Is taking blood from a blood bank less ethical than hunting?

[Rhywbeth]

An argument that has been brought before me; A healthy adult can probably lose a blood point or two without any lasting damage, but donated blood is meant for blood transfusions and people who will otherwise die without that blood and you are reducing the supply they need. Therefore, taking blood (especially from a consenting human) is the more ethical choice compared to stealing from the sick.

Counter arguments have included:

1 - When hunting you're essentially forcefully sedating people and drawing blood donations from them without consent, like some kind of weird back-alley serial phlebotomist (also it's definitely assault and probably ABH or something). You're getting a blood donation anyway, so it's better to take from consensual donors.

2- OK, but the people who went for the blood drive didn't consent to give their donations to vampires (cue argument about whether vampires count as patients who qualify for donated blood) Even if you get consent from a blood doll, since the bite is like giving somebody a dose of opiates to which they will become destructively addicted, isn't it unethical? (which then lead to a strange discussion about how to feed consensually without imparting the kiss, and something about drinking from humans with a straw which lead to the baffling topic of "can vampires snort blood like cocaine?".)

I was wondering if anybody had any thoughts on this topic?
I'm personally on team; "Just get a blood transfusion kit, cultivate a herd of consenting mortals, compensate them for their blood, and drink from your herd indirectly. Probably the best you're going to get for ethical feeding."

[Amethyst]

An argument that has been brought before me; A healthy adult can probably lose a blood point or two without any lasting damage, but donated blood is meant for blood transfusions and people who will otherwise die without that blood and you are reducing the supply they need. Therefore, taking blood (especially from a consenting human) is the more ethical choice compared to stealing from the sick.

Counter arguments have included:

1 - When hunting you're essentially forcefully sedating people and drawing blood donations from them without consent, like some kind of weird back-alley serial phlebotomist (also it's definitely assault and probably ABH or something). You're getting a blood donation anyway, so it's better to take from consensual donors.

2- OK, but the people who went for the blood drive didn't consent to give their donations to vampires (cue argument about whether vampires count as patients who qualify for donated blood) Even if you get consent from a blood doll, since the bite is like giving somebody a dose of opiates to which they will become destructively addicted, isn't it unethical? (which then lead to a strange discussion about how to feed consensually without imparting the kiss, and something about drinking from humans with a straw which lead to the baffling topic of "can vampires snort blood like cocaine?".)

I was wondering if anybody had any thoughts on this topic?
I'm personally on team; "Just get a blood transfusion kit, cultivate a herd of consenting mortals, compensate them for their blood, and drink from your herd indirectly. Probably the best you're going to get for ethical feeding."

I agree with team You 😊. That sounds like the most ethical possible choice.

[Lysander]

It would be the best of a bad situation. But I can see a ruthless kindred taking advantage of it and extracting boons from such vampires to ensure a supply of blood is shipped to them.

[Thoth]

An argument that has been brought before me; A healthy adult can probably lose a blood point or two without any lasting damage, but donated blood is meant for blood transfusions and people who will otherwise die without that blood and you are reducing the supply they need. Therefore, taking blood (especially from a consenting human) is the more ethical choice compared to stealing from the sick.

Counter arguments have included:

1 - When hunting you're essentially forcefully sedating people and drawing blood donations from them without consent, like some kind of weird back-alley serial phlebotomist (also it's definitely assault and probably ABH or something). You're getting a blood donation anyway, so it's better to take from consensual donors.

2- OK, but the people who went for the blood drive didn't consent to give their donations to vampires (cue argument about whether vampires count as patients who qualify for donated blood) Even if you get consent from a blood doll, since the bite is like giving somebody a dose of opiates to which they will become destructively addicted, isn't it unethical? (which then lead to a strange discussion about how to feed consensually without imparting the kiss, and something about drinking from humans with a straw which lead to the baffling topic of "can vampires snort blood like cocaine?".)

I was wondering if anybody had any thoughts on this topic?
I'm personally on team; "Just get a blood transfusion kit, cultivate a herd of consenting mortals, compensate them for their blood, and drink from your herd indirectly. Probably the best you're going to get for ethical feeding."

There are a few holes in the argument that can change the outcome.

