If you are a being forced to feed on sapient creatures to survive...

If you are a being forced to feed on sapient creatures to survive, are you automatically evil if you don't kill yourself / let you starve to death?

Why make so many threads?

Type sage into the options and let this thread slide
Meaning don't respond.

I don't think I could live with myself, but I don't presume to judge others on what they would do in such a desperate situation as that.

No moreso than someone resorting to cannibalism on a desert island

Maybe if you only kill criminals you could claim to be neutral, but it's pretty flimsy. Also depends on if you have to kill them, but there's many grades of evil.

Yes, but you could probably conterbalance the karma hit by only feeding on assholes.

The core of Good is self sacrifice.

Survival and preservation of one's life is a primal instinct, and is a true neutral act

>If you are a being forced to feed on sapient creatures to survive, are you automatically evil if you don't kill yourself / let you starve to death?

yes

I became a vampire in DF and only fed on monsters. Checkmate.

There has to be a tastier part of the body than assholes to feed on... :P

came for that joke, wasn't disappointed.

I take up a profession which will let me feed without it causing too much grief, like soldiering. The BBEG's generic thugs aren't going to need their blood after I put an arrow through their skull.

Yes, because Good and Evil are cosmic forces in the setting, and only Evil brings beings into existence that by nature can only subsist by killing sapient beings.

No, but you aren't good either.

If you let yourself die or find some way around it, you're almost auto good.

Consider, if you have the resources, consuming only those at death's door or wishing to die and giving money or something to family members they leave behind. Everybody wins.

Clarification: Only Evil brings *moral* beings into existence that etc. Amoral beings, ie those incapable of moral agency such as nonsapient animals, are Neutral.

I'm a non-practicing Jain

But getting turned into a man eating monster would make me just commit suicide

That's like saying you will be automatically evil if your parents are evil.

That's not even remotely the same as being literally designed by the cosmic force of Evil itself to be innately compelled to do evil.

...

no, you are doing what you must to survive

your mere existence is a negation of the possibility of the existence of someone else already

In reality, unless you create some very special motive that's going to be nonsensical but balanced out with symbolism, you cannot have this.

What does a sapient person has thant others don't? Intelligence is an atribute, not something that you can eat, if you can get your proteins, fats and sugars from animals from being carnivorous it's even easier to do so with lesser beings since they won't be able to defend themselves and they probably weight more so you get a lot of food with much less effort.

And when you take food out of the equation(no matter if you call it mana, spirit, processing power... when you require it to exist on a fundamental level is food) then is far more evil since it's optional to your existence but you still do it.

Now supossing, that there is no other way, let's force things up a bit: A bioengineered monster that can only feed when it's receptors reaches a human brain and are only compatible with exactly the signals in the human brain. Then you bet that it's still less evil than the ones who does so optionally, so the question is, up to which point? Because you are only following your nature, but in this case it's an imposed nature so then it's not that you are evil or not but your designers that forced you since you did not have a say on it.

But even so we can say that when you are a sapient being killing other sapient beings willingly and without doing much to change it, you are still evil only to the recieving end but probably not to yourself since you are only following nature.

Now, when we talk about levels of sapience I would say that If a Kardashev type 3 civilization decided to eat humans it could probably fall along the lines of us feeding on chicken, not really bad by itself but a simple difference in league should give you the required moral capacity to do so, maybe it can get as ridiculous as them considering us mere bacteria in their environment, and such, being as conscious as we are about our own bacteria.

If you kill innocents for the sake of your own life you’re evil

No. But it wouldn't be evil to kill you either.

yes
remove vampires/communists

this, is it evil for a wolf to eat an elk? ni
is it evil for an elk to slay the wolf in self defense? no

Comrade, only the greedy capitalist get removed and crushed under the fruits of labour. Don't tarnish our glorious revolution .

Comrade!

The question is an erroneous one, since classic views of morality were not designed to be able to answer such questions.

