Is it truly evil to kill someone else to save yourself?

People kill and eat animals all the time. Many of which are somewhere closer to us on the sentient-sapient scale than we really want to admit.

When push comes to shove, killing an unwilling pig or cat for food isn't that far removed from killing your neighbour. The major difference is that the pig or cat isn't plugged into our social network in the same way our neighbours are. We also aren't as good at reading other animal's body language as we are other humans, so are unlikely to be as affected by their fear and pain. Which makes it easier to do.

It's just as biologically OK to chow on people-protein as any other kind, in short. Well, minus the whole easy transition of bacterial, viral, prionic and parasitic infections snag...

Social networks and expectations, however, massively complicate things. All to the good, really: if a species practices too much cannibalism, it will likely suffer in the long run.

edited 10th Oct '15 9:00:40 PM by Euodiachloris

I didn't even notice the general philosophy thread. Is it okay to post the same topic in two places, and if so, could you give a link to the thread you're talking about? Can this thread be moved without causing the posts currently here to disapear?

Thank you for clarifying that for me. I couldn't figure out if she had to or not from what I'd read online about the book. So does the book clarify what her motives are for luring in children or why she keeps their souls? I was a little confused about that from the movie. Also, does her world deteriorate towards the end of the book like it does in the movie and if so, does the book explain why?

I get what you mean about the number of people dying, but just to clarify, are you saying vampires are also selfish because their immortal and that makes their lives worth more than limited ones? I think the opposite argument would make a little more sense (that the death of someone who otherwise could have lived forever is worse than the premature death of someone who would have inevitably died eventually).

edited 11th Oct '15 10:36:17 AM by SeriesOfNumbers

It's certainly the one the vamps would make.

They'd have a point, too. A longer lifespan? Humans live longer than a lot of animals we eat and kill to survive on. Even more: we kill (and have extincted) predictors we don't usually eat so our livestock survives so we can eat it — competitors get whacked.

Depending on which vampire you're dealing with, they may need blood to stay animated aka "alive". Killing may or may not be be necessary, but leaving testifying victims around = torch and pitchfork brigade. :/

Killing to survive? Basically, how moral or immoral it gets depends on circumstance, culture and what torture and waste get defined as.

The mother is evil and lures and kills children because she likes hurting people.

There is nothing good about her.

Her world collaspes because Coraline rips her world apart fleeing. She isnt dead. Just severely weakened.

Seriously, this discussion is kinda silly. Most things are considered monsters because they kill humans without cause.

Even the vampire issue has been resolved with synthetic blood or Rice's Little Drink where you sample from multiple people to prevent death.

If you have to eat souls or kill to live, take one for the team and off yourself and i am confident you will be reborn to something better or worthy of a better afterlife for refraining from such cruelty.

Well, part of the problem is cannibalism is usually considered immoral unless you're really hungry. So, killing people to eat them is not morally ok, perhaps even if it's 'natural'.

According to my model, a being which has to eat humans in order to survive wouldn't be good, evil, or neutral, it would fall squarely into Blue And Orange morality. It theoretically could be evil if it was crueler to its prey than necessary.

Actually, a creature which eats humans out of necessity but lacks malice would make for an interesting monster.

I personally don't have no problem whatsoever with the act of cannibalism itself.

However, I do have problems of how unsanitary it can potentially be, the fact human body doesn't have a whole lot of meat, and that murder and desecration of corpses are not right.

I don't think you can really call something "evil" just for trying to survive. If you're a monster that has to kill people in order to live (take mindflayers as an example — they eat the brains of sapient creatures, or else they starve) then I don't think you can be considered evil for doing so. Of course, your would-be victims can't really be considered evil for killing you in self-defense, either. In a straight-up predator/prey relationship, then neither side is really good or evil, as both are just doing what they have to in order to survive.

Some examples are more ambiguous, though. Take vampires, for instance. A not-uncommon thing in modern vampire stories is the idea of vampires surviving by drinking donated blood, or non-fatally drinking blood from a willing "victim". In that case, there are clearly ways for them to survive without killing anyone — but many often choose not to, and continue to hunt and kill anyway. That I think you can legitimately call evil.

The only right that really exists (rather than actually being a privilege granted by law) is the right to self-preservation. It is the right, indeed it is an essential requirement, of almost every living being not capable of photosynthesis to end the lives of other beings to survive. Likewise, it is the right of the prey to defend itself.

I've been away for a bit, and making a slow return. This is why it's taking me so long to reply to stuff.

Anyway, about the philosophy thread: this is the current last page of it, and you can submit your question there in addition to having this thread exist on its own. We don't have a way to merge threads, and even if we did I'm not sure if there'd be any point doing it here.

If you kill for self-defense, then that's very necessary, whatever traumatic consequences there ay be for having to survive.

Of course, one would have to be honest with oneself that it really was self-defense.

A friend of mine has recommended many sites to me. I must be more tired than I thought, but nonetheless, at least this one must fit here. Nononsenseselfdefense has plenty of great, if uncomfortable, things to say about self-defense and how and why violence happens and so forth. And no one's saying you'd need to take it as the only source. I think there was some page on that site that said that itself. But it's worth checking out.

Woo, I truly am tired.

May you all be safe.

That's a very interesting site. but it doesnt seem to address the question we are debating here.

If anyone wants to take this, or any other question, to the philosophy thread, I would follow it there.