1. When you donate blood, you don't get to say who gets it. Thus, despite your cultural, religious, or personal values, the blood is given to whomever it is compatible with. Thus, it could be given to a criminal, a rapist, child killer, a person of a different faith, a person of differing sexual values or preferences, or lastly it could be requisitioned for medical research purposes, the outcome of which has no bearing on your interests or values.

2. While a person can give a blood donation with no lasting effects, they are technically a pint low. This means that they will be more lethargic, have slower reaction times and be less functional than if they hadn't donated. So depending on what happens in their life, that debuff could kill them or means someone else dies because they weren't in top form.

3. On the assumption that all vampires came out of the coffin and society calmed down enough to start to integrate them. Chances are that the Blood Bank would be in charge of feeding the vampire population. This would give the government a good way of tracking the overall population of cainites, it would also mean that the government could restrict vampiric power by limiting blood deliveries to only one bag per night. Every clan that has high blood use disciplines would either have to go completely covert with their feeding or lose functionality.

4. Perhaps most importantly we have to admit that in the current day people are going ballistic online over the concept of being a traditional housewife who just cooks and cleans in a traditional family unit. How much backlash do you think there is going to be to the idea of vampires recruiting blood dolls? Blood Banks negate the entire morality argument over keeping humans as snack packs.

[Psicose]

Considering how much can happen during a hunt, I think it's best to get it from the blood bank, as regardless of where that blood could be used or destined for, it can be little compared to the collateral damage of an unsuccessful hunt and a hungry kindred causes more trouble than a victim short of blood.

[11twiggins]

I was actually thinking about this today! I think you can look at it from an angle of a person having a medical condition where they need blood each day to live. That means you have a genuine ethically defensible need for the blood, so long as you pick more common types, and make an effort to use blood that would otherwise go wasted where possible.

This ethical defense covers you taking blood to heal, to wake up in the evening, and perhaps a little extra wiggle room. If you're taking more blood than that you're in trouble ethics wise - you being able to kick hunter ass doesn't outweigh someone needing a transfusion.

[Black Fox]

It is not the more ethical choice. Directly preying on Humanity is the more evil option. It is a direct violation of the person, and it directly harms them. I also reject the idea that blood dolls, herds, etc. actually "consent" in any meaningful fashion. The nature of the Kiss affects the mental and emotional state of the person. It is like saying a drug addict consents. Ultimately you are a prey animal being eaten by a supernatural predator. Anyone agreeing to such a thing is not showing compos mentis.

Even from a utilitarian perspective, there are big holes in the argument. How often are blood banks so low that it materially affects people's health? What if the vampire works to make sure there are more blood donations being done than what he takes for herself? What if the vampire makes sure that the business it controls holds blood drives several times a year greatly increasing the blood being donated? Any harm being done by taking from blood banks can be much more easily reduced than anything involving directly from people.

The arguments against taking from blood banks just shows that this too is harmful, and that it cannot be used to show the vampire is not somehow bad. It is just one of the least bad options, but that does not make it good. There is no such thing as "ethical feeding." Vampires are an abomination upon the earth. They are Damned by their very nature.

This does not mean it is not praiseworthy for the vampire to try to reduce the evil caused by its very existence. It is a very good thing. But ultimately it only reduces the evil caused by its existence, never negates it. The best thing for it to do is to walk out into the sun.

[Rhywbeth]

This does not mean it is not praiseworthy for the vampire to try to reduce the evil caused by its very existence. It is a very good thing. But ultimately it only reduces the evil caused by its existence, never negates it. The best thing for it to do is to walk out into the sun.

I, on the other hand, believe that demanding the suicide of an individual is even more evil than a vampire's need to feed on blood. Doing evil unto evil may sometimes be necessary, but it's still wrong.

[Black Fox]

For my chronicles I categorically reject the idea that is not always a good thing to destroy the vampire. Destroying the vampire is ALWAYS the morally good thing to do. It is NEVER an evil thing. You are eliminating an unholy abomination that should never have existed. I understand that many other players do not want that to be the basis for their own chronicles.

The person has already been murdered. The vampire sire murdered that person. The thing that remains may have the remnant of the mind of the person she was, but she is not that person. You are only the destroying the monster and putting whatever is left of that person to deserved rest from their damnation.

[Heavy Arms]

As is frequently a problem with these sorts of discussions, there's never a decided ethical framework to judge things by. There has yet to be a proven objectively correct form of ethics, so any ethical judgement needs to start with which school of ethics we're using. Yes, the answer will change depending on a number of factors.