A more appropriate question would be "if you need to feed on sentients, can you be/do good without killing yourself?"

The answer to that question is yes. You can feed only on evil beings and only for necessity, while simultaneously living a life of good.

I think so, yes. I would rather starve to death. But I'm also a zealot so take what you will from that.

Is it evil for a dying man to sacrifice a city for eternal life?

Yep

Just become a mercenary or executioner, that way you would have plenty of sapient creatures whom you can kill without remorse around you, all you have to do is find a way to sneakily kill them

If you were going to kill yourself, you would have done so for being a poo-in-the-loo Pajeet

Eternal life includes a bigger amount of lifetime than a dead city, no matter how big said city is, therefore you're actually, actively creating more life by sacrificing such city.
It's not just not Evil, but actually Good.

Far less so than humans who eat sapient animals purely for the pleasure of it when they could live without doing so.

Ethical answer; No.

Moral answer; Yes.

>There has to be a tastier part of the body than assholes to feed on... :P
Heh

>If you are a being forced to feed on sapient creatures to survive, are you automatically evil if you don't kill yourself / let you starve to death?
If you do an evil thing, especially because you are forced to, that doesn’t necessarily make you evil.

That said,
>If you kill innocents for the sake of your own life you’re evil
This is generally true.

>If you do an evil thing, especially because you are forced to, that doesn’t necessarily make you evil.
You actually aren't forced to do it. Choosing to die is a viable choice.

Suppose that you had to kill and devour the soul of a eight year old everyday, surely you wouldn't want to live under these conditions?

>Suppose that you had to kill and devour the soul of a eight year old everyday

Gonna need to know some details on what qualifies as "sapient creature" in context of the setting.
But generally, not killing yourself might not be inherently Good, but it's certainly not Evil.

...

Well time to get a job working in an old peoples home or a pallative care ward /hospice.
Devour grannys soul just befor she dies anyway.

This. If you’re not losing something in the act, it’s not an act of good.

Saving someone from a fire is sacrificing your safety.
Giving to charity is sacrificing your money.
Taking in a broke friend is sacrificing your privacy.

Taking life to sustain yourself is an evil act because evil is the opposite. Good is sacrifice, Evil is taking.

Like another user said: you could feed on murderers and rapists, but then it’s really just Neutral. You’re ridding the world of a rapist, but you’re intrinsically a parasite feeding on the life of someone with a life, family, friends, hopes and dreams.

My nigga

If you had two doors in front of you, and you were going to go through one regardless, one which would save a thousand innocent children and one that wouldn’t do shit, would going through the good door not be good? As long as the action improves lives I would argue it is good.

>As long as the action improves lives I would argue it is good.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

>"Acts of goodness are not always wise, and acts of evil are not always foolish, but regardless, we shall always strive to be good."
Of course, it's worth mentioning that Logarius didn't quite follow his own advice.

I know this is besides the point, but thank you for actually using sapient in the correct context instead of fucking up and confusing it with "sentient".
The fact that multi-million movies and games still do that shit frustrates me to no end.

It depends how tasty the sapients are...
If they taste like mutton, I might starve to death, but nothing will protect them if they taste like venison...

Picking the door that would result in the deaths of a thousand people would be an evil act because you caused unnecessary suffering (ib4 "Life is Suffering" nihilist-tards).
The door that saves those lives is only good because it would prevent that suffering and otherwise prevent an act of evil. I would then argue that picking the not evil door doesn't make you a good person be default, just like grabbing someone a drink when they ask for it doesn't make you loyal to them. It is an act of good in the weakest of senses, while the alternative you provided was the cold-blooded murder of 1000 people which is an act of astounding evil.
To conclude, while no self-sacrifice beyond resisting the most morbid of curiosities was required to save the 1000 people, it was not an act of astounding good and in DnD terms would probably be more neutral than anything.

>If you’re not losing something in the act, it’s not an act of good.
Excessively extreme.

