When Blood is the Currency of Life: A Moral Examination

In the dark corner of the room, the eerie wooden coffin adorned with ornate but prosaic figures slowly opens. A figure rises from the coffin as the room somehow fills with smoke. Once fully erect, the figure floats towards you. Just as it reaches you, the figure stops perfectly at the one stream of light in the room to reveal a white, ghoulish face with slick black hair. The figure opens its mouth to reveal moderately longer but unnervingly sharp canines, and it lunges to bite you on the neck. As the figure lunges, you find yourself wondering: in this modern age where vampires live among us, could this act ever be justified?

We have all heard a variation of this introduction to encountering vampires. However, as most know, vampires are, in fact, not real. Regardless, this presents an interesting philosophical question:

Should a vampire be allowed to murder a human being?

In asking this philosophical question, some ground rules need to be laid out first.

1. Vampires are real and equal members of society. They hold the same moral obligations as humans and are provided the same rights as other men.

2. Vampires can only feed on human blood, and substitutes are not available.

3. When the vampire feeds, the victim has a guaranteed quick death.

4. Outside of their feeding and nocturnal habits, vampires act like normal members of society.

5. New vampires are created only from procreation, so feeding on someone will not turn them into vampires.

Since the ground rules have been laid out, it is important to establish some key considerations for examining this question. It should also be noted that the purpose of this essay is not to provide a definitive answer but rather to present competing perspectives, allowing readers to draw their own conclusions and formulate their own questions.

At the heart of this question is a debate between moral universality and biological necessity. Do the moral principles and ethics that our society holds dear outweigh the basic food requirements that vampires require to survive? Should universal moral principles apply equally to all beings, or do vampires’ unique biology exempt them? This is the heart of the debate and one that this essay hopes to expand upon by delving into this moral quandary.

On the side of societal conformity, the security and safety of society must be upheld as cornerstones of order. Imagine it’s late at night, and you’ve forgotten to grab milk for your child’s breakfast cereal the next morning. On your way back, two vampires ambush you, drain your blood, and leave you lifeless in the street. How quickly would the status quo crumble, and the growing clamor for security turn into pure rioting? As Rousseau famously stated in his 1762 book, The Social Contract,

Each of us puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will, and, in our corporate capacity, we receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole.

This highlights our understanding of how society relies on individuals conforming to shared principles to ensure mutual safety and prosperity. Conforming to these shared values helps groups align their goals more effectively, leading to greater collective outcomes. Murder is considered the greatest transgression one can commit. So, is it fair, then, for vampires to be granted an exception to this rule?

On the existential side, the right to exist and the right to survive come under scrutiny. Imagine you are a vampire, and it’s late at night. Your child is crying out in hunger. Desperate, you venture out to find a human to feed on so your child can survive. You roam the streets in anguish until you finally encounter someone carrying a bag of milk. Torn between instinct and necessity, you attack and feed, knowing it is the only way to keep your child alive.

Is it morally correct to obey the law when doing so would condemn your child to a slow and painful death? Do the laws of morality outweigh your responsibility as a parent?

The debate over food can extend even further to encompass the right to exist. After all, without food, vampires cannot survive. Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), inspired by Thomas Jefferson and John Locke, states:

Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person

This fundamental right to life is precisely what is under question — a universal and inalienable right extended to vampires to exist. Furthermore, the right to food and sustenance is affirmed in Article 25 of the UDHR:

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food…

When moral laws written by humans are used to denigrate and oppress other species, they become improper and unjust.

To further explore these competing concepts, consider the example of a hunter and a deer. A group of hunters rises just before dawn and sets out from their village in search of food. The trackers scour the underbrush, searching for signs of life, when they spot two deer in the distance. As they draw closer, it becomes clear that one is a doe and the other is her mother.

Once the group is within range, the best archer releases an arrow. It strikes the mother deer in the chest, and both deer flee. Following the trail of blood, the hunters eventually find the mother collapsed, with the young doe attempting to help her up, unaware that she has already died. Startled by the hunters, the doe runs off into the forest.

The hunters tie up the mother deer and drag her back to their village. They allow the young doe to escape, ensuring it can repopulate the species and perhaps be hunted in the following year, continuing the cycle. With proper rationing, the mother deer will sustain the village for at least a week. Her unwilling sacrifice will not be in vain, as her meat will feed a human mother and her young child.

The primordial, animalistic desires we ascribe to vampires are, in fact, the same desires we possess as humans. The development of agriculture as a means of securing food is a relatively recent concept in human history. While modern hunting may appear less barbaric, does “humane hunting” truly make any difference to the animal being hunted?

If the hunters in the story were vampires and the deer were a human, would the morality of the act fundamentally change? In condemning vampires, are we not also condemning ourselves for the very acts that once ensured our species’ survival?

This tension between societal conformity and existential necessity presents an irreconcilable conflict. Vampires’ survival depends on what human society cannot condone, and societal conformity imposes rules that vampires cannot abide without sacrificing their existence. Does the right to exist supersede the moral frameworks designed to protect collective life? Or does the preservation of societal order justify denying vampires the sustenance they need to survive?

Perhaps the true question is not whether vampires should be allowed to kill but whether a society can survive when its members embody mutually exclusive values. If the answer lies somewhere in the middle, then what does that compromise look like, and at whose expense does it come?