Vampires drinking animal blood

Sternbeeere

Glory´s sane(?) groupie
Joined
May 5, 2016
Messages
382
There are a lot of vampire shows that portray good or grey-personality vampires. Most of those moral vampires do drink animal blood, killing the animals in the process. This phenomenon is portrayed as ethical, since said vampires refrain from humans. But would not it be more ethical to drink from a consenting donor without killing anyone or from a blood bag, since there is no killing involved and animal cannot consent to anything ?
 
I think most of the time, on Buffy at least, the blood is obtained from the butcher after the animal has been slaughtered for human consumption. You could argue that a cow sent to slaughter doesn't consent to that either, yet they're still killed for human food?

As for other media, I know in Being Human, for example, they worked in a hospital so Mitchell could use the blood stored in the blood bank which was from a consenting donor, however you could then argue that that blood could save a human's life. Is it ethical for a vampire to use blood bank blood at the expense of that life?

Good question though. 😉
 
I think most of the time, on Buffy at least, the blood is obtained from the butcher after the animal has been slaughtered for human consumption
On twilight they are hunted and killed, the vampires there are toxic though, so the only alternative is a blood bag.
On vampire diaries they are hunted and killed, although the vamps can drink from a human without killing and blood bags. And despite the fact that vampire blood can cure a lot of diseases there. So that they could give a bit of their own blood in exchange even.
Is it ethical for a vampire to use blood bank blood at the expense of that life?
From that point of view,it is almost the same although humans are higher in the food change. Yet again, if vampire blood can cure diseases, there can be an exchange.
Also what about humans deliberately offering their blood for vampires to drink ?
 
I agree a willing human is the best to be hoped for. Blood banks are good, but consent hasn't been given and I expect a certain percentage of blood donors wouldn't want their blood to be used by vampires on religious or ethical grounds.
 
vampire+cow.jpg

2878753466_96d3d72f87.jpg
 
In the short lived series, "Moonlight," vampires could only subsist on human blood. Animal blood wasn't an option. The lead character, Mick St James, had connections at the city morgue, so his food source was freshly killed people, though the vampire community in general used human volunteers, called "freshies" for their nourishment. Actually stalking and killing humans was considered a highly serious crime, since it called attention to all vampires.
 
A vampire on animal blood is a good thing unless you happen to be Tarzan.
Can't you imagine the scene, he swings through the trees straight passed Jane while being after cheetah?
 
In Vampires Suck Edward does it with a Squirrel, drinks its blood that is. The squirrel gets on the red eye express.
 
This sounds like the Masai natives of Africa who maintain herds of cows that they use as a source of blood and milk and they tap veins for blood and milk cows as well, keeping the animals alive. It can't be considered that far-fetched when you can actually point to a culture that does exactly that.

On Buffy, there were the vampires who sucked on Riley without killing him, so some self-control is possible.
 
I know this was a joke, but it would it be possible in the Buffyverse, for a vampire to sire an animal?
If an animal can be inhabited by a demon maybe.
In the short lived series, "Moonlight," vampires could only subsist on human blood. Animal blood wasn't an option. The lead character, Mick St James, had connections at the city morgue, so his food source was freshly killed people, though the vampire community in general used human volunteers, called "freshies" for their nourishment. Actually stalking and killing humans was considered a highly serious crime, since it called attention to all vampires.
interesting idea, which they had in that movie.
On Buffy, there were the vampires who sucked on Riley without killing him, so some self-control is possible.
That is why I thought doing that kind of thing is more ethical than killing an animal.
 
Btw, just because it might be of interest...

Vampire pumpkins and watermelons - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Maybe in the Buffyverse, feeding the crops vampire (or other demon) blood could create them...though that's not how I'd explain them if I were to write them in (not that I have a definite idea offhand).
 
The idea of vampires creating "familiars" by feeding them at least some of their blood (not necessarily killing them in the process) is intriguing to me.
 
Not many people equate the killing of animals with killing of humans (though some are arbitrarily given more protection than others which varies nation to nation). I've even heard it argued that many predatory species won't eat their own kind (at least no more readily than humans will) so that there is some inherent morality there against killing your own species (though plenty of species will so I don't pay too much attention to that argument). As a rule of thumb, nature is set up vampiric, and nothing evolves that something doesn't evolve to eat it. That's just the way things are, and it's unnatural to refrain from that. Which isn't to say it's bad to refrain, mind you, just that it goes against the grain. And the slippery slope arguments can be made both ways, about if you're willing to eat X then why not X, or if it's wrong to kill X, then why not X? Other things have to be kept in mind, like protecting certain species unwisely can cause more harm than good for that and other species as it messes up the Balance and causes harm, including to the ones protected (this can even be true of protecting trees from natural forest fires), just as killing too many can.

Going by standard morality, eating animals is not amoral, at least not under normal circumstances, and animals are not held to the same standards as we are (which is why animals don't go to prison for killing each other or even not paying taxes, as they're considered incapable of living in a society, and thus any "social contract" excludes them, though laws can be put in place just as in the past laws have sometimes been put into place to protect slaves or others who are not considered citizens, or even possible citizens).

Though I'll throw in that the Master's "truly demonic concept of mass production" plan in the Wish did make me think of factory farms (whether such was intended or not).

That aside, drinking from willing donors would, of course, be more ethical, if it can be done. 'Course mystical drugs and all that muddy the issue a bit further.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom