I think therefore I am! (Predator Self-Awareness and More)

CauldronBorn24 wrote:

ZionAtriedes wrote:

CauldronBorn24 wrote:

They could, but ignorance on their part is a big factor; it is also highly unlikely a predator would give up the chance of, if the situation dictated it, a human who would be an easy catch, or go hunt another animal who is a mile away.

On the same token a human does not need to take revenge on a predator who ate their firend or family member, however if they were given the opportunity they probably would. It would take a very strong heart and a lot of empathy for a human, given the chance, not to kill a predator knowing what it is and what it had done.

I'm not counting the ignorant ones. I've already said that most preds probably have no idea that humans are every bit as sapient as they are. There are a few, however, who do have an idea of it. Those are the monsters.

Vengeance for the sake of vengeance is also monstrous, on that we can agree. However, I'd have zero qualms about killing a predator to save another person whose life is threatened by it.

There are willing monsters on both sides and both sides will commit monsterous actions out of ignorance or necessity.

My case isn't to blindly defend humans. My case is to show that the giant preds, once you look past the fetish, are monsters. Of course humans can be monstrous, sometimes on a larger scale, but that is neither here nor there.

ZionAtriedes wrote:

My case is to show that the giant preds, once you look past the fetish, are monsters. Of course humans can be monstrous, sometimes on a larger scale, but that is neither here nor there.

And what about those that DONT eat humans at all...are they monsters too?

Well I think I will throw my two cents in to this.
Predators and Prey have two different sets of morals just as two different groups of people have two different sets of morals.
Let’s look at mankind as for an example, I recall a tribe from South America (I believe) that when the males of their tribe reach adulthood must place their hands in two large ant filled ‘woven gloves’ (for lack of a better term) the ant proceed to viscously bite at the young man’s hands and after several minutes the gloves are removed and the boy is now considered a man. Similarly in the same tribe young girls reaching adulthood have all their hair torn out of their head by hand. Now many consider these practices to be barbaric but inside this tribe it is considered perfectly acceptable common practice.

Now bringing this back to Felarya, predators see humans as food because they have been taught to view them as such, whether or not predators see prey species as sapient is of no concern to them.

Now on to the definition of a monster, that is more of a subjective subject. It could mean that the creature is hideous, or that it performs horrible deeds. But my personal view on monsters is that it is someone/something that performs a deed that it knows is wrong without any concern of harming another solely motivated by personal gain. Under this definition I feel that most predators would not fall under the category of monster as I have to believe that although they are out for self gain they are not in fact seeing anything wrong with their behavior. A true monster is one who knows that what they are doing is wrong and does not care.

Quote :

There's no such thing as being over-prepared.

There is such a thing as this. It's called "Carrying too much junk on you so it becomes entirely inefficient".

Axel Hunter wrote:

ZionAtriedes wrote:

My case is to show that the giant preds, once you look past the fetish, are monsters. Of course humans can be monstrous, sometimes on a larger scale, but that is neither here nor there.

And what about those that DONT eat humans at all...are they monsters too?

No, at least not in this case.

buddha66667 wrote:

Under this definition I feel that most predators would not fall under the category of monster as I have to believe that although they are out for self gain they are not in fact seeing anything wrong with their behavior. A true monster is one who knows that what they are doing is wrong and does not care.

But what of those who do know it is wrong, or at the very least, that it is wrong in the eyes of their victim?

Sean Okotami wrote:

There is such a thing as this. It's called "Carrying too much junk on you so it becomes entirely inefficient".

Then that's not preparedness. True preparedness is knowing what to pack, how to pack it, and how/when to utilize it.

ZionAtriedes wrote:

buddha66667 wrote:

Under this definition I feel that most predators would not fall under the category of monster as I have to believe that although they are out for self gain they are not in fact seeing anything wrong with their behavior. A true monster is one who knows that what they are doing is wrong and does not care.

But what of those who do know it is wrong, or at the very least, that it is wrong in the eyes of their victim?

