4 ms·

It's just defence, same as what the humanoids are doing.

• saalweachter 3y ago
  They're violating the rule: "Food that talks is not food." [0] You can use a framework of moral relativism where intelligent spiders have no need to adhere to human-centric rules, and all, but I prefer the moral absolutism that no one who can understand I don't want to be eaten is morally permitted to eat me. [0] https://www.schlockmercenary.com/2003-11-30 https://www.schlockmercenary.com/2003-11-30
  • soperj 3y ago
    It's kind of ignoring the history of cannibalism within the human race. It's tempting to say that we're past that, but most stuff comes back into vogue at some point in time.
  • BiteCode_dev 3y ago
    There is not a single animal that wants to be eaten, what are you talking about? We just draw a line saying: this is ok, this is not, arbitrarily. Nobody, nothing, wants to suffer. That's one of the rare things life universally agrees on. There is no need for words to express that. And I think it's ok to do so, but if we can eat whales, octopus, and take cows and chickens and make their existence hell until we consume them, labeling a spider as "evil" because it likes eating humans is far fetched.
    • saalweachter 3y ago
      I mean, my moral framework may be simple, but it's consistent, and more importantly, it makes it morally impermissible to kill and eat me. If the giant spiders were unintelligent, they'd not be moral actors, and then eating people might be a bad thing, but it wouldn't be a morally bad (evil) thing. If their prey weren't intelligent, my moral framework doesn't (currently) include an absolute prohibition on killing and eating animals, so that would be morally acceptable. But because both the spider and their prey were intelligent, my rules kick in and it is immoral for the spiders to eat people, or vice versa. (Now, there may be a loophole in that killing people for the purposes of eating them is always unacceptable, but there are circumstances where it is at least forgivable to kill [eg, self defense], and also circumstances where it is likewise acceptable to eat already dead intelligent creatures, but you have to be careful not to create a moral hazard where the killing is done on a pretext.)
  • havblue 3y ago
    I'll note that Aragog in Harry Potter, an intelligent spider who wanted to feed Harry and Ron to her spawn, isn't likely evil. She isn't exactly good either of course. I think the "evil" concept is baked into the themes of the books. While men are capable of evil, Shelob, Morgoth, Sauron etc are basically the embodiment of sin and incapable of good. So the only way you can say they aren't evil is if you ignore the prose and judge them by their actions against the worst humanity can accomplish.
• s1artibartfast 3y ago
  It isn't defense. They target non-aggressive travelers. Furthermore, Intelligent spiders in the Tolkien universe are canonically descended from primordial evil, and are characterized by a predatory hunger and lack of compassion.
  • soperj 3y ago
    I'm literally replying to the quote: > Intelligent spiders prevent expansion into Mirkwood. Doesn't sound like targeting non-aggressive travelers.
    • s1artibartfast 3y ago
      That quote isn't a self-contained description of the entire Tolkien universe, and pointing back to it isn't a rebuttal of additional information. You may have made some assumptions based on it, but those assumptions were wrong. Furthermore, "preventing expansion" does not necessarily imply morally acceptable self defense.
      • soperj 3y ago
        I don't see any additional information, only your opinion on the subject.
        • s1artibartfast 3y ago
          I didn't present any personal opinions, just additional facts and context from the books. If you want to ignore it and latch onto some misguided moral relativist notion about the spiders being good an defensive, fine. However, the books and author literally says the opposite. The spiders are Tolkien equivalent of demon spawn, have invaded the forest, and now pretty on travelers.
          • soperj 3y ago
            > the books and author literally says the opposite Should be easy to find a quote then.