In a setting where animals is sapient, such as Lion King, why are animals okay with their leaders eating them?

It's not a fact that IN ALLLLLLLLLLL SETTINGS where animals are sapient they are okay with being eaten.

>There weren't any carnivores in A Bug's Life.
Praying mantises, ladybugs, ants and black widow spiders are all predatory species.

>It's a fact that the moon exists in Lion King, therefore the moon is made of cheese.

Hold the phone, Lion King take a place in a national park? Where's the evidence for that?

>Praying mantises, ladybugs, ants and black widow spiders are all predatory species.
Sure, in our world.

In A Bug's Life world, the ants ate seeds.

The ladybugs ate seeds.

Everything ate seeds.

Event that bird at the end.

CIRCLE OF LIFE, NIGGA!

DID YOU NOT SEE THE FUCKING MOVIE?

They accept it as part of the natural order. Scar's regime showed what happens when they defy that order and hierarchy

>Event that bird at the end.
Uh, didn't the bird straight up feed Hopper to its chick at the end?

Even still, the only one plotting is Scar, who's clearly evil and no one wants around, Simba leaves because he's afraid of being blamed for his father's death, and goes back because nature's been unbalanced and he needs to set it right. Hamlet just wants revenge and his main internal conflict is being a Christian vs. wanting to be like Greek/Roman classical figures whose gods were fine with their dudes being revenging killers.

>Basic plot of Hamlet
>Different characters and morality conflicts

It is almost as if they updated it to be relevant to modern audiences of children and their families.

It is acceptable for works to be derivative. Shakespeare is derivative.

It mistook him for a seed.

Also, the bird was explicitly nonintelligent, unlike the bugs, so there's no social problem to worry about in that setting, since birds are an unintelligent hazard, not a malicious being.

But that doesn't make it Hamlet, you're saying that except for most characters' motivations, conflicts, and about half of the plot, the Lion King is Hamlet. It's just a basic fairy tale about lions.

>In a setting
>ALLLLLLLLLLL SETTINGS

Lion king was the example provided, and the content of the question applies. Being a boring pedantic faggot over the semantics of the word "all" is pretentious and annoying. Stop posting and grow up.

>Except for most of the character's motivations, conflicts, and about half the plot, Storm King's Thunder is King Lear

Would you prefer it if I said that the Lion King is just derivative of Hamlet? Maybe saying it is Hamlet is a bridge too far for you.

lmgtfy.com/?q=is lion king based on hamlet
screenrant.com/movies-based-on-shakespeare-plays/

I asked my mother when I was a kid and first saw the Lion King. She said that they only eat the animals from outside of their kingdom.

Thoughts?

>screenrant.com/movies-based-on-shakespeare-plays/
>surprisingly
>the only good movies on that list are Lion King and West Side Story
>They're also the ones where the analogies are the most painfully obvious
I hate internet top 10 lists.

That's actually a good justification.

If I were a lion, I could eat outlaws like a paladin kills them.

>jeez, this YouTube comment section is full of idiots, why is this so

Lion King is literally kimba the white lion.

>your mother lied to protect your feeling user
but they could have done that I suppose

Aztec citizens were okay getting sacrificed to their gods. If you can make "people" believe into greater cause they will not cling to life all that much.

Close, but not close enough to sue.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimba_the_White_Lion#The_Lion_King_controversy

Weren't most of those prisoners of war?

I can never get over this. Having all animals be intelligent doesn't not pass inspection as a viable setting. It only works for short stories where they can dodge the implications.

Are a few races just expected to die so others can eat? Are carnivores just psychotic outcastes? Does war and crime keep herbivore population down in lieu of predators?

It does not make sense.

But this is Veeky Forums so let's talk about games. Consider Mouseguard. Only mice are intelligent in Mouseguard, and that makes for a very interesting setting (at least in my opinion). But that's what makes it work.

>Aztec citizens were okay getting sacrificed to their gods.
And everyone thought the world was flat until Columbus proved them wrong!

>Are carnivores just psychotic outcastes?
It's not psychotic eating.

I mean user, consider you are lost on an island alongside a talking pig. Are you going to starve or eat the pig?

I Don't know what that user means but the Pride Lands were BASED on a national park. I don't think that necessarily means that it IS a national park in-universe.

Right and that seems like it makes sense for limited scenarios that are cute and parceled like that.

It doesn't work for an entire WORLD.

Herbivores don't WANT to be eaten. And if they could back that up with technology, there would be war until one side beat the other.

Would it be the carnivores enslaving the herbivores because they're bigger and stronger?

Or would herbivores genocide the carnivores with their superior numbers?

What about scavanger-style carnivores? Do they just eat whoever dies, no burials allowed?

Did you know a surprising number of animals will eat a baby or an egg if they have a chance even though they mostly eat veggies, seeds, nuts and berries? Such as Squirrels?

That makes the bird an insectivore, not a carnivore

>In a setting where animals is sapient, such as Lion King, why are animals okay with their leaders eating them?

Why are feminists ok with muslims marrying 6 y/o and throwing gay people off buildings?

True user, but I was referring to your statement that carnivorous would be psychos.

It's not psycho doing something because you need to do it or otherwise you die.

But I don't see why it would be that different from fantasy settings such as DnD, with raiding orcs and such. I would expect for example that carnivorous tribes would launch raids to capture other species to eat.

If this question is SPECIFICALLY about the setting of the Lion King and NO OTHER SETTING, why doesn't OP just watch the fucking movie and get the one correct explanation straight from a character's mouth? It's not difficult.
There are only so many ways we can interpret OPs question.
1.
Q: In a setting of my own invention where all animals are sapient and okay with being eaten, why is that?
A: I don't know, it's your setting. Make something up.
2.
Q: In a setting that is perfectly identical to the setting of the Lion King in every way, why are animals okay with being eaten?
A: For necessarily the same reason they are okay with being eaten in the Lion King, which you would know if you watched the movie.
3.
Q: In a setting that has in common with the setting of the Lion King the fact that all animals are sapient, but may be different in other ways, why are animals okay with being eaten?
A: Who said they are okay with being eaten? It's possible that they aren't, and either way the reason DEPENDS ON THE SETTING.

If both sides were intelligent, I assume the herbivores would probably label the carnivores as crazy, flesh-hungry monsters.

I guess the carnivores would consider the herbivores hopelessly naive?

But in such a world, who would side with the carnivores? Who would trade things to the people who WILL use them to murder and eat people?

Would you shed a tear if they were all stabbed to death so the herbivores could finally live in peace?

>wherever /pol/tards go, they must shitpost

>facts are inconvenient
>must ignore

One of us is posting ideas about OP's topic.

The other is posting about sandniggers in a fantasy talking animal thread on Veeky Forums.

Most mythologies have talking animals.

Most cultures have a "talking animal is surprisingly ok with feeding mankind it's body" story.

Maybe some people are just fine with being eaten user, quit being a generalizing prick about it. Jeeze.

>But in such a world, who would side with the carnivores?
Other carnivores.

>Would you shed a tear if they were all stabbed to death so the herbivores could finally live in peace?
Depends. Am I a herbivore?

Besides, I'm sure some herbivores would go 'but they are just feeding', like some people go in real life like 'it's better to die of sickness than use animals in testing'.