For those who do know it is wrong as I said would be considered monsters. Now empathy on the other hand is more of a touchy subject. Animal rights groups see it as wrong to injure/kill an animal, but as most of man kind sees animals as lacking the same rights as humans we continue kill animals for food, clothing, ect. Now even though we recognize that these animal rights groups see animals as having rights we violate their beliefs. So Zion I ask you does that make those who kill animals monsters?

*Edit
As I stated earlier each persons definition of a monster is subjective making this a difficult subject to discuss. As it is less a discussion based on fact and more a discussion based on ones personal opinion.

I'll repeat what I said earlier, hopefully we won't get bogged down in a moral quagmire:

My overall point was that it is a grey on grey argument and it is up to the individual author was to which prespective to take, if at all. I don't think this is something we need to give a definite answer to.

ZionAtriedes wrote:

Axel Hunter wrote:

ZionAtriedes wrote:

My case is to show that the giant preds, once you look past the fetish, are monsters. Of course humans can be monstrous, sometimes on a larger scale, but that is neither here nor there.

And what about those that DONT eat humans at all...are they monsters too?

No, at least not in this case.

buddha66667 wrote:

Under this definition I feel that most predators would not fall under the category of monster as I have to believe that although they are out for self gain they are not in fact seeing anything wrong with their behavior. A true monster is one who knows that what they are doing is wrong and does not care.

But what of those who do know it is wrong, or at the very least, that it is wrong in the eyes of their victim?

Sean Okotami wrote:

There is such a thing as this. It's called "Carrying too much junk on you so it becomes entirely inefficient".

Then that's not preparedness. True preparedness is knowing what to pack, how to pack it, and how/when to utilize it.

Who cares what wrong is in the eyes of their victims.... they do not live by the code of conduct of their victims.

Like I said, right and wrong have no meaning outside of the society that sets the meanings.

For instance, it might "wrong" for a succubus to commit a kind act.

For harpies insults are normal speech. Are Harpies wrong for doing this?

buddha66667 wrote:

So Zion I ask you does that make those who kill animals monsters?

Depends on whether the animal is sapient, whether the killing is in a quick and humane manner, and the reasons for the killing. Someone who pulls the wings off of flies is a monster, because sadism is the underlying motive, whether or not the fly is sapient. Someone who shoots a deer in the heart for food and fur is not, though one who does so purely for sport is behaving in a monstrous manner. Someone who hunts dolphins also is, as they have been shown to perhaps be sapient.

Grave wrote:

Like I said, right and wrong have no meaning outside of the society that sets the meanings.

Society and morals are endemic of sapience. Anyone who possesses the ability to understand right and wrong should thus be held accountable for right and wrong. The inability to feel empathy is considered a monstrous trait among humans, because we understand right and wrong. Felaryan hybrids have been shown to possess the capacity to understand it, and so should be held accountable for lacking empathy.

Matters of language are different. Harpies, when conversing in their manner, do not intend to infringe upon the well-being of another thinking and feeling creature. When a predator subjects a person to unimaginable torment and then mocks them for it, that is indeed wrong any way you slice it.

And what of cultures where human sacrifice was the norm?

I mean those cultures grew on their own, are you going to label the entire culture wrong?

Quote :

Depends on whether the animal is sapient, whether the killing is in a quick and humane manner, and the reasons for the killing. Someone who pulls the wings off of flies is a monster, because sadism is the underlying motive, whether or not the fly is sapient. Someone who shoots a deer in the heart for food and fur is not, though one who does so purely for sport is behaving in a monstrous manner. Someone who hunts dolphins also is, as they have been shown to perhaps be sapient.

so a human tearing the wings off an innocent fairy is considered a monster?

"Someone who shoots a deer in the heart for food and fur is not a monster " and yet a Felarya predator hunts us for food... dosent that counter your point

And FYI, we may find hunting dolphins to be bad, yet we torture them in our theme parks and aquariums for amusement. alot of Felaryans can do that to a predator for amusement... that I would consider monsterous

Quote :

When a predator subjects a person to unimaginable torment and then mocks them for it, that is indeed wrong any way you slice it.

sounds alot like what we humans do on a daily basis to each other. and if we do that to a predator, does that make it ok? or are we monsters too?

I'm posting now... some of you may want to look away.