>As long as the action improves lives I would argue it is good.
True
Not necessarily very Good.

>The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
He's talking about results, not intentions.

>viable - capable of living or surviving successfully, especially under particular environmental conditions

Death is the least viable choice.

If you sacrifice everything to accomplish nothing, it isn't an act of good - it's just suicide.

>You’re ridding the world of a rapist, but this is bad because...uh...reasons...
The Punisher is Lawful Good, and if The Punisher happened to be a vampire that fed on the violent criminals he kills, he still would be Lawful Good.

Killing them just to eat them would be evil if you have any other choice, because you're fulfilling a petty need by taking a life. Classic evil act.

Killing them just to eat them when you have no other choice would be slightly more evil than killing someone in self-defense, as they are not causing the threat to your well being but killing them still remedies the threat. But no more than that.

If you kill them in self-defense and then decide to eat them, then it should have nothing to do with alignment. They are no longer sapient when you make that choice, and there is no great moral significance between letting their flesh be consumed by maggots, fire or you, outside of disrespecting their religious traditions.

People usually don't resort to killing other people, they will just eat those who already died. If someone actually kills others to survive, they are evil.

>Eat meat
>Automatically evil

Yeah you tell 'em, my dude! Want a bite of my human baby sandwich?

No he's CG maybe CN. He goes beyond the law to achieve what he sees as the most good. A LG character wouldn't kill them as the law demands that only criminals convicted in a court of law can. This is why Batman is a vigilante but still LG.

Deciding what is or isn't lawful Good really isn't that fucking hard.

Deciding which of the available LG choices is the best is the real question.

Can you truly be said to be evil if your intent is merely to survive given the circumstances of your existence?

I'd say no, but that also implies that your food source isn't evil if it fights back.

However, given the assumption above, I'd also say that refusing/mitigating the harm you cause to others for your own survival can be considered and act of good/altruism.

>lawful
>having anything to do with obeying the local laws
Paladins must have a lot of trouble in those Lawful Evil civilizations that mandate murderraping babies.

Being lawful is everything to do with acting within the bounds of the law.
Also, someone Lawful Good need not respect a law or authority that is evil or corrupt.

If you kill sapient beings for loot and exp, are you automatically evil?

Self-defense

Only as evil as the entity that allows me to exist so it can push this moral conundrum in his creatures.

>If someone actually kills others to survive, they are evil.
You literally just tried to invalidate self defense.

This is pretty common outside of America user, as well as California, New York, and similar.

It seems to be working out well for them.

Two scenarios:

Someone punches you, you punch back, they fall on the ground and break their neck. Unfortunate, likely involuntary manslaughter.

Someone punches you, you stab them in the neck. This is murder and bad.

Self defense ends when you are not merely preventing an assault or incapacitating the attacker. Sometimes this leads to injuries and death, but they shouldn't be the goal. And primary goal of self defense is ensuring your physical safety, so escape is the preferred for any civilian.

I agree, killing someone in self defense should be illegal. One day I hope my country is as progressive.

Indeed, just because someone trying to punch you inherently exposes you to the risk of death, brain damage, and crippling injury, that doesn't give you the right to intentionally kill them.

Criminals are a vital part of the government after all.
The rich exist to exploit the country.
The middle class exist to pay for the rich.
The poor exist to scare the shit out of the middle class.

You're not saying your life is more valuable than that of a poor opressed urban youth, are you citizen 14353? Check your privilege.

By trying to punch you outside of a sanctioned boxing match or similar martial arts event, they are indeed committing assault and breaking the law.

You can employ self-defense as a civilized person or be another criminal and assault/attempt to murder them back like a thug. It's your choice, friend.

I would never dream of very efficiently ending the life of someone forcibly putting me in a situation in which I may end up with permanent brain damage, friend, I do want to live in a progressive society after all :^)

No, because it's possible to enter into voluntary contracts with sapient creatures, thus giving you an avenue to feed on other sapients without usurping their will or consent. The only time when you are evil is when you consume someone's resources (in this case their blood, or life force, or whatever) without their consent or in violation of an accord already created between you.

