Can (other) animals be evil?

[Revenant Threshold]

I think there's a few things at play here. First of course is whether or not animals understand what they're doing. When a bird of prey kills another bird, does it know it's taking life? Is there a mental decision there where options are weighed? Another point might be whether it's necessary. A bird doesn't really have any other option than hