Re-hashed: Nature vs. Nurture/Morality: What about Snakes?

[Dannflower Reguba]

       Many individuals, when faced with the nature vs. nurture concept in the Redwall world will choose to discuss Veil in reference to other vermin and the general rules that be about vermin and woodlander. Not once have I seen a discussion on arguably the most neutral of parties, being the snake. A discussion of ethics could potentially change drastically when bringing snakes into the pool, and I want to see what people have to say about them, as well as how they relate from a moral standpoint to the rest of the creatures.

Some points that should be remembered:

- Snakes (as far as I know) aren't particularly known for involving themselves in the affairs of the world surrounding them (outside of that one schmuck from Doomwyte)

- Snakes are true carnivores, the only other relevant species in the series that shares this trait is the weasel. Rats, ferrets, foxes, pine martens, and (yes) even wolverines are known omnivores (monitors are predominantly carnivorous, but can and will eat certain non-meats).

[The Grey Coincidence]

Alrighty, here's my take on morality.
Mammals, being the most anthropomorphic beings in the Redwall series are the ones that deal with morals in the human sense of the word. Vermin act more on animal instincts than woodlanders and therefore care less (or not at all) about morals but to some degree they have got standards (or at the very least are anthropomorphic enough to care about things beyond base needs). Woodlanders are the same but because of the way they're raised their animal instincts are curbed/stunted and because their instincts are less powerful than vermin ones anyway.
Reptiles however, are not as anthropomorphic as Redwall mammals. Ublaz's monitors are noted to be rather unintelligent, they're also more carnivorous and actively desire to eat flesh. While the Redwallers enjoy their fish and vermin find foal delightful only Gulo and company goes so far as to eat another mammal (and Gulo isn't exactly the brightest now is he? Bit of personal taste I think, not really the norm) and he is noted as a cannibal. Lask I do not consider a cannibal because reptiles =/= mammals.
Those are monitors, who I consider more anthropomorphic than snakes. Snakes operate on instinct alone and act as... Animals... The only reason they can talk is because the Redwall series is written from the point of view of animals, animals who understand one another because they're all animals- but they're still different enough to think and act differently.
So snakes have about the same moral standards as real-life snakes in the Redwall series. Ie, none. They're not 'evil' because they have no concept of good or evil and are incapable of it. You can have a 'tame' snake I suppose as some do in real life, but that would be foolish in this world (see, Ublaz, who's snake was not tame but who he 'owned' anyways) and I doubt most mice would want one anyways (the risk of getting eaten is always going to exist, especially because the snake is likely to outlive you anyways...)
TLDR: Snakes have no morals because they don't need them because all they really want is to eat and sleep and survive. They're animals and that's about it.

[Grond]

Alrighty, here's my take on morality.
Mammals, being the most anthropomorphic beings in the Redwall series are the ones that deal with morals in the human sense of the word. Vermin act more on animal instincts than woodlanders and therefore care less (or not at all) about morals but to some degree they have got standards (or at the very least are anthropomorphic enough to care about things beyond base needs). Woodlanders are the same but because of the way they're raised their animal instincts are curbed/stunted and because their instincts are less powerful than vermin ones anyway.
Reptiles however, are not as anthropomorphic as Redwall mammals. Ublaz's monitors are noted to be rather unintelligent, they're also more carnivorous and actively desire to eat flesh. While the Redwallers enjoy their fish and vermin find foal delightful only Gulo and company goes so far as to eat another mammal (and Gulo isn't exactly the brightest now is he? Bit of personal taste I think, not really the norm) and he is noted as a cannibal. Lask I do not consider a cannibal because reptiles =/= mammals.
Those are monitors, who I consider more anthropomorphic than snakes. Snakes operate on instinct alone and act as... Animals... The only reason they can talk is because the Redwall series is written from the point of view of animals, animals who understand one another because they're all animals- but they're still different enough to think and act differently.
So snakes have about the same moral standards as real-life snakes in the Redwall series. Ie, none. They're not 'evil' because they have no concept of good or evil and are incapable of it. You can have a 'tame' snake I suppose as some do in real life, but that would be foolish in this world (see, Ublaz, who's snake was not tame but who he 'owned' anyways) and I doubt most mice would want one anyways (the risk of getting eaten is always going to exist, especially because the snake is likely to outlive you anyways...)
TLDR: Snakes have no morals because they don't need them because all they really want is to eat and sleep and survive. They're animals and that's about it.

I agree, although I would add that I consider snakes and Ublaz's monitors to be semi-sentient. I say this because they are able to speak and actually form strategies etc... think of Asmodeous and Baliss. But they seem to lack the intellect of the mammalian species both woodlander and vermin. However at the same time they have a higher intellect than actual "animal" species i.e. fish (pike, sharks etc...). Snakes and reptiles seem to be an in-between the anthromorphic species and the "animal" species.

[The Grey Coincidence]

That sounds about right