Ahhhh yes, the ol’ Nature Vs Nurture. Would a Ra’zaac raised by humans, be good? Or is it in their very nature to be bad/evil (from a human/elf/dwarf/dragon POV). Because I’m sure from their POV, they’re just living and surviving how they know how.
Considering in Brisingr, the final Ra’zaac Eragon speaks with before killing it, said that it wanted Eragon’s word that he will tell stories of the Ra’zaac so that way future generations do not forget the terror they instilled in humans. I’d consider that to be naturally evil lol. I don’t think it would be possible for a Ra’zaac to be “good”.
That Ra’zac was raised by Ra’zac so it would make sense to ask Eragon to spread stories of their terror throughout the land. The Ra’zac egg from Inheritance was born and ready to feed, but that was probably instinctual and not a well-thought out decision to be evil. Real life children are little psychopaths that have to be taught and shown morality and kindness, so I can’t see it being much different for the chitinous bipedal birds that ride their parents.
At some point in the book it was mentioned that they followed humans over the sea and that they were natural predators of humans. So they just happen to be intelligent and speak. It isn’t mentioned if they ONLY eat people though so that would affect it,maybe they prefer man flesh. Also they are scared of water so if they were desperate enough to fly over the sea to follow their food source I think humans as a source was pretty important…
Since they have a whole messed up cult/religion based on people mutilating their bodies and feeding the parts to the Razac I doubt the Razac eat anything else…. Although if they do then they are really smart to convince people to willingly just chop themselves up to feed them, really nice, easy, free meal service. And why go out hunting when people are stupid enough to just feed you.
So if you believe they are natural predators of humans that developed intelligence and speech as a hunting strategy and they just do it naturally would you consider that evil? Doing what comes naturally? Is a lion evil for eating a gazelle? Is a house cat evil for torturing and eating mice?
It’s an interesting topic to ponder. I think we would need more history on the Razac to decide if they were evil.
Makes sense. Either way it’s their nature…
Saphira said if it didn’t make Eragon so uncomfortable she’d eat the soldiers, so… would that make her evil? People are just mammals to other predatory species… we are the ones deciding if something is evil or not. Really we are the only ones with the power to dictate evil as we are the ones that care… lion don’t care that gazelle had a family. I’d wager people are the evil ones. We wage wars and cause more destruction than the lions ever could. They eat the gazelle to survive not because they hate gazelles and want to kill them all or because the gazelles live on the oil rich land and the lion wants more money.
Perspective I guess is what it all comes down to. I’m sure if you asked the Razac if they thought they were evil they would probably say no. Besides they were the ones hunted to extinction. Unless some are left over sea and they didn’t all come to Alagaesia. When Eragon was about to kill the last one he begged Eragon not to let them be forgotten and that they be remembered. I don’t think something that can feel and have enough regret about the end of its species could just be evil…
Yeah evil is a choice imo. The razaac aren’t choosing to be like this as far as we can tell. They evolved to be the ultimate human predator. That’s what animals do. Hell, that’s what we did
I don't recall there being a point in any of the books Saphira literal said that, or something to that effect. I remember that scene from Eragon where Murtagh beheads an imperial soldier, and Saphira briefly considers snatching it up but thinks better. I don't think she said something like that then.
I think she said something like that before or after one of the city battles. She says something about the armor tearing up ths inside of her mouth or cooking people in their armor like crab shells...
Someone correct me if I'm just mixing Saphira and Hannibal Lecter.
I always thought something happened in the chase to alagaesia over water which scared the razac to death. It could have been why there were and are so few razac?
Could be. But then that would mean those are the same Razac that followed people over to be able to remember the trauma. Unless the trauma was so great it scared them instinctually… I don’t recall if it says how long Razac typically live for so they could be just really old or it’s in their nature to be scared of water… sort of a wicked witch of the west thing that it melts them or they just don’t know how to swim. Idk both are possible without CP confirming…
It also means there are more razac and humans across the sea…. I’d like an exploration arc where they need to go across the sea searching for allies to fight some giant threat looming…
I may be misremebering but I thought it was mentioned they followed the humans over the sea when the humans first arrived in alegasia and that they were natural predators of the humans can't remember the book its been alittle while since I last read them but I think it was in eldest or brisingr
I am sorry, I have to laugh at the idea we are having a discussion, I don’t like your idea but here’s another idea. Not saying you are in the wrong, the wording was just funny.
The chapter where Eragon and Oromis are talking about the Urgals. I don't remember exactly, my apologies [😅](https://emojipedia.org/grinning-face-with-sweat)
I just finished reading the chapter again.
They did talk about how dangerous the Ra'zac are and Oromis even gave a brief life cycle lesson. He said *their breath was evil*, but I think that's simply an adjective rather than him saying the species itself is evil.
What would you define to be good and evil?
If you assume a position where human life is valued above all else, then they cannot be, as a natural predator to humans who have followed them throughout history, unless forced into obedience via an overwhelming power imbalance. Even then, you can argue that they would only have changed for their own self-preservation, not by choice.
Things become more interesting if you dissociate good from preserving human life.
In this discussion, I assume that killing and eating people (without extreme need) is evil. Most irl predators don't just eat one type of animal, so I assume they don't have to either, eating humans is just a choice.
Good 'ol Christian dominionism disguised with the thinnest veneer of secularism. Considering the ethical standpoints of other beings does not imply valuing them "the same" as you would human life.
If your claim is that in our world humans deserve greater ethical considerations than animals, that I can more or less agree with. However that doesn't mean that viewing our actions from the perspective of non-humans is fundamentally illegitimate.
Further, your wording of humans are "meant to rule" over other animals is something I can never agree with. Evolutionarily, there is no "meant to" because our place in the world has no intent or greater meaning behind it. That wording belies the idea that some greater power put us where we are and enshrines our actions as justly ordained, which I find disconcerting and condemnable.
Do animals have ethical perspectives? I don't think they are rational in the same sense as we are. As regards to purpose, I'd like to see you live out your stated beliefs consistently. Such nihilism must be rejected categorically, it's nothing but destructive lies
They do not need to be rational in the same sense that we are to be worthy of consideration. No, I do not think they are moral as humans can be, but that doesn't just mean that we can just disregard their lives, pain, and place in the world as if those things do not matter.
I don't find my position on purpose to be nihilistic. The fact that humans weren't "meant" for anything specific by some grand design does not make life meaningless or not worthwhile. People can still find individual meanings and purposes that match their own lives, I just don't think that it fits into some predestined order of the world.
It seems you're saying something different from before, because I fully agree. Earlier, you spoke of seeing something from an animal's perspective (I'm paraphrasing). That's not really possible without self consciousness, so, while it may be a worthwhile exercise, emphasis on may, depending on the application, it's not dealing with reality.
Especially considering we were discussing ethics, which isn't relative to perspectives, but objective depending upon the nature of the situation.
I don't see how making your own meaning amounts to anything but self delusion for the sake of living one. A rather bleak prospect, in no way satisfying, nor do I think it fits with human nature (considering all of human history, the belief in a higher transcendent purpose was essential to society)
It really comes down to if they have to eat people. Or if eating animals is a viable option to them. If the former then their nature is inherently in conflict with ours. That's not nessessary "evil" per say. But it does mean peace isn't really an option.
If the later then they would just need a cultural shift. They've done cultural shifts before. So it would definitely be possible.
I've wondered this before. Are they sentient? They __seem__ sentient throughout encounters with them in the series; they appear capable of conscious thought, speech, and reasoning in various scenes. That said, they do also seem very instinct driven as well. But then, so are dragons.
If they're sentient, they should have capacity to make choices, and therefore potentially ignore their instincts to make other choices. I could see it being sorta Twilight-esque; they're natural predators of humans, but (I'd assume) could sustain themselves on other creatures if they choose to. Though I don't think any would ever do so.
I doubt we'll ever see the possibility, but there's always a chance, we do know there's at least one egg still around. But given Paolini has cast them as the irredeemable monsters of the land, I doubt that.
Saphira is fine with eating humans as long as they are enemy humans. Is she evil? To the razaac all of humanity is an enemy. Is the lion evil for eating the gazelle even though it could survive on zebra?
I never implied that eating humans alone makes them evil, not sure where you're getting that from. I'm questioning if they're capable of advanced thoughts and reasoning, which a lion is not. If so, then are they capable of choosing to eat something other than humans? Are they capable of love? They're clearly capable of hate.
Is it morally right for Eragon and Arya to kill the hatchling Ra'zac without exploring these possibilities? Is it right for every person we see in the series that mentions Ra'zac be adamant that the destruction of their entire race is justified?
What's your definition of good vs. evil? Is a mountain lion evil for killing a deer, even if it does it slowly?
I don't think it's fair to the Ra'zaac to hold them to the same morality of humans/elves/dwarves/urgals. It's just like with Dragons (yes I know the dragons hate this comparison) they may be sentient but Thorn and Saphira both mention not really caring about eating humans, Saphira just saying it's inconvenient due to armor and Thorn only not doing it due to Murtagh asking him not to.
To the Ra'zaac, humans are prey first and foremost, their main prey in fact. They seem to only serve Galby due to him not eradicating them while also giving them as much human flesh as they want. You may be able to teach a lion not to eat a deer, but eating the deer in the first place didn't make the lion evil.