First of all, I didn't bother reading through all the comments so what I am about to post may have already been said by someone else. It was my understanding that the predators were well aware of our sentience, or sapience, but couldn't really care less because the food chain reigns supreme in the end. Sympathy takes the back seat to survival; this is how predators were conditioned and conditioning can trump the instinct to emphathize with sapient prey. As for my feelings towards seeing humans get eaten by these predators... sure I feel sorry for them, but no more than I do for the humans killed by other humans that I see on the news in real life.

Grave wrote:

And what of cultures where human sacrifice was the norm?

I mean those cultures grew on their own, are you going to label the entire culture wrong?

Yep. Watch me: they're wrong.

Axel Hunter wrote:

And FYI, we may find hunting dolphins to be bad, yet we torture them in our theme parks and aquariums for amusement. alot of Felaryans can do that to a predator for amusement... that I would consider monsterous

Quote :

When a predator subjects a person to unimaginable torment and then mocks them for it, that is indeed wrong any way you slice it.

sounds alot like what we humans do on a daily basis to each other. and if we do that to a predator, does that make it ok? or are we monsters too?

You are misrepresenting my argument by creating a fictional strawman, a logical fallacy that I find quite infuriating. I never sought to defend humans, or to say that they are better than predators. That you seem to think that pointing out the errors humans have committed gives you any credence over me is extraordinary irritating.

Axel hunter wrote:

"Someone who shoots a deer in the heart for food and fur is not a monster " and yet a Felarya predator hunts us for food... dosent that counter your point

I have already stated that predators do NOT require the consumption of humans to survive. That you would overlook my previous statements and then assert that your argument has trumped mine is even more irritating than your last grievance.

Quote :

And what of cultures where human sacrifice was the norm?

I mean those cultures grew on their own, are you going to label the entire culture wrong?

Sort of. You don't need to decry an entire culture to point out that a custom or ritual is wrong. Will the culture you mentioned above have redeeming qualities and positive points? Definately. But is human sacrifice wrong? Yep.

Really it is all about perspective.

Predators eating humans, from the pred point of view, is normal. From a OUR point of view, it is monstrous.

That's really why this argument has no real winner. It is about two opposing viewpoints. If you're looking at it as yourself, a human, then of course the act of eating someone is murder, and is a monstrous act of cruelty. But if you flip it around and look at it from a pred's perspective, a pred that does not see humans as "people" to be exact, then there is nothing wrong with the act, from their point of view anyway.

Where you get into some really dark territory is when you begin dealing with the predators that DO know. Elle, for example, takes her time to lecture her prey about their place in the world, and drag out the process as long as possible. There are other preds as well who do this too, and seem to enjoy the power-trip of the act. Lily is another example of this. Im not completely sure of her stance in the "humans: people or not?" debate, but she enjoys torturing humans, usually by impaling them with vines. She doesn't do this to eat, she does it because she hates humans for what they did to her sister.There's no justifying those types, the best label you can attach to them is that of a murderer or serial killer.

There are also preds like Fiona, who know humans are people, and can emphathize with them. Eating humans when you feel that way about them is a monstrous act as well.

You have a third category as well, which includes preds like Crisis. They have human friends and aquaintences, and they would never dream of hurting them...but they're fine with eating other humans. This is especially common among fairies, given their unique psychology and their views on what constitutes a person. This is a real grey area though, and can be handled and interpreted many different ways, depending on the author.

Quote :

so a human tearing the wings off an innocent fairy is considered a monster?

Definately. Same with torturing a fairy after you have incapacitated her and/or damaged her wings.

Quote :

"Someone who shoots a deer in the heart for food and fur is not a monster " and yet a Felarya predator hunts us for food... dosent that counter your point

Kind of missed the point of his example. A shot to the heart is an instant, relatively painless kill, and the deer is not wasted and you can get many meals from it.

A giant hybrid on the other hand, doesn't need to eat humans. Humans are not even large enough to be filling. They are, when it comes down to it, eating a small, unfilling snack simply because they like the taste. Its not hunting for a meal, its grabbing a quick snack on the way to your main meal (which most likely isn't going to involve humans). Not to mention that the actual death of the human is extremely painful and drawn out over several minutes. That is assuming the victim is allowed to suffocate and the pred that ate them doesn't attempt to prolong their lives by swallowing air, or something else. Suffocation is the best possible outcome you can hope for, since it likey happens before you actually start to feel the acid working on you.

