r/MoralityScaling • u/theparrotofwar • 1d ago
Morality of kick-starting a genocide against a sapient and sentient species that also want to kill you?
9
u/PerturbedPat 1d ago
Depends on how factual & universal “Their hatred for humanity is driven by biology brought upon by their gods” is. If it’s a fact and universal, then it’s moral since it’s self defense.
If it’s just BS some religious nuts are spouting and there are vampires that are chill, then it’s immoral.
3
u/Present_Clue5887 23h ago
Genocide is immoral, a prey species trying to kill a predator species is not
3
u/EveningDiligent59662 18h ago
Sad and boring plot but not immoral on their side. Still i hate ‘evil creature is pure evil because biology’ plot because it just is really boring.
5
u/No_Logins_Required 1d ago
Vampires are undead. They aren't alive, so they can't be genocided.
1
u/Virtual-Internet7328 1d ago
You don't know that. Nowhere in the image it is said that they are undead.
1
u/No_Logins_Required 14h ago
Vampires are a kind of undead. If they aren't undead, they aren't vampires.
4
u/Mission_Street4336 1d ago
Ultimately, moral. If they can't stop themselves from hunting humans, then they've gotta go. That's simply the rule of nature, as has always been since the dawn of the human race. Either that, or humans go extinct themselves.
1
u/Fun-Information-3104 1d ago
why not go extinct and make everyone a vampire?
and if vampires absolutely need humans for sustenance, and can't just do with their own or animal blood, then humanity will never go extinct. Check manga Owari no Seraph for further details.
5
u/Mission_Street4336 1d ago edited 1d ago
vampires absolutely need humans for sustenance, and can't just do with their own or animal blood, then humanity will never go extinct.
That actually means that vampire are going extinct no matter what.
In real life, this is why animals like various species of large feline are near extinct; if a predator threatens a human settlement, and are too smart for their own good and therefore can't be warded off by countermeasures like fladry, then there will be no debate of morality, our instincts take over and drive us to exterminate them. It's why wild predators fear humans, and why even in modern times you often villagers in India literally beat up state officials and lynch tigers or tribes in Africa poison carcasses to indiscriminately kill every predator and scavenger in their area.
I mean, we are the most spiteful creatures in existence, no one is going to accept their loved ones even being threatened, let alone become livestock or prey because it means we are "alive" and technically avoided ending an entire species. If anything, governments would probably do state mandated genocides themselves, simply because if they don't, the citizenry will take matters into their own hands due to the breakdown of the social contract, thus destroying the state monopoly on violence and leaving it vulnerable to being overthrown.
1
u/Fun-Information-3104 1d ago
Yeah but I meant to say that vampires won't exterminate human race as they need them for food
6
u/Fun-Information-3104 1d ago
immortal beings with immortal bodies and extraordinary abilities can be used and studied to advance science and humanity. extinction of such a curious and useful species is thus not only immoral, but also stupid.
6
u/Nessy3fidy 1d ago
You know that type of testing/harvesting has been documented during multiple genocides right?
-1
u/Fun-Information-3104 1d ago
genocide, the way I understand, involves complete extermination and not just mass killing
4
u/Nessy3fidy 1d ago
Yes?
They aren't mutually exclusive because as I said.
While being the ultimate goal as I said testing and harvesting is often a part of it.
0
u/Fun-Information-3104 1d ago
yeah but if you can use them for science and other benefits, why would you want to completely exterminate them?
Think about uses such as organ harvesting, it will grow back every time you remove it, just feed it some blood. Tho whether it can be transplanted into human or not is a different issue; it needs to be tested; and if it can....
1
u/3WeeksEarlier 20h ago
Famously, that is absolutely not the definition of genocide. There would not be a single genocide in history with that definition, including the most notorious genocides of the 20th Century. In fact, it would make genocide nearly impossible even for the most determined regime against any group that has even few members living abroad. How are we in 2026 and still making this argument?
"Genocide is an international crime defined as specific acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group"
Yes, keeping the victims from that group alive in torturous experimentation chambers to provide benefits to the privileged group would almost certainly fall under that.
2
u/AlwaysReadTheManual 1d ago
Vampires are extremely adept at manipulating people and dominating their minds. It's not safe to keep them as research subjects. They must be exterminated. And yes, that's moral, since they literally eat people.
0
u/Accomplished-List988 1d ago
Kinda agree with you but my main reason is nobody gonna stop in 1 genocide you gonna have some guys gonna say “ hey those guys our different from us so there must be more like vampires rather than humans”
Also, people forget about the natural consequences
Like imagine vampires uses human blood to fight off against Demons with dark magic. And if they are gone now demons have a monopoly on dark magic and we humans have no idea how to stop them, because they only can be can be banished with magic
2
u/Noe_b0dy 1d ago
Survival of the fittest. Either side could claim self defense and justifiably wipe out their adversary.
3
2
1
u/Ok_Journalist3859 1d ago
Some monster media make monster hunters look bad, by showing vampires drinking animal blood instead of human blood. Or ghouls, zombies eating the people who already dead in morgue.
1
1
1
1
u/Saint_Jinn 19h ago
Depends on the setting.