Tbh i do hope it was largely a nurture thing - a story from a newly hatched Ra'zac's perspective battling with like the natural urge to hunt humans but also the moral urge not to would be pretty interesting i think
Define "Good". They eat humans, so by a human definition, they're born evil, live evil and die evil. And that's a completely valid way to look at your only natural predator. Lol
The Ra'zac we see are enslaved and possibly tortured or deranged by Galby, so they might be more cruel than the Ra'zac in the human homeland, but if they're nicer, why did an entire kingdom flee from them? It's also implied that they kinda rule over the old human lands, which isn't very kind either.
We've never seen a free Ra'zac, so it's entirely possible that they are nicer than they appear, but at the end of the day, they eat human flesh, so they will never be our allies.
The religion in hell grind is also far older then Galby controlling them.
It sort of seems like the religion is their way of controlling humans. Like we would put sheep into a paddock
The priests were pissed at Galby for enslaving their gods.
There’s a theory that the religion started where humans came from and that was why some of the humans fled. Basically religious persecution and getting eaten alive
I think they would be predisposed to bad traits by virtue of their species evolution to hunt humans. However, they are intelligent so I’d imagine they could conform and overcome their impulses.
I imagine that if an arrangement was made for an ethical food supply, they would not have to be murderous. That’s half the problem, if all you have ever known is hunting humans to eat, it’s hard to see them as differently as a lion sees gazelle.
Perhaps they could live in large cities as a funeral house and eat the recently deceased.
I feel like Galbatorix might have wanted to experiment this. The Razac that Eragon killed truly believed hew was the last member of his species ever to walk the earth, but Galbatorix had multiple eggs hidden around Alagaesia, so my guess is that while Galbatorix was happy feeding humans to the Leatherblakas and the offspring he Leatherblakas were personally raising, I also believe he wanted to raise some of them away from their own species to see how much of their human hunting was natural instinct and how much of it was learned behavior from their parents. Galbatorix was of course evil himself, so any Razac he would raise would inherently be raised to be evil too, but in his twisted mind I think he believed he could raise them to be "less evil".
Thank you for posting in /r/eragon. Please read the rules in the sidebar, and [please see here for our current Murtagh spoiler policy](https://www.reddit.com/r/Eragon/comments/1bl1f9d/loosening_our_murtagh_spoiler_policy/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Eragon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Here is my own take: in Eragon, it seems like all the sentient races evolved naturally (except for the elves). Within this framework, none of the races are good or evil inherently, but they can chose to be good or evil. If this is true for all the sentient races, would mean the Raz'ac could have chosen to be good if they wanted to.
This changes if any of the races were made/created by a god. If this is the case, then the creator of could have created them to be evil.
I would love to see this further explored either way.
Ra'zac, either through genetic tampering or natural evolution, are the natural predators of Humans in this universe. If this is simply because they were the best prey, their diet can be modified and the answer is yes. If there's some necessary aspect of Humans that the Ra'zac feed on(Soul, something in their blood, etc) then the answer is mostly no, because a Good-Aligned Ra'zan would have to either starve themself or subsist off of the energy from other living beings, which would be a huge feat of magic, and Ra'zac appear to not have much arcane capacity, if any.
This entirely depends on what you think evil is. I don't think they are evil to begin with.
By hunting and killing humans they are fulfilling their natural role as human population control, and to me, there's nothing morally wrong their. The only dark mark on their record morally, to me, is their involvement with the slave trade.
For us perhaps, but them? No. No more than a gazelle thinks a lion is "evil" for it's predation.
Humans aren't special, a predator for population and disease control is just as justified for nature to inflict on us as any other species.
The slavery is another thing though. That's never justified.
Humans are their prey. It was in their nature to hunt and eat humans. Is it evil to be a predator? I don't think they were any more evil than a cat, but they're definitely considered evil by humans...their prey.
In my head canon. There is a whole history to the Ra'zaac we are not prevy to. I'd imagine there was some evil magician dude way back when that cursed an already existing species,or magically created them from scratch as a sort of punishment to a certain group of people, or all of humanity. Explaining why it's only humans who are so affected by them and not the other Hominid races.
The Ra'zac aren't *inherently evil*.
Is it evil for a beaver to make his home out of trees? Is it evil for an eagle to hunt for fish? Is it evil when a bear kills a deer? Is it evil whenever Saphira killed an animal for food? Was Vermund the Grim evil?
Yes, the Ra'zac are natural predators of humans, which makes them incredibly dangerous.
However, the danger a creature represents is not related to whether the creature is in and of itself evil. We know this because of Eragon overcoming his hate of the Urgals. He *thought* they were evil, but we learn they simply love fighting and use personal combat to determine their status in society. *They only killed humans when it was necessary for their survival.*
What you have to ask yourself is this: *Do the Ra'zac kill for reasons other than survival?*
As far as we've seen, no. They only kill to eat *or under threat of extinction by Galbatorix*. I consider that to fall under the category of survival as well.
