want to quit, they will feel guilty enough, and encouragement to forget the action and continue on the path of rehab, is the best possible action.
Maybe Carlisle was using the same logic?