![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
why foxes shouldn't eat rabbits
Feb. 16th, 2006 04:28 pmI read the online comic Kevin and Kell most days. It's one of those comics that utilizes rational animals who act like people to get a point across. Most of the time, I think that the comic is great. But there is one thing that bothers me. It nibbles at the corners of my consciousness whenever I'm reading the comic. It is presented as completely natural that a decent, rational fox would kill and eat a decent, rational rabbit. It doesn't seem right.
Classically, what seperates humanity from animals is our rationality, our ability to reason and think logically. Humans are the only ones to talk about the Good, the True, and the Beautiful. Animals just don't do that. But part of being a rational creature is the knowledge that it is wrong to kill another rational creature for food. In fact, under most cases, it is wrong to kill another rational creature at all (acceptions are in times of war, or in self defense or defense of someone else, or maybe capital punishment).
Taking this idea (it is wrong to kill other rational beings in most circumstances), and applying it to other rational animals, gives an interesting conclusion. Good, decent rational animals should not kill one another for food. A rational fox should not kill a rational rabbit. CS Lewis abided by this rule, which is particularly evident in Narnia. The only animals that it is alright to hunt, or kill for food, or those which are not rational. In Prince Caspian, Susan can only be convinced to eat bear meet when she finds that the bear was not a talking bear. The children (and Puddleglum) in The Silver Chair are horrified to find that they have been eating a talking stag. It sickens them, and is meant to sicken us. This is because Lewis agreed with the classical seperation of rational animal from animal.
This has a few interesting implications. First, rational animals preying on other rational animals isn't really natural (I use natural here not in the sense of instinctual, but in the sense of making sense using natural reason). It should raise questions in the minds of readers whenever it is encountered. This is applicable not merely to actual animals (talking foxes, rabbits, etc) but to the wider range of rational beings. So, then, it is bad for vampires to live by either preying on rational creatures (humans, for instance), or by killing them. I am not sure whether a good vampire (if such a thing exists) could drink human blood. At this moment, I don't think so. It would be an act of predetation against another rational being, which seems to me to be always bad.
Second, this view will always conflict with a naturalistic view of human nature. My view only works if there is something that differentiates between humans and other animals; if reason really is something special. If, for whatever reasons, rational animals are really no different than other animals, everything breaks down.
Third, rational beings need not be human, or like humans. They should share some things in common with humans, since virtue is always virtue, and reason is always reason. But, a talking fox should not be a human in a fox skin (Lewis' animals are particularly good in this regard. The Beavers are very Beaver-ish, not like people pretending to be beavers.) However, rational animals are substantively different from our common everyday sort in some important ways. Reason makes animals different from the sort we encounter. They may not always act the same. They certainly will have virtue, and not just a blind sort of unreasoning instinctual virtue common to all animals (the dog jumping in the river to save someone), but a true virtue that can reason (the dog jumps into the river while still being afraid of the currents and undertow). Of course, rational animals can also be evil. Rational animals will have virtue and vice, and it will substantively be the same (because justice is always the same thing), although it may be evidenced differently (justice for a dog may look different).
So, I think rational animals are at once very much like, and almost completely unlike, humans. But some things, like virtue, are always the same. I still am not sure, though, of one thing. It keeps bugging me. Would a good, virtuous, vampire drink human blood? Is this ultimately an act of predation? Is it alright if the victim is willing (because, of course, because someone is willing for something to be done to them does not make it alright)?
Classically, what seperates humanity from animals is our rationality, our ability to reason and think logically. Humans are the only ones to talk about the Good, the True, and the Beautiful. Animals just don't do that. But part of being a rational creature is the knowledge that it is wrong to kill another rational creature for food. In fact, under most cases, it is wrong to kill another rational creature at all (acceptions are in times of war, or in self defense or defense of someone else, or maybe capital punishment).
Taking this idea (it is wrong to kill other rational beings in most circumstances), and applying it to other rational animals, gives an interesting conclusion. Good, decent rational animals should not kill one another for food. A rational fox should not kill a rational rabbit. CS Lewis abided by this rule, which is particularly evident in Narnia. The only animals that it is alright to hunt, or kill for food, or those which are not rational. In Prince Caspian, Susan can only be convinced to eat bear meet when she finds that the bear was not a talking bear. The children (and Puddleglum) in The Silver Chair are horrified to find that they have been eating a talking stag. It sickens them, and is meant to sicken us. This is because Lewis agreed with the classical seperation of rational animal from animal.
This has a few interesting implications. First, rational animals preying on other rational animals isn't really natural (I use natural here not in the sense of instinctual, but in the sense of making sense using natural reason). It should raise questions in the minds of readers whenever it is encountered. This is applicable not merely to actual animals (talking foxes, rabbits, etc) but to the wider range of rational beings. So, then, it is bad for vampires to live by either preying on rational creatures (humans, for instance), or by killing them. I am not sure whether a good vampire (if such a thing exists) could drink human blood. At this moment, I don't think so. It would be an act of predetation against another rational being, which seems to me to be always bad.
Second, this view will always conflict with a naturalistic view of human nature. My view only works if there is something that differentiates between humans and other animals; if reason really is something special. If, for whatever reasons, rational animals are really no different than other animals, everything breaks down.
Third, rational beings need not be human, or like humans. They should share some things in common with humans, since virtue is always virtue, and reason is always reason. But, a talking fox should not be a human in a fox skin (Lewis' animals are particularly good in this regard. The Beavers are very Beaver-ish, not like people pretending to be beavers.) However, rational animals are substantively different from our common everyday sort in some important ways. Reason makes animals different from the sort we encounter. They may not always act the same. They certainly will have virtue, and not just a blind sort of unreasoning instinctual virtue common to all animals (the dog jumping in the river to save someone), but a true virtue that can reason (the dog jumps into the river while still being afraid of the currents and undertow). Of course, rational animals can also be evil. Rational animals will have virtue and vice, and it will substantively be the same (because justice is always the same thing), although it may be evidenced differently (justice for a dog may look different).
So, I think rational animals are at once very much like, and almost completely unlike, humans. But some things, like virtue, are always the same. I still am not sure, though, of one thing. It keeps bugging me. Would a good, virtuous, vampire drink human blood? Is this ultimately an act of predation? Is it alright if the victim is willing (because, of course, because someone is willing for something to be done to them does not make it alright)?