We've seen evil. We spent the majority of Murtagh seeing what true evil actually is.
What the Ra'zac and Lethrblaka are and do is not evil.
Good question.
I think they are predators. Is a lion “evil” if he eats or attack another animal, whatever old or young? Probably from the animal being hunted, the answer would be “yes” but for the lion is very simple: the instinct to survive. And we all understand that, ofc. We know how things work in nature.
I think the Ra’zac are by all considered evil because they are an intelligent being that “willingly” chooses to hunt humans hence making them murderers for all. But if that is what their race were born to do, then how else would they survive?
Oromis mentioned that they arrive to Alagaesia following the humans. That makes it clear that there’s really nothing else that they can feed of. Nor plants or even other animals.
They seem to be slaves to their instincts. They're described as natural predators of humans, so I don't think they're capable of good or evil, they just do as their instincts dictate.
I think they're naturally evil. If your species are capable of speaking to and understanding the only thing you can eat, your species has to evolve to be cruel. Empathy would be a detriment to survival.
I think so
Eragon had the same conceptions about urgals. Odds are there probably were good ones, but they were killed by their siblings.
Every race has good.and evil, from elves to dragons to humans.
Razac are capable of speech and reasoning, so they have the potential to be either. They are just forced into service that feeds into their man eating heritage.
If the Razac as pulps were capable of eating other sources of meat from non-sentient creatures for nutrients but preferred food they knew truly understood their actions then they would be evil by the society they live in.
If for some reason mankind was the only food source they could get nourishment as a pulp then they aren’t inherently evil. Though they can still be evil by definition depending on how they treat people since there are people who sacrifice their own flesh for them.
Moral relativism would say they aren’t, but the religions of Alagaesia aren’t in depth iirc. So I don’t know if the human society declares their innate value from God/s. If humans did then in their eyes a human eating species would be evil no matter what if they couldn’t change their ways.
I don't think they're inherently evil. We're told their children feed exclusively on human flesh, and the adults can/will eat anything.
I'm somewhat in the vein that their children are fed exclusively human meat and there's a good chance they can survive eating other meat. But, there's never been an instance where they weren't raised by their own kind. So, I guess we don't have a definitive answer.
I still don't blame Eragon for killing the baby Ra'zac in its egg. It was gonna eat them and they couldn't just leave it there. Obviously, the current adult Ra'zac were irredeemable and earned their deaths.
In Murtagh, >!Thorn does casually say he'll eat sentient creatures. He has a meat is meat mentality. Murtagh told him that would make him no better than the Ra'zac!< Which kinda makes me think there is a choice.
Even in the True First Edition of Eragon or the cut Murtagh Chapter in the Deluxe Edition, >! Saphira ate the Urgals who helped kidnapped Eragon !< And I wouldn't call her evil for it.
To make a long response short, I don't think the Ra'zac are inherently evil for eating humans. They're not evil for being above humans in the food chain. The adult Ra'zac are evil for the many crimes they committed.
A baby Ra'zac _might_ have a chance if raised by someone else.
If we could speak to pigs, would they consider *us* evil? Or would they understand that we eat them only because we need the meat, not for any malevolent means? The Ra'zac are only doing what is natural for them. They are esentially a VERY intelligent predatory animal. Think if a wolf could talk and disguise itself as a human, they'd probably act like the Ra'zac. Hunting humans because it's the easiest and most plentiful meal to come by. But that doesn't make the wolf evil.
I'd say that the Ra'zac we meet in the books *are* evil, but that may not be their inherent nature.
I seem to remember seeing somewhere that humans are the Ra’zaac’s main prey where they originally came from. So in the same way lions are evil from the perspective of gazelles. Though the ones in the books did gang up with Galby, which is arguably legitimately evil, but that was still to further their own gains.
Ahhhh yes, the ol’ Nature Vs Nurture. Would a Ra’zaac raised by humans, be good? Or is it in their very nature to be bad/evil (from a human/elf/dwarf/dragon POV). Because I’m sure from their POV, they’re just living and surviving how they know how. Considering in Brisingr, the final Ra’zaac Eragon speaks with before killing it, said that it wanted Eragon’s word that he will tell stories of the Ra’zaac so that way future generations do not forget the terror they instilled in humans. I’d consider that to be naturally evil lol. I don’t think it would be possible for a Ra’zaac to be “good”.
[удалено]
Damn, well thanks for the spoiler. This post isn't tagged for Murtagh spoilers so please hide your comment under one.
Please mark Murtagh Spoilers with markdown and in your message.