Quote :

sounds alot like what we humans do on a daily basis to each other

You can't really compare most things to suffocating to death in a hot, pitch-black chamber and then having your body broken down by acid (also, if you're lucky, you'll be long dead before this happens). It is one of the most gruesome deaths imaginable. Dark, hot, claustrophobic suffocation, and then agonizing pain (if you aren't already dead from the suffocation). It'd be considered a war-crime by any civilized nation, if anyone did anything like that to someone in real life.

Bra-vo Cliff. That's pretty much what I wanted to get across, but I was a little too irritated to do.

Yay for a separate topic! And also: man this forum moves fast. I'm too old for this stuff.

Anyway, this subject has been broken down several times in this topic already, probably better than I can, but I'll still add my $2 (inflation sucks).

As I see it, knowingly ending the life of a being you know is beyond a certain intellectual and emotional level of complexity, is wrong even from a purely objective view point. But I'm still not confident in wholly objective methods of measuring self-awareness. And precisely where that line is seems kinda blurry. And let's face it; empathy has a hard time being clinical and objective. Like I said about the parrots before, even if we found out they were as intelligent as 22-year-olds, who thinks they'd get equal rights to humans? Okay, maybe in some places, but how about the less civilized parts of the world, where people are surviving day-to-day? I dunno.

Man, I'm just rambling here, and incoherently too. But I will say that this blurry perspective, and the conflicts and revelations that result are one of the things I enjoy most about this world. One of my characters actually has a backstory where she discovered that the humans she's been eating all along were every bit her equals, and freaked out over it so bad she won't eat anything that moves, for the fear that even starkala bugs might secretly be sentient beings. The whole dynamic is very compelling to me.

And for the record, I don't see anything inherently evil in the naga eating humans she doesn't know are people, nor the human blowing up the naga they perceive as a mindless monster.

PrinnyDood wrote:

And for the record, I don't see anything inherently evil in the naga eating humans she doesn't know are people, nor the human blowing up the naga they perceive as a mindless monster.

Yes, but the biggest issue seems to be a Naga eating humans that she should understand are people, like Crisis knows that Léa is human and Anna was, but that doesn't stop her from eating humans...

Personally, I don't think morals alone would particularly stop some Giant Predators, since Anna herself will occasionally eat someone.
And, seriously, isn't there something in the world setting that kind of pushes everything towards voraciousness?

Black Aquila wrote:

PrinnyDood wrote:

And for the record, I don't see anything inherently evil in the naga eating humans she doesn't know are people, nor the human blowing up the naga they perceive as a mindless monster.

Yes, but the biggest issue seems to be a Naga eating humans that she should understand are people, like Crisis knows that Léa is human and Anna was, but that doesn't stop her from eating humans...

Personally, I don't think morals alone would particularly stop some Giant Predators, since Anna herself will occasionally eat someone.
And, seriously, isn't there something in the world setting that kind of pushes everything towards voraciousness?

Keep in mind.

Crisis was raised by Fairies.

She doesn't think quite like a normal naga. She thinks like a Fairy, and we all know Fairies have a very interesting view of the world, the people and the prey within it.
---> Fairy psychology <---

It is for this same reason that Crisis' eating habits cannot be used as the norm for most predators either. Nearly all hybrid predators, at least the egg-born ones, go through a phase of their life where they are still too small to eat humans, but too big to subsist on tinies or other small animals. It is during this period that they learn to hunt animals more effectively, to be more creative and efficient with their survival techniques, and to forage for various types of fruit, berries and other plant-based foods to eat. During this entire period, the juvenille pred CAN'T eat human-sized things or tinies and is forced to learn to use other things to make up the majority of their diet.

