why foxes shouldn't eat rabbits
Feb. 16th, 2006 04:28 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
I 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)?
(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-17 07:17 am (UTC)I tried to tackle the vampire question in something I was working on, but I couldn't make it fit into the larger story. I may try it again, though, in a smaller story, perhaps centered on that problem.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-17 07:21 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-17 07:26 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-17 08:03 am (UTC)In return, the Irien is very protective of their donors, seeing to their well being. They usually have more than one to make it easier on their donors. Even though the bite of an Irien can heal and can replenish what they take (they give a little of their life force back into their donor), a single donor can get worn down over time.
Now this is just for the Iriens, in the TA universe there are other breeds of vampire on Earthside, ranging from the classical Dracula type to whatever other vampiric types there are in other cultures, such as the Chinese hopping vampire. I'd have to say the classical type, as you see in most vampire movies, are rather predatory. They see and treat humans as cattle, a term often used. With these types it's a totally different mindset.
Now I've seen some movies where there's a classical vampire who didn't want to feed and would go to great lengths to avoid taking human blood because they knew they'd kill and thus create another vampire. And that's also used as the classic struggle: to feed or not to feed. They feed, they become the predator who sees humans as food, nothing more. To not feed, they become the weak link and it leads to their destruction. Usually they're tricked into feeding by another vampire who's gleefully the predator, everything the other doesn't want to become. This vampire usually feeds on rats or other animals while the predatory one feeds on humans and tries to goad the other into taking his first drink.
There's a movie that deals with this, Vampire Journals. A vampire didn't want to feed and would go to great lengths to avoid human blood. He finally gets trapped and tricked into feeding, but the humans were willing. He felt disgusted with himself but ultimately couldn't help himself because the urge to feed and the predatory complusion was too strong to resist. He was very weak due to his avoidance, and that's why it was easy for the predatory vampire to get him to feed. These predatory vampires knew that to kill the human was a bad thing and would feed until it was almost too dangerous for the human, let the human recover, and meanwhile they'd feed from another. Now and then one would lose control and kill their feeder human, having to kill the human to prevent another vampire from rising.
Boy, am I rambling...:)
Hope this helps.
--L.Graf
(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-26 05:31 am (UTC)Interesting that you mention all the different types of vampires. I really hadn't thought about it. My idea of vampires is confined to three major sources: Dracula (Bram Stoker's conception), Lilith (as written about in the book Lilith by George MacDonald), and the vampires in Sunshine (whose names have been forgotten, but the book is by Robin McKinley). Those three sources, though, give very different ideas of what vampires are. The common elements seem to be blood, power, and a sensuality. Someday I shall figure out just why vampires fascinate me so much.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-26 09:26 pm (UTC)There's a book, Lust For Blood, that traces the origins of vampires. How they started in legends and mythos and what type there are, going thru all the cultures and their versions of them. I highly recommend it, good reading.
I'm facinated with them too...hence my own, the Irien. :)
--L.Graf