You're not going to be "very efficiently" doing anything with those sausage fingers xD

So you're Lawful Good because you pick and choose which laws you obey?

Good people believe in dignity of mankind and not being a dick, at the very least. If you don't, you're simply not Good.

There are such things as evil or immoral laws, being lawful good only means doing good within the bounds of the law, not following every law like an autist while ignoring the implications of said laws.

>The Punisher is Lawful Good,
The Punisher is CN leaning CE with a preference for killing criminals. He enjoys killing them, enjoys making them suffer, and freely admits that in a perfect world he'd be dead in the same ditch as the thugs he butchers. He's not motivated by altruism. He doesn't do what he does because he wants to make the world a better place. He does it because he hates people like the guys who killed his wife, and he wants to kill people he hates.

Void was so fucking good.

>Someone punches you, you stab them in the neck. This is murder and bad.
So you're telling me that everyone is permitted only equal force to defend themselves, even in the event that side A is a girl who weighs 140 soaking wet, while side B is Abu Al Brickhouse whose biceps are thicker around than her entire torso.

>So you're telling me that everyone is permitted only equal force to defend themselves

Well yes but proportional response is judged AFTER any additions. A beating B with a baseball bat rather than her fists is likely going to be seen as proportional as she started a lot weaker.

Perhaps she should acquire a male guardian and be a faithful muslim woman then?

If you think a 140 lb weakling who let a fridge-sized guy sneak up on them is going to be effective at any defense, with or without weapon, you're wrong. 90% of self defense is awareness, you're not going to be mugged across a street.

>Someone assaults you, you defend yourself with extreme restraint. They fall over and break their neck while attempting to assault someone else.
This is solely their fault as the initiator of force, they have assumed any and all risk up to and including the loss of life by assaulting a stranger.
>You stab the assaulter to death, somehow despite them initiating the violence you are to blame for their state of being a dead idiot.
No, this is the risk any assaulter takes on when they initiate an assault. There is no way for the victim to easily gauge how far the attacker is willing to take the violence so it is safest for the victim to react with overwhelming and immediate force to incapacitate the attacker.
>Injury or death of the attacker shouldn't be the goal, you should just run away.
No, the attacker may have a gun or knife or may simply be overwhelmingly stronger or faster than you. The only way to ensure maximum safety for innocents is to eliminate the attacker as quickly and as rapidly as possible with a tool which negates any advantages they may have over you in strength or speed.

>beating B with a baseball bat rather than her fists is likely going to be seen as proportional as she started a lot weaker.
It's also still very likely to end in her death, because by the time the guy is in batting range she's nearly in arm's reach. Sure hope she lays him out on the first swing because she's not likely to get a second.

Who the fuck said anything about anybody sneaking up on anybody? Of course getting the drop on someone gives you a huge upper hand, that's not in question.

>you're not going to be mugged across a street.
Oh, sure, because every mugging takes place out of a shady alleyway just like on TV. What's she supposed to do if he comes up to the ATM she's using? What if she's walking down the street while he's killing time on the front step and he decides he wants to chat? What if they're at the same party and everyone's too drunk and self-absorbed to see the girl getting backed into a corner? What if he's just mad as hell in public and she happens to be a convenient outlet? I suppose your response would be "run away" as though that always (or even usually) works, and as though it doesn't piss off whoever's chasing you.

Bottom line: the aggressor's life is worth less than their victim's. Whenever you violate someone's rights, you forfeit that right yourself. A thief is forced to pay restitution, force is met with force, and a would-be murderer has no right to protest if they themselves end up dead.

>projecting

If you resort to it and it's reluctant and shameful then no, you're probably not evil, you're a 'good' person doing some evil shit and with a lot to atone for.

If you're like "At last, an excuse to kill and eat people" then yes, you're evil.