Crisis never had to go through this phase. She was raised by Temi and her pack, and spoiled rotten. She was given humans, shrunk down to a proper eating size, whenever she wanted. She never had to go through those years of learning to eat other things. That is why she will often go out of her way to find humans to eat, and go through lengths the average predator just would not bother with. She always got human snacks whenever she wanted, and now they are her first choice of food, instead of the semi-rare snack most predators view them as. Crisis can, and does, eat other things, but human-sized people are still her first choice, and she will go out of her way to eat them if she gets the chance.

Crisis is an abnormal case, and is not the norm amongst her kind, or most predators in general.

As for Anna, she's only very rarely eaten humans. Keep in mind, even in the manga, she's only been a Naga for a few months. I think any loss of control on her part can be attributed to that. She's a human woman who is stuck in a Naga's body, and is having to deal with a whole new set of powerful, predatory, instincts that are probably very alien to anything a human has ever had to deal with. There's going to be a period of adjustment before she gets a full grip on her new body, and all that goes along with it.

rcs619 wrote:

Black Aquila wrote:

PrinnyDood wrote:

And for the record, I don't see anything inherently evil in the naga eating humans she doesn't know are people, nor the human blowing up the naga they perceive as a mindless monster.

Yes, but the biggest issue seems to be a Naga eating humans that she should understand are people, like Crisis knows that Léa is human and Anna was, but that doesn't stop her from eating humans...

Personally, I don't think morals alone would particularly stop some Giant Predators, since Anna herself will occasionally eat someone.
And, seriously, isn't there something in the world setting that kind of pushes everything towards voraciousness?

Keep in mind.

Crisis was raised by Fairies.

She doesn't think quite like a normal naga. She thinks like a Fairy, and we all know Fairies have a very interesting view of the world, the people and the prey within it.
---> Fairy psychology <---

It is for this same reason that Crisis' eating habits cannot be used as the norm for most predators either. Nearly all hybrid predators, at least the egg-born ones, go through a phase of their life where they are still too small to eat humans, but too big to subsist on tinies or other small animals. It is during this period that they learn to hunt animals more effectively, to be more creative and efficient with their survival techniques, and to forage for various types of fruit, berries and other plant-based foods to eat. During this entire period, the juvenille pred CAN'T eat human-sized things or tinies and is forced to learn to use other things to make up the majority of their diet.

Crisis never had to go through this phase. She was raised by Temi and her pack, and spoiled rotten. She was given humans, shrunk down to a proper eating size, whenever she wanted. She never had to go through those years of learning to eat other things. That is why she will often go out of her way to find humans to eat, and go through lengths the average predator just would not bother with. She always got human snacks whenever she wanted, and now they are her first choice of food, instead of the semi-rare snack most predators view them as. Crisis can, and does, eat other things, but human-sized people are still her first choice, and she will go out of her way to eat them if she gets the chance.

Crisis is an abnormal case, and is not the norm amongst her kind, or most predators in general.

As for Anna, she's only very rarely eaten humans. Keep in mind, even in the manga, she's only been a Naga for a few months. I think any loss of control on her part can be attributed to that. She's a human woman who is stuck in a Naga's body, and is having to deal with a whole new set of powerful, predatory, instincts that are probably very alien to anything a human has ever had to deal with. There's going to be a period of adjustment before she gets a full grip on her new body, and all that goes along with it.

the voice of reason in this discussion.

if giants aren't people does that mean I shouldn't consider Crisis a character or Anna for that matter


__________________________________________


I will always be happy to see fellow Felarya members

Solomon wrote:

if giants aren't people does that mean I shouldn't consider Crisis a character or Anna for that matter

Wait, what? What is this I don't even -

Archmage_Bael wrote:

Solomon wrote:

if giants aren't people does that mean I shouldn't consider Crisis a character or Anna for that matter

Wait, what? What is this I don't even -

I don't even either Bael. I don't even either.

I... I think I understand now. This argument has been resolved with clarity and poise. It all makes sense.

Thank you M. Bison. Welcome to Felarya.

Solomon wrote:

If giants aren't people does that mean I shouldn't consider Crisis a character or Anna for that matter ?


__________________________________________


I will always be happy to see fellow Felarya members ?

That depends on what you consider a person to be. But I think they're still characters even if they don't fit your views.

M.Bison. wrote:

I laughed