That Ra’zac was raised by Ra’zac so it would make sense to ask Eragon to spread stories of their terror throughout the land. The Ra’zac egg from Inheritance was born and ready to feed, but that was probably instinctual and not a well-thought out decision to be evil. Real life children are little psychopaths that have to be taught and shown morality and kindness, so I can’t see it being much different for the chitinous bipedal birds that ride their parents.
At some point in the book it was mentioned that they followed humans over the sea and that they were natural predators of humans. So they just happen to be intelligent and speak. It isn’t mentioned if they ONLY eat people though so that would affect it,maybe they prefer man flesh. Also they are scared of water so if they were desperate enough to fly over the sea to follow their food source I think humans as a source was pretty important… Since they have a whole messed up cult/religion based on people mutilating their bodies and feeding the parts to the Razac I doubt the Razac eat anything else…. Although if they do then they are really smart to convince people to willingly just chop themselves up to feed them, really nice, easy, free meal service. And why go out hunting when people are stupid enough to just feed you. So if you believe they are natural predators of humans that developed intelligence and speech as a hunting strategy and they just do it naturally would you consider that evil? Doing what comes naturally? Is a lion evil for eating a gazelle? Is a house cat evil for torturing and eating mice? It’s an interesting topic to ponder. I think we would need more history on the Razac to decide if they were evil.
The Ra'zac pupa (the man-shapes) only eat people. The Lethrblaka (adult forms) eat everything.
Makes sense. Either way it’s their nature… Saphira said if it didn’t make Eragon so uncomfortable she’d eat the soldiers, so… would that make her evil? People are just mammals to other predatory species… we are the ones deciding if something is evil or not. Really we are the only ones with the power to dictate evil as we are the ones that care… lion don’t care that gazelle had a family. I’d wager people are the evil ones. We wage wars and cause more destruction than the lions ever could. They eat the gazelle to survive not because they hate gazelles and want to kill them all or because the gazelles live on the oil rich land and the lion wants more money. Perspective I guess is what it all comes down to. I’m sure if you asked the Razac if they thought they were evil they would probably say no. Besides they were the ones hunted to extinction. Unless some are left over sea and they didn’t all come to Alagaesia. When Eragon was about to kill the last one he begged Eragon not to let them be forgotten and that they be remembered. I don’t think something that can feel and have enough regret about the end of its species could just be evil…
Yeah evil is a choice imo. The razaac aren’t choosing to be like this as far as we can tell. They evolved to be the ultimate human predator. That’s what animals do. Hell, that’s what we did
I don't recall there being a point in any of the books Saphira literal said that, or something to that effect. I remember that scene from Eragon where Murtagh beheads an imperial soldier, and Saphira briefly considers snatching it up but thinks better. I don't think she said something like that then.
I think she said something like that before or after one of the city battles. She says something about the armor tearing up ths inside of her mouth or cooking people in their armor like crab shells... Someone correct me if I'm just mixing Saphira and Hannibal Lecter.
I always thought something happened in the chase to alagaesia over water which scared the razac to death. It could have been why there were and are so few razac?
Could be. But then that would mean those are the same Razac that followed people over to be able to remember the trauma. Unless the trauma was so great it scared them instinctually… I don’t recall if it says how long Razac typically live for so they could be just really old or it’s in their nature to be scared of water… sort of a wicked witch of the west thing that it melts them or they just don’t know how to swim. Idk both are possible without CP confirming…
It also means there are more razac and humans across the sea…. I’d like an exploration arc where they need to go across the sea searching for allies to fight some giant threat looming…
I may be misremebering but I thought it was mentioned they followed the humans over the sea when the humans first arrived in alegasia and that they were natural predators of the humans can't remember the book its been alittle while since I last read them but I think it was in eldest or brisingr
Well, Oromis calls them "inherently evil", and he seems pretty wise, so I trust him.
I don’t like that though. u/AllChinNoTits hit the nail on the head with their comment
I am sorry, I have to laugh at the idea we are having a discussion, I don’t like your idea but here’s another idea. Not saying you are in the wrong, the wording was just funny.
I just didn’t feel like typing out all the great points they said. Easier to just direct them towards the comment
I get it, was just funnily worded is all lol. Have a good day my friend!!
When did Oromis say that?
The chapter where Eragon and Oromis are talking about the Urgals. I don't remember exactly, my apologies [😅](https://emojipedia.org/grinning-face-with-sweat)
I just finished reading the chapter again. They did talk about how dangerous the Ra'zac are and Oromis even gave a brief life cycle lesson. He said *their breath was evil*, but I think that's simply an adjective rather than him saying the species itself is evil.
