vampires, who likes them, who doesn't?

[Mindfire]

Again, surely this depends on the mythos behind the vampire. What if the vampire is an infected or possessed human that is driven to kill against it's will? You could kill it, sure, but what if you could cure it instead? Is it morally right to kill a vampire just because it is the easy path? This reminds me of the argument behind whether or not to shut off a coma patient's life support. Well, sort of.

Also, check the story of I Am Legend. He kills the vampires without mercy, under the assumption that they are all violent and evil. The ending of the story reveals that the morality is reversed.

Not entirely. If I remember correctly, there were actually two types of vampires: the mindless killers and those who just wanted to be left alone, and he'd been killing both groups indiscriminately. But his mistake in killing the second group doesn't mean he was wrong to kill the other group.

Regardless, I Am Legend depicts an entirely different scenario from the one I'm referring to. I'm talking about vampires preying on a large group of people, which shifts the morality involved considerably. And even if it is possible to cure them, does that mean you should just let them keep on killing and turning people until the cure is found? That you shouldn't proactively protect your citizens? And what if some of them don't want to be cured, and would rather go on eating the flesh of men for all eternity? Should you just "live and let live"? Of course not.

 

[Rikilamaro]

See this ^ is a perfect example of what I don't really understand. Why do monsters need personality? Werewolves I get, because they're still partially human. But the entire point of vampires is that the have no humanity. They're soulless demons. That's why its okay to massacre them with impunity. Making them "human" sort of muddles the point and makes them seem less threatening. Or maybe I'm just saying this to be contrarian. I don't know.

I'd consider Underworld an exception to this, however, partly because their vampires are (sort of) science-based instead of magic or supernatural based, which is a game changer. And also because the movie was so awesome.

If all you want is monsters, use zombies. In my opinion is comes down to a matter of sentience. The creature is aware of it's existence, intelligent, and able to make choices that determine it's destiny. We'll leave out the discussion on whether or not vampires have souls, but that's what it partially boils down to. If they meet these criteria, then they're not that far off from us, and therefore, killing them would be wrong. Because they have the power to change, it boils down to the free will.

 

[Mindfire]

If all you want is monsters, use zombies. In my opinion is comes down to a matter of sentience. The creature is aware of it's existence, intelligent, and able to make choices that determine it's destiny. We'll leave out the discussion on whether or not vampires have souls, but that's what it partially boils down to. If they meet these criteria, then they're not that far off from us, and therefore, killing them would be wrong. Because they have the power to change, it boils down to the free will.

"Monster" doesn't necessarily mean "non-sentient", see this TVtropes entry: Complete Monster - Television Tropes & Idioms

THAT is what vampires are. Unrepentant, murderous carnivores driven by bloodlust. The only alternative to killing them is to let them go on feasting on humanity. Is that what you're suggesting ought to be done? Why should a vampire get a free pass to murder people just because he's a vampire and "he can't help it"?

 

[Rikilamaro]

In their defense, vampires don't usually view humanity as more than chattel. So, should we all become vegetarians just because the cows feel it's wrong that we eat them?

 

[Ireth]

In their defense, vampires don't usually view humanity as more than chattel. So, should we all become vegetarians just because the cows feel it's wrong that we eat them?

That brings up an important point. Cows can't think on the same level humans can; they don't have any knowledge of whether it's "right" or "wrong" that we eat them, whereas humans can make that distinction when it comes to vampires who would feed on them. What say you to that?

 

[Mindfire]

In their defense, vampires don't usually view humanity as more than chattel. So, should we all become vegetarians just because the cows feel it's wrong that we eat them?

I'm vegetarian, though not for moral reasons.

Vampires may see us as chattel, but that doesn't actually make us chattel. Vampires are not exempt from moral standards simply because they think they are. Otherwise, slavery would still be legal. If vampires have humanity, they must conform to human laws and moral standards. You can't have it both ways. If they have humanity, they are subject to moral standards and killing them is justified. If they don't have humanity, killing them is still justified because they're a threat that cannot be reasoned with.

 

[korabas]

Also, regardless of whether the vamps are evil or sentient or not -- perhaps the question is whether it is morally right for the humans to kill them on sight or seek to exterminate them, or whether they should aim to kill them only in self-defence (and this includes clearing territories and culling as pre-emptive security). We don't torture prisoners just because other countries might do. (not officially, anyway).
Is it right to kill at all, vamp or not?

 

[Mindfire]

Also, regardless of whether the vamps are evil or sentient or not -- perhaps the question is whether it is morally right for the humans to kill them on sight or seek to exterminate them, or whether they should aim to kill them only in self-defence (and this includes clearing territories and culling as pre-emptive security). We don't torture prisoners just because other countries might do. (not officially, anyway).
Is it right to kill at all, vamp or not?

Well this is a survival issue. These things are eating humans. That's about as black and white as it gets.

 

[Rikilamaro]

The cows don't see themselves as chattel either.

Vampires don't have humanity. They're not human. That doesn't mean they aren't intelligent and self-aware. They have a different set of cultural values.

So in your way of reasoning as soon as aliens make themselves known on Earth we should kill them because they aren't human and may be a threat. How bloodthirsty of you. What does that remind me of?

 

[Rikilamaro]

That brings up an important point. Cows can't think on the same level humans can; they don't have any knowledge of whether it's "right" or "wrong" that we eat them, whereas humans can make that distinction when it comes to vampires who would feed on them. What say you to that?

How do you know a cow doesn't have that knowledge? They certainly show enough terror at being penned up and slaughtered.

 

[Mindfire]

The cows don't see themselves as chattel either.

Vampires don't have humanity. They're not human. That doesn't mean they aren't intelligent and self-aware. They have a different set of cultural values.

So in your way of reasoning as soon as aliens make themselves known on Earth we should kill them because they aren't human and may be a threat. How bloodthirsty of you. What does that remind me of?

No. I'm saying if aliens make themselves known on Earth and start vaporizing cities they should be killed. And quickly too. Stop manufacturing an army of straw men. Otherwise you're just making it seem like we should roll over and happily let the abominations drink our blood. Which is absurd.

 

[Rikilamaro]

I'm not saying that at all. I am looking at it from the vampire's perspective. You have to understand both sides of an argument to write it well. To THEM it's not morally wrong.

 

[Ireth]

How do you know a cow doesn't have that knowledge? They certainly show enough terror at being penned up and slaughtered.

Any creature with enough working brain cells will freak out when someone harms it with something sharp. They would see it as a BAD thing, yes, but "right/wrong" and "good/bad" don't always line up neatly. For example: death (by natural causes as opposed to murder, suicide, etc., which is a whole other issue) is seen generally as a bad thing, and we take measures to avoid it for as long as possible, but I think a lot of people will agree that it is meant to happen to all of us sooner or later, and in that way it is "right".

 

[Mindfire]

I'm not saying that at all. I am looking at it from the vampire's perspective. You have to understand both sides of an argument to write it well. To THEM it's not morally wrong.

But how? Vampires may not be human, but they used to be. Did they just forget all about morality when they turned? Or did they choose to ignore it? If the former, then they ought to be reminded. Brutally. If the latter, then their actions fall squarely in the "evil" category.

 

[Ireth]

But how? Vampires may not be human, but they used to be. Did they just forget all about morality when they turned? Or did they choose to ignore it? If the former, then they ought to be reminded. Brutally. If the latter, then their actions fall squarely in the "evil" category.

Well said.

 

[Steerpike]

But how? Vampires may not be human, but they used to be. Did they just forget all about morality when they turned? Or did they choose to ignore it? If the former, then they ought to be reminded. Brutally. If the latter, then their actions fall squarely in the "evil" category.

In the Buffy world, at least initially, the idea was that when someone turned into a vampire, it was really that a demon came into possession of their body. A demon with no soul, no ability to have a morality or conscience. Just an evil entity. They looked like the person, had their memories, and so on, but weren't actually just a person who was now a vampire, but something else entirely.

 

[Mindfire]

In the Buffy world, at least initially, the idea was that when someone turned into a vampire, it was really that a demon came into possession of their body. A demon with no soul, no ability to have a morality or conscience. Just an evil entity. They looked like the person, had their memories, and so on, but weren't actually just a person who was now a vampire, but something else entirely.

In that case, killing them is 100% justified.

 

[Steerpike]

In that case, killing them is 100% justified.

Yes, and in that world that is exactly the view the characters take. As a vampire slayer, Buffy won't kill humans, even bad ones, and in general it is shown to be evil and bad to do so (for example, Faith and Willow, two other characters, kill humans and it starts a spiral into evil for them). "Bad" people are left to be tried and judged in the judicial system. But soul-less, evil demons (like vampires) are killed with no qualms.

 

[Ireth]

Yes, and in that world that is exactly the view the characters take. As a vampire slayer, Buffy won't kill humans, even bad ones, and in general it is shown to be evil and bad to do so (for example, Faith and Willow, two other characters, kill humans and it starts a spiral into evil for them). "Bad" people are left to be tried and judged in the judicial system. But soul-less, evil demons (like vampires) are killed with no qualms.

...unless the vampires are able to regain their souls (as at least two important ones do), and thus their ability to judge the morality of their actions.

 

[Steerpike]

...unless the vampires are able to regain their souls (as at least two important ones do), and thus their ability to judge the morality of their actions.

Yes, if they get their souls back. I felt like this kind of changed a bit in Angel, where they started departing from the initial set up on vampires. Like with Darla, who was brought back, still didn't have a soul, but still had the "human" Darla in there somewhere, causing her internal conflict and so on.