I do enjoy the game. That does not mean I have to side with the evil shark.
Controversial opinion: Scaly Pete was right to kill dear mother
- Thread starter Sixishungry
- Start date
- Status
I do enjoy the game. That does not mean I have to side with the evil shark.
Cool, you do what makes you happy, I don't think you're wrong if you want yo side with the human. I just think they are equally guilty in most ways.Thank you for showing what a disingenuous person you are. From this point onward, I shall refuse to engage you in any good faith argument. I have a presence in the Maneater Discord and Reddit. I intend to keep posting in all three of these forums, and I shall hammer the above argument on Scaly Pete so hard that you will think I might have been a hammerhead shark in a previous life.
They're perfectly noble, but it was Pete who finally killed her at the end.
(Unless she survives in a DLC - but I suspect the DLC will feature a different shark)
Plot twist: The explosion was not Pete's boat but a larger sea creature attacking the USS Minnow Johnston that we saw in the game (the one huge ship that the player shark could not attack).
In the dlc/sequel you will team up with Pete, he helps the player shark get his territory back as the shark helps Pete find Kyle and get ultimate closure.
In the dlc/sequel you will team up with Pete, he helps the player shark get his territory back as the shark helps Pete find Kyle and get ultimate closure.
Pete and lil chompy are both at fault and just represent two sides of the same coin, both killed dozens of the others kind, Pete scars the Shark and insta karma got his hand biten off, same thing reverse Chompy bites his leg off and insta karma got his face burned, both lost family to the other and in the end both got their revenge aswell as what they deserved.
Well you are a shark in this game, and from a shark's perspective we are just another food source, they don't even view us as an apex predator. However from that perspective, the game's morality makes sense. (We both view each other as lesser creatures) The sins of both families come full circle. Let's just say that this wasn't a shark's perspective and a different human. One human injures and mortally wounds another, and in retaliation the other human kills the other. The child of that human wants revenge, and so kills the one responsible. Then the child of that human wants revenge, and so on. Endless cycle, and acceptable in any other media.
But sure, if everyone wants to go from Pete's perspective than every Shark must die, or are all evil. BECAUSE of his experiences. Then the only reason the Shark even got this far in evolution is because of its experiences with humans. Otherwise it would have just been another average Shark. But it had the intellectual capacity to feel anger and hatred, and use it to fuel it getting stronger.
So if you do feel that "ugh, these lowly creatures dare stand up to a human?" Just acknowledge that if Pete is justified killing our mother for killing a few humans, then from the way this game was presented, than these sharks are justified slaughtering humans for the millions of wildlife lost due to greed and expansion. If other animals could process and evolve like this Shark did from pure anger and revenge, humanity would have been wiped out long ago.
But sure, if everyone wants to go from Pete's perspective than every Shark must die, or are all evil. BECAUSE of his experiences. Then the only reason the Shark even got this far in evolution is because of its experiences with humans. Otherwise it would have just been another average Shark. But it had the intellectual capacity to feel anger and hatred, and use it to fuel it getting stronger.
So if you do feel that "ugh, these lowly creatures dare stand up to a human?" Just acknowledge that if Pete is justified killing our mother for killing a few humans, then from the way this game was presented, than these sharks are justified slaughtering humans for the millions of wildlife lost due to greed and expansion. If other animals could process and evolve like this Shark did from pure anger and revenge, humanity would have been wiped out long ago.
The assertion that any morality is absolute fact is pretty moronic. Mortality has changed over the course of history, and even differs between societal/cultural groups to this day. Some religions preach an eye for an eye, while others the importance of forgiveness. Some societies/cultures accept vigilante retribution, while others a system of due process under law.
So I'm not sure where you get off asserting your idea of morality is any more correct than anyone else's.
Besides, if you want to look at it from a vengeance point of view, humans as a species are responsible for roughly 100 million shark deaths every year. Compare that to the 6-10 human deaths, on average, from shark attacks, and you can clearly see the fault in your version of moral obligation or morally justified vengeance. Unless Pete was acting specifically to avenge a personal loss caused by shark_mom_101, you can't justify his quoteunquote morally obligated killing of her simply due to her killing a handful of beachgoers. Which btw, according to your own declared definition of moral obligation, would have been hers in the first place, to avenge the deaths of 100 million of her own species at the hands of humans.