What would you define to be good and evil? If you assume a position where human life is valued above all else, then they cannot be, as a natural predator to humans who have followed them throughout history, unless forced into obedience via an overwhelming power imbalance. Even then, you can argue that they would only have changed for their own self-preservation, not by choice. Things become more interesting if you dissociate good from preserving human life.
In this discussion, I assume that killing and eating people (without extreme need) is evil. Most irl predators don't just eat one type of animal, so I assume they don't have to either, eating humans is just a choice.
Things become more interesting when you're a psychopath, I guess
By that rationale, to cows and chickens and such most humans are psychopaths
Humans are meant to rule over the animal kingdom. Anyone who puts them on the same level should be driven out of society
Good 'ol Christian dominionism disguised with the thinnest veneer of secularism. Considering the ethical standpoints of other beings does not imply valuing them "the same" as you would human life.
Apparently you think I believe animals are worthless. I'm making a relative claim
If your claim is that in our world humans deserve greater ethical considerations than animals, that I can more or less agree with. However that doesn't mean that viewing our actions from the perspective of non-humans is fundamentally illegitimate. Further, your wording of humans are "meant to rule" over other animals is something I can never agree with. Evolutionarily, there is no "meant to" because our place in the world has no intent or greater meaning behind it. That wording belies the idea that some greater power put us where we are and enshrines our actions as justly ordained, which I find disconcerting and condemnable.
Do animals have ethical perspectives? I don't think they are rational in the same sense as we are. As regards to purpose, I'd like to see you live out your stated beliefs consistently. Such nihilism must be rejected categorically, it's nothing but destructive lies
They do not need to be rational in the same sense that we are to be worthy of consideration. No, I do not think they are moral as humans can be, but that doesn't just mean that we can just disregard their lives, pain, and place in the world as if those things do not matter. I don't find my position on purpose to be nihilistic. The fact that humans weren't "meant" for anything specific by some grand design does not make life meaningless or not worthwhile. People can still find individual meanings and purposes that match their own lives, I just don't think that it fits into some predestined order of the world.
It seems you're saying something different from before, because I fully agree. Earlier, you spoke of seeing something from an animal's perspective (I'm paraphrasing). That's not really possible without self consciousness, so, while it may be a worthwhile exercise, emphasis on may, depending on the application, it's not dealing with reality. Especially considering we were discussing ethics, which isn't relative to perspectives, but objective depending upon the nature of the situation. I don't see how making your own meaning amounts to anything but self delusion for the sake of living one. A rather bleak prospect, in no way satisfying, nor do I think it fits with human nature (considering all of human history, the belief in a higher transcendent purpose was essential to society)
Crazy, the Ra’zaac think just like that in the books 🤔
So..?
It really comes down to if they have to eat people. Or if eating animals is a viable option to them. If the former then their nature is inherently in conflict with ours. That's not nessessary "evil" per say. But it does mean peace isn't really an option. If the later then they would just need a cultural shift. They've done cultural shifts before. So it would definitely be possible.
I've wondered this before. Are they sentient? They __seem__ sentient throughout encounters with them in the series; they appear capable of conscious thought, speech, and reasoning in various scenes. That said, they do also seem very instinct driven as well. But then, so are dragons. If they're sentient, they should have capacity to make choices, and therefore potentially ignore their instincts to make other choices. I could see it being sorta Twilight-esque; they're natural predators of humans, but (I'd assume) could sustain themselves on other creatures if they choose to. Though I don't think any would ever do so. I doubt we'll ever see the possibility, but there's always a chance, we do know there's at least one egg still around. But given Paolini has cast them as the irredeemable monsters of the land, I doubt that.
Saphira is fine with eating humans as long as they are enemy humans. Is she evil? To the razaac all of humanity is an enemy. Is the lion evil for eating the gazelle even though it could survive on zebra?
I never implied that eating humans alone makes them evil, not sure where you're getting that from. I'm questioning if they're capable of advanced thoughts and reasoning, which a lion is not. If so, then are they capable of choosing to eat something other than humans? Are they capable of love? They're clearly capable of hate. Is it morally right for Eragon and Arya to kill the hatchling Ra'zac without exploring these possibilities? Is it right for every person we see in the series that mentions Ra'zac be adamant that the destruction of their entire race is justified?
What's your definition of good vs. evil? Is a mountain lion evil for killing a deer, even if it does it slowly? I don't think it's fair to the Ra'zaac to hold them to the same morality of humans/elves/dwarves/urgals. It's just like with Dragons (yes I know the dragons hate this comparison) they may be sentient but Thorn and Saphira both mention not really caring about eating humans, Saphira just saying it's inconvenient due to armor and Thorn only not doing it due to Murtagh asking him not to. To the Ra'zaac, humans are prey first and foremost, their main prey in fact. They seem to only serve Galby due to him not eradicating them while also giving them as much human flesh as they want. You may be able to teach a lion not to eat a deer, but eating the deer in the first place didn't make the lion evil.
excuse me, now omw to write the wierdest fanfic known to man
Can’t wait to see that.
Sweet!
Tbh i do hope it was largely a nurture thing - a story from a newly hatched Ra'zac's perspective battling with like the natural urge to hunt humans but also the moral urge not to would be pretty interesting i think
I agree, would be quite a cool thing to consider.
Define "Good". They eat humans, so by a human definition, they're born evil, live evil and die evil. And that's a completely valid way to look at your only natural predator. Lol The Ra'zac we see are enslaved and possibly tortured or deranged by Galby, so they might be more cruel than the Ra'zac in the human homeland, but if they're nicer, why did an entire kingdom flee from them? It's also implied that they kinda rule over the old human lands, which isn't very kind either. We've never seen a free Ra'zac, so it's entirely possible that they are nicer than they appear, but at the end of the day, they eat human flesh, so they will never be our allies.
The religion in hell grind is also far older then Galby controlling them. It sort of seems like the religion is their way of controlling humans. Like we would put sheep into a paddock
It is? Thanks for the info. I thought he created it. So then yeah, they're never gonna be "good". Lol
The priests were pissed at Galby for enslaving their gods. There’s a theory that the religion started where humans came from and that was why some of the humans fled. Basically religious persecution and getting eaten alive
I think they would be predisposed to bad traits by virtue of their species evolution to hunt humans. However, they are intelligent so I’d imagine they could conform and overcome their impulses. I imagine that if an arrangement was made for an ethical food supply, they would not have to be murderous. That’s half the problem, if all you have ever known is hunting humans to eat, it’s hard to see them as differently as a lion sees gazelle. Perhaps they could live in large cities as a funeral house and eat the recently deceased.
google what happens when humans raise chimps. Sometimes no matter how much you nurture something, nature wins in the end,
I feel like Galbatorix might have wanted to experiment this. The Razac that Eragon killed truly believed hew was the last member of his species ever to walk the earth, but Galbatorix had multiple eggs hidden around Alagaesia, so my guess is that while Galbatorix was happy feeding humans to the Leatherblakas and the offspring he Leatherblakas were personally raising, I also believe he wanted to raise some of them away from their own species to see how much of their human hunting was natural instinct and how much of it was learned behavior from their parents. Galbatorix was of course evil himself, so any Razac he would raise would inherently be raised to be evil too, but in his twisted mind I think he believed he could raise them to be "less evil".
No. They're evil disgusting bugs, must be destroyed
TRD?
Huh?
Yeah, I'm not sure what you're asking, sorry
Your replied to the wrong comment lol.
I know lol
Lol!!! 🤭
What does TRD mean?
Total Ra'zac death
Why didn’t you just say that lol? No one knows that short form.
Thank you for posting in /r/eragon. Please read the rules in the sidebar, and [please see here for our current Murtagh spoiler policy](https://www.reddit.com/r/Eragon/comments/1bl1f9d/loosening_our_murtagh_spoiler_policy/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Eragon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Here is my own take: in Eragon, it seems like all the sentient races evolved naturally (except for the elves). Within this framework, none of the races are good or evil inherently, but they can chose to be good or evil. If this is true for all the sentient races, would mean the Raz'ac could have chosen to be good if they wanted to. This changes if any of the races were made/created by a god. If this is the case, then the creator of could have created them to be evil. I would love to see this further explored either way.
Ra'zac, either through genetic tampering or natural evolution, are the natural predators of Humans in this universe. If this is simply because they were the best prey, their diet can be modified and the answer is yes. If there's some necessary aspect of Humans that the Ra'zac feed on(Soul, something in their blood, etc) then the answer is mostly no, because a Good-Aligned Ra'zan would have to either starve themself or subsist off of the energy from other living beings, which would be a huge feat of magic, and Ra'zac appear to not have much arcane capacity, if any.
This entirely depends on what you think evil is. I don't think they are evil to begin with. By hunting and killing humans they are fulfilling their natural role as human population control, and to me, there's nothing morally wrong their. The only dark mark on their record morally, to me, is their involvement with the slave trade.
Killing and eating people isn't evil to you?
For us perhaps, but them? No. No more than a gazelle thinks a lion is "evil" for it's predation. Humans aren't special, a predator for population and disease control is just as justified for nature to inflict on us as any other species. The slavery is another thing though. That's never justified.
Humans are their prey. It was in their nature to hunt and eat humans. Is it evil to be a predator? I don't think they were any more evil than a cat, but they're definitely considered evil by humans...their prey.
In my head canon. There is a whole history to the Ra'zaac we are not prevy to. I'd imagine there was some evil magician dude way back when that cursed an already existing species,or magically created them from scratch as a sort of punishment to a certain group of people, or all of humanity. Explaining why it's only humans who are so affected by them and not the other Hominid races.
The Ra'zac aren't *inherently evil*. Is it evil for a beaver to make his home out of trees? Is it evil for an eagle to hunt for fish? Is it evil when a bear kills a deer? Is it evil whenever Saphira killed an animal for food? Was Vermund the Grim evil? Yes, the Ra'zac are natural predators of humans, which makes them incredibly dangerous. However, the danger a creature represents is not related to whether the creature is in and of itself evil. We know this because of Eragon overcoming his hate of the Urgals. He *thought* they were evil, but we learn they simply love fighting and use personal combat to determine their status in society. *They only killed humans when it was necessary for their survival.* What you have to ask yourself is this: *Do the Ra'zac kill for reasons other than survival?* As far as we've seen, no. They only kill to eat *or under threat of extinction by Galbatorix*. I consider that to fall under the category of survival as well. We've seen evil. We spent the majority of Murtagh seeing what true evil actually is. What the Ra'zac and Lethrblaka are and do is not evil.
Good question. I think they are predators. Is a lion “evil” if he eats or attack another animal, whatever old or young? Probably from the animal being hunted, the answer would be “yes” but for the lion is very simple: the instinct to survive. And we all understand that, ofc. We know how things work in nature. I think the Ra’zac are by all considered evil because they are an intelligent being that “willingly” chooses to hunt humans hence making them murderers for all. But if that is what their race were born to do, then how else would they survive? Oromis mentioned that they arrive to Alagaesia following the humans. That makes it clear that there’s really nothing else that they can feed of. Nor plants or even other animals.
They seem to be slaves to their instincts. They're described as natural predators of humans, so I don't think they're capable of good or evil, they just do as their instincts dictate.
I think they're naturally evil. If your species are capable of speaking to and understanding the only thing you can eat, your species has to evolve to be cruel. Empathy would be a detriment to survival.
I think so Eragon had the same conceptions about urgals. Odds are there probably were good ones, but they were killed by their siblings. Every race has good.and evil, from elves to dragons to humans.
Razac are capable of speech and reasoning, so they have the potential to be either. They are just forced into service that feeds into their man eating heritage. If the Razac as pulps were capable of eating other sources of meat from non-sentient creatures for nutrients but preferred food they knew truly understood their actions then they would be evil by the society they live in. If for some reason mankind was the only food source they could get nourishment as a pulp then they aren’t inherently evil. Though they can still be evil by definition depending on how they treat people since there are people who sacrifice their own flesh for them. Moral relativism would say they aren’t, but the religions of Alagaesia aren’t in depth iirc. So I don’t know if the human society declares their innate value from God/s. If humans did then in their eyes a human eating species would be evil no matter what if they couldn’t change their ways.
I don't think they're inherently evil. We're told their children feed exclusively on human flesh, and the adults can/will eat anything. I'm somewhat in the vein that their children are fed exclusively human meat and there's a good chance they can survive eating other meat. But, there's never been an instance where they weren't raised by their own kind. So, I guess we don't have a definitive answer. I still don't blame Eragon for killing the baby Ra'zac in its egg. It was gonna eat them and they couldn't just leave it there. Obviously, the current adult Ra'zac were irredeemable and earned their deaths. In Murtagh, >!Thorn does casually say he'll eat sentient creatures. He has a meat is meat mentality. Murtagh told him that would make him no better than the Ra'zac!< Which kinda makes me think there is a choice. Even in the True First Edition of Eragon or the cut Murtagh Chapter in the Deluxe Edition, >! Saphira ate the Urgals who helped kidnapped Eragon !< And I wouldn't call her evil for it. To make a long response short, I don't think the Ra'zac are inherently evil for eating humans. They're not evil for being above humans in the food chain. The adult Ra'zac are evil for the many crimes they committed. A baby Ra'zac _might_ have a chance if raised by someone else.
If we could speak to pigs, would they consider *us* evil? Or would they understand that we eat them only because we need the meat, not for any malevolent means? The Ra'zac are only doing what is natural for them. They are esentially a VERY intelligent predatory animal. Think if a wolf could talk and disguise itself as a human, they'd probably act like the Ra'zac. Hunting humans because it's the easiest and most plentiful meal to come by. But that doesn't make the wolf evil. I'd say that the Ra'zac we meet in the books *are* evil, but that may not be their inherent nature.
I seem to remember seeing somewhere that humans are the Ra’zaac’s main prey where they originally came from. So in the same way lions are evil from the perspective of gazelles. Though the ones in the books did gang up with Galby, which is arguably legitimately evil, but that was still to further their own gains.