Hi malaz. You make really good points, and actually I was thinking this morning about how point of view reframes this discussion. It's a difficult debate because while humans have natural predators, we don't have unkillable natural predators; we're still effectively at the top of the food chain. But I was thinking that maybe your point is that the vampire has the right to try to kill the human and the human has the right to try to defend herself as best she can (ha). It's hard for me to step out of my human point of view, but I hope that even if I were to someday become a supernatural predatory creature, I'd still think humans were worthy of that special protection. (I also agree with HOFJ that vampires and humans are similar enough that preying on humans seems to border on cannibalism.)malaz wrote:What's the difference between a human and a vampire? What makes it right for Bella a human to exist but for Edward, a vampire to not exist?vampbball wrote: I'm so glad we're having this discussion, because I don't think it's clear while reading the series where Stephenie falls on this divide. I think whether or not vampires are objectively monsters depends on whether or not you believe humans hold a special status; that is, whether we're categorically different from animals and our lives are worthy of protection. If you don't believe this, then yeah, a lion eating a person is no big tragedy. The poor guy was hungry! If you do believe this, then you'll mourn the person who got eaten and you'll buy a big gun next time for the next lion.
I think people are special and I think that (speaking from within the Twilight universe), yes, vampires who kill people have no right to exist. If I were in the Twilight universe, I'd be working on figuring out how to breed werewolves full time. Now, Edward, Carlisle and Alice also think human life is special (Alice in Midnight Sun advises Jasper to think of humans as people to make his thirst lessen). Whereas I think I think the rest of the Cullens see us as sort of...intelligent dogs. They really would like us live well and prosper, but a human death is a pity, not a tragedy.
Malaz, I don't think we're going to agree, because I don't think you believe that humans should have a protected status. If it makes you feel any better, I don't especially like killing animals either. But in my worldview, killing an animal is just not interchangeable with killing a human.
What makes an animal's life not worth protecting vs. a human life worth protecting? isn't it a life either way, a life that's taken?
to me, whether it's a human, a dog, or vampire....they all have a soul, and if they're killed it's a life that's been taken either way. to me, there's the predator and there's the prey. vampre - human, human - animals, animals - other animals....
wait up, yes, a lion eating a person is a tragedy, the lion was hungry, yes, i call it fate...but i am more compassionate than you're giving me credit for. I'll be the sad the dude was killed and get over it, but i'll also fear for my life. Just because a vampire has a right to kill a human to me, doesn't mean i'll be waving a red flag "me me me". I mean yeah yeah, of coarse i'd want to be protected. but i am a more of "find a cure for a disease" sort of person rather than "create a missle bomb to take out the middle east or the vampire race" kind of person....
besides, the characters that are killed are non-existant. soit's not a big problem....
Werewolves are pretty dangerous too....considering how Sam was so close to killing emily...
One more thought: Carlisle believed that vampires were so monstrous that he tried to kill himself numerous times rather than exist as one. That's a powerful statement on his feelings.
But on the other hand...he did create four new vampires and he had no way of knowing ahead of time that they would share his feelings on the matter. That's a lot of lives to put at risk.
Thanks for the discussion!
I think I'll go again after i'm done with the host. 