So I'm not sure where you get off asserting your idea of morality is any more correct than anyone else's.
Besides, if you want to look at it from a vengeance point of view, humans as a species are responsible for roughly 100 million shark deaths every year. Compare that to the 6-10 human deaths, on average, from shark attacks, and you can clearly see the fault in your version of moral obligation or morally justified vengeance. Unless Pete was acting specifically to avenge a personal loss caused by shark_mom_101, you can't justify his quoteunquote morally obligated killing of her simply due to her killing a handful of beachgoers. Which btw, according to your own declared definition of moral obligation, would have been hers in the first place, to avenge the deaths of 100 million of her own species at the hands of humans.
You know what HASN'T changed over the coarse of human history? Belief in objective morality. Even a moron living in the first century was not so stupid that he would doubt the existence of absolute morality. Everyone, from the morons to the philosophers, agreed that an absolute morality existed - even if they couldn't agree on the specifics.
This only changed with the popularity of Nietzsche, who declared war on everything that came before him by claiming that there was no true morality. His lazy worldview (which he then used to justify a "there is only power" worldview) has been taught in schools since then, to the effect that now a moron in the 21st century is much dumber than a moron in the first century.
The moment you assert moral relativism is the moment you lose that debate. Anyone worth her/his salt will believe that their system of morality is the true one.
Last edited:
The difference here is that humanity views animals as lesser creatures, they can't talk, so they must be stupid. Those 100 million sharks are maybe equivalent to 5 human lives or so. Maybe one of those lives had the capacity to solve aging, or space travel. This is in the eyes of humanity. In the eyes of sharks, humans are an invasive species that keeps growing in number every minute of the day, destroys resources to fuel their eventual collapse. It is why I mentioned the wildlife that was lost, because humanity only starts to take non-human deaths seriously if the numbers are ridiculously high, then they start to do something. But yes, our mother was probably hunted by Pete's father because he was looking for the Mega shark, and she was wounded from that, she got revenge, and then Pete wants revenge, endless cycle. In the Animal Kingdom, there is no trial, there is no version of forgiveness. Humanity wants to conquer the sea? Then they have to accept that too.
Animals cant make moral choices, because they are incapable of understanding the concept of Moral decisions. They cant even make conciouse decisions, therefore animals cant be good or evil. That also means that Humans cant do nothing Morally wrong against Animals. Please dont confuse what Im saying with "Its okay to kick someone elses Dog", because its not okay for simple reasons, first its not your Dog, second there is no reason to kick a harmless Dog. But Pete had every reason to kill our Shark, even though our Shark didnt do something wrong, because its just an Animal. Also I want to mention that there exist things such as Objectiv Morals. Morals cant be subjective, because that would mean that stealing could be considert "good" but then stealing is considered good it woulbnt be called stealling, it would then be called gifting. It would be a virtue to steal and everyone want to be stolen of but then everyone wants their neighbour to steal their belongings it becomes gifting.
Thats why Pete was the actual Hero of the Game.
Thats why Pete was the actual Hero of the Game.
So... is this argument about actual historical principles or about fantasy because I notice people here are kinda picking and choosing what they want from both and mixing and matching to support their lofty ideals which makes the argument unfair.
Also, animals can INDEED make moral choices in real life, we see this in documentries all the time lol It's mind boggling how people can say otherwise. I recall being taught in my school that insects had nerve nets, this is when scientists once believed that insects did not have a brain and could not think individually but relied on a hive mind. Later, scientists found out this was wrong, even studying ants and finding that they will call a mutiny on a queen.
Morality among animals is not hard to find, we see it more often in animals who travel in packs (wolves, dolphins, etc).
One could argue that animals have a better sense of morality since some humans are ignorant enough to claim morality is subjective.
Also, animals can INDEED make moral choices in real life, we see this in documentries all the time lol It's mind boggling how people can say otherwise. I recall being taught in my school that insects had nerve nets, this is when scientists once believed that insects did not have a brain and could not think individually but relied on a hive mind. Later, scientists found out this was wrong, even studying ants and finding that they will call a mutiny on a queen.
Morality among animals is not hard to find, we see it more often in animals who travel in packs (wolves, dolphins, etc).
One could argue that animals have a better sense of morality since some humans are ignorant enough to claim morality is subjective.