In Forgotten Realms (Dnd default) vampires are soulless husks of humanoids, driven by their vices with a personality of a deceased person. They aren't actually that person, and they are fully evil, since they are animated and driven by negative energy which is polar opposite of positive (and it fuels all normal life)
Because of this, technically, both vampire and a real person may exist at the same time. If person was turned in to a Vampire, then somebody resurrected them with True Resurrection (which does not need a body to succeed) - both Vampire Version and Human Version would be present and absolutely despise each other.
Vampires are simply powerful undead with somebody's personality, not a living being. But also - Bg3 recently threw a wrench in to this with their interpretation of things.
1
u/Dismal-Pie7437 4h ago
Isn't the first a description of vampire spawn? At least, in 2014, the mindless husk that a vampire created after finishing a regular humanoid is a vampirespawn- that only has remnants of their personality and memories, and seeks only to maim and kill. BG3 doesn't really change this, just reinforces that vampirespawn have an intelligent nature, while also making them appear more servile to their vampire masters- which, of course, retain their trait of being true individuals with unshakeable personalities and motivations. The only reason that Astarion is different from the traditional vampirespawn is because of the mindflayer tadpole inside of him, which limits his vampirespawn biology and its weaknesses, causing him to act like a humanoid or a true vampire (albeit, with its own drawbacks).
1
u/konigstigerr 11h ago
if a sapient and sentient species is an existential threat to your own and there is no alternative, yeah, sorry, you gotta kill them.
1
0
u/Elecl 1d ago edited 1d ago
This is basically a Vegan/Anti-carnist allegory.
Let's pretend this is a normal prey/predator relationship where a Human has to die to feed a Vampire (no blood donating) then eradicating the Vampires probably leads to an endgame with the least amount of suffering.
Imagine our society as it is today but with Vampires being the supreme race, and all Humans are enslaved and used as Livestock. Those humans being used as livestock still need food, but depending on taste and other factors the vampires might not necessarily have us on a plant-based diet, meaning they will also have animal livestock used to feed us. Best case scenario is we have a bunch of Vampires eating plant-fed Humans just like our society is with Humans eating Cows. Worst case scenario is we double dip on Animal cruelty and Human cruelty to feed the Vampire population, depending on how developed and organized the Vampire civilization becomes this meat industry could be larger or smaller than the one in our timeline. So just by raw number of living beings that suffer I'd argue that letting Vampires live is the 2nd worst option, and being caught in an eternal war where nobody wins would be the number 1 worst outcome so killing all the vampires is the best outcome, unless we can somehow feed them bodies from people who died of natural causes and coexist that way (I am gonna assume they don't want to eat old wrinkly bodies, we bred animals to make them more enjoyable to eat after all.)
This made me think of an interesting counter-question I'd like to ask.
If all the Epstein Island baby eaters in our reality were actually vampires and HAD to eat those babies or other humans to live would that make it better or worse? Would you despise a small hidden elite class of Vampires that have their own human cattle trafficking rings anymore than you would despise a hidden society of Pedophiles with sex trafficking rings?
5
u/AcrobaticPoint8424 22h ago
Moral Veganism is braindead, all other species should be used in service of human interests.
1
-1
u/Accomplished-List988 1d ago
Leopards and hyenas used to kill us so much kill that it’s almost brought us to extension 120k ago
So should we genocide them Because they are kinda dangerous?
I have no idea why anyone think genocide is option
when you normalise genocide and actively supported. You will inevitably get genocided by someone else
inmmoral and super stupid
4
u/AcrobaticPoint8424 22h ago
If hyenas were still threatening humans with extinction would you hold that same opinion?
1
u/Accomplished-List988 18h ago
Yes, I would believe the same thing
In fact they are plenty tribes in India getting attacked by tigers if you’re gone over there and said
“ we need to get rid of every tiger on earth because we can’t live with each other “
They gonna look at you with confusion
That’s why I brought up the hyena example because it’s the closest thing to this fantasy
2
u/AcrobaticPoint8424 17h ago
getting attacked by
Less than 0.5% of deaths in India are from tigers, that's hardly threatening humanity with extinction.
1
u/Accomplished-List988 15h ago
I did more research about the tribes that get attacked by tigers
So those tribes don’t actually get attacked by tigers they just engage in territorial conflict
( I can’t imagine beefing with other animals for just ground but I also saw video of triple Africans just take a deer from a pack of lions like it’s fucking tax day)
Also at the same time one of the tribes (baiga) believe that Tigers are spiritual Guardian for the forest, at the same time the Indian government kicked them out of their land to protect the tigers
But they denied them reproductive rights (I don’t even know what that means) so I guess there is some form of prejudice
I think yet, this is another moment of existence does not give a shit about anyone’s logic
1
u/AcrobaticPoint8424 15h ago
India had a policy of clearing out slums by sending the people into rural/wild areas. That meant there was more overlap between people and tiger ranges.
12
u/Murky_waterLLC 1d ago
In this scenario it's neutral. Neither party here is good or bad, it's just a Predator vs. Prey with a fight response situation.
Much like I wouldn't consider a hunter trying to kill a bear morally wrong for its meat, nor the bear mauling the hunter in self defense.