While we don't need everyone to take a few philosophy courses in order to have some basic discussions about ethics, you have to establish some common ground or no ethical argument has any real weight behind it.

I mean, plenty of ethical systems would argue that we're splitting pointless hairs here, because the only ethical thing for a VtM vampire to do is to go outside and wait for the sun to rise.

[AnubisXy]

Many places off monetary payments for blood and plasma donations, so there's already a market price for selling your blood. As such, the most ethical thing to do is to pay people for their blood. Even if they volunteer it due to the Kiss, you should give them at least the market value in exchange.

[Thoth]

Random question, why are we assuming that the blood bank in question is owned by and operated for mortal benefit?

If a blood bank is owned by kindred and operated expressly for feeding the local population, does that change the "morality" goal post? The mortals come in and donate blood just as normal, with no knowledge of how it would be used, sometimes with compensation. The only difference is that the blood is always given to kindred first and sent out to mortal groups second to maintain cover.

[Lysander]

Random question, why are we assuming that the blood bank in question is owned by and operated for mortal benefit?

If a blood bank is owned by kindred and operated expressly for feeding the local population, does that change the "morality" goal post? The mortals come in and donate blood just as normal, with no knowledge of how it would be used, sometimes with compensation. The only difference is that the blood is always given to kindred first and sent out to mortal groups second to maintain cover.

I think it would move the morality goal post as Kindred in general are very self serving beings and it wouldn't be overly hard for say a ruthless Ventrue or Ministry member to use that to gain boons and influence that most would be comfortable with. Trust is a very rare asset in there world.

[Lysander]

As is frequently a problem with these sorts of discussions, there's never a decided ethical framework to judge things by. There has yet to be a proven objectively correct form of ethics, so any ethical judgement needs to start with which school of ethics we're using. Yes, the answer will change depending on a number of factors.

While we don't need everyone to take a few philosophy courses in order to have some basic discussions about ethics, you have to establish some common ground or no ethical argument has any real weight behind it.

I mean, plenty of ethical systems would argue that we're splitting pointless hairs here, because the only ethical thing for a VtM vampire to do is to go outside and wait for the sun to rise.

Don't forget most of us here were probably under the Jewish/Christian or Muslim faith in which suicide is a sin and most Kindred might retain that moral and may not want to end themselves put themselves in a worse predictment.

[Heavy Arms]

Well, first off, there isn't a "Jewish/Christian" faith. As a Jew I find it endlessly frustrating how much people think it's cool to just lump us together like that.

An in fact, if we want to get into theological ethics? Judaism and Islam orthodoxy would both side on a vampire ending themselves via sunlight. Christianity is the theology where the balance between suicide and being a damned undead blood drinker is at all a question.

In Judaism and Islam, suicide is a forgivable sin with multiple exceptions where it isn't even a sin to end your life. Both religions consider it not suicide to cease interventions and let death happen if you have a terminal disease without that even counting as suicide, and both consider suicide in the face of an incurable terminal disease that causes great suffering to be acceptable. To sum up a common argument: you are commanded to prolong life, but extending death is a sin. And being a vampire is kinda inherently extended death. Both faiths have also maintained a strong dedication to religious dietary restrictions and drinking blood is a major sin for both faiths. Consuming animal meat with blood still in it is a violation of both Kashrut and Hallal, let along purposefully consuming human blood. On top of that both faiths consider suicide an acceptable alternative to forced apostasy. Given the nature of vamprism in VtM, it's a simple case to make that your sire has forced a life of apostasy on you, so it's acceptable to end your existence rather than continue it.

The ethical calculus here is very simple: end your unlife in a fashion that is at worst one forgivable sin and after some punishment you soul will get into heaven, or continue on in a damned state fueled by constant sinning. At worst you're sinning once to prevent yourself for countless nights of sin.

Christianity struggles here because Christianity increased the severity of the three faith's shared taboos around suicide to reduce the exceptions to suicide and even make suicide and unforgivable sin. At the same time, Christianity largely tossed aside religious dietary laws (it's kinda hard to square consuming blood being evil and the Eucharist), and glorified enduring suffering for a martyr's death over accepting suicide to escape such torments. These changes have plenty of perfectly sound real world thinking and history behind them, but when it comes to vampires it leaves Christians without nearly as clear of an answer of what the strict theological ethics are.