So you are saying that Animals are Morally responsible for them self? Basicly saying that they also own themselfs? Moral can only exist by selfownership. Without owning oneself there cant be a unmoral action against you, because what did you lose if you own nothing? If thats the case, lets say If I own a Dog who bites a Human Child and mortaly wounded it, I as a owner wouldnt be responsible for it because the Dog actually cant be owned and is responsible for it self.
I never said such a thing but to claim animals do not or cannot self-sacrifice, mourn a loss or show other actions based on morality is a lie, they do know right from wrong, hell even a squirrel knows right from wrong lol This has been proven ages ago... a dog doesn't have to be owned to make a moral choice to save a child from a fire. However, it can choose to stand and watch the house burn and not do anything about it. Would the dog be held responsible for this? No, no more than a human would.
Another example: A wolf challenges the alpha of a pack out of jealousy, he wants the alpha female so he fights and kills the alpha. This is common and it's another examle of morality in the animal kingdom, the wolf knew it was wrong but did so anyway. It's not instincts we're talking here.
Animals are not dumb, what is dumb is assuming that animals can't plan or act behaviorally based on moral compass. History has already proven otherwise.
Last edited:
Im not an native english speaker, so maybe I didnt explained my point clearly enough.
What I was trying to say was If something cant own itself Morality doesnt play any role in its life, even when it does something what we would consider to be morally good or bad. Lets take your burning house exsample, If I cant rescue someone from being burned to death that doesnt make me a bad person, because I just wouldnt be able to do such a thing but Instead I could call for help and if I didnt do that that would make me a bad person, but the same rule doesnt apply to Animals. If an Animal just sits and watches the House burn it is not morally held responsible for that action but if a Human does that it very much a bad thing to do. A owned Dog cant do a Morally right thing if it can be owned. A being needs to be responsible for itself and its doings and it needs to understand the concept of ownership and selfownership, without the capacity to understand ownership in general morality doesnt play any role. A Squirrel, for exsample, would steal my Nuts if I put some of them in its reach if it takes my Nuts, without my consent, would you consider that Squirrel to be evil criminal scum? I hope not, because thats just what Animals do.
The capacity to feel emotions comes from the Mammalbrain which every Mammal posseses but just because my Cat is able to feel depressed, angry etc. doesnt make it a conciouse being that is able to understand concepts of ownership and morality. I mean I could sit down with my Cat and telling it about the ten tenets and that it shall not steal but I strongly believe that my Cat doesnt care what I have to say about Moral concepts and if it could understand that it would actually understand that it is a bad thing that I am owning it but thats only the case when it is able to understand the concepts.
And I want also adress your Wolf pack exsample: You would consider that Wolf a evil murderer?
Animals cant plan, atleast not to high capacity, if they could plan beyond the day they are living in it would be nearly impossible for Humans to hunt them. Also Predators would be far more successfull to the point of starvation.
Last edited:
Yes, the wolf who kills the Alpha leader is indeed branded a murderer by the rest of the pack, thus one of the reasons he is able to assume command, out of fear and respect. It's tribalism, you see. The animal kingdom isn't actually too different from how our militaries, patrol units and even gangs operates hence why all these groups take strategies and rules from various animal packs to operate and strategize, this is even taken from insect kingdom.
You are agreeing with me on the fire, I don't think you know you are agreeing with me but yes, I was talking about someone who is fully able to save a child from a fire but deciding not to, there are many reasons they could decide not to. Is it morally correct to stand idle in such a situation? Of course not, but that doesn't make you a murderer, people react differently but still, it's a moral choice. Real question: How far will morality push a person or animal to reflect theirs own life and devalue in a given situation? That's a perfect question that goes along with the thread.
I would have to disagree with you on another point, animals can plan months and even years ahead of time. Preparing for seasons by building nests/dams, etc. This isn't survival instinct but learned behaviors and the animal chooses whether or not they want to do it. A wolf can spend weeks stalking a prey and planning for the perfect kill as they know the layout of the land like the back of their hand. Ants can adapt strategy battle plans on the fly regardless of millions being on the field - this is where the human miliatay tries to copy such complex activity - read the Art Of War!
Point being animals will surprise you and it's not like there haven't been sharks who were out to get revenge on humans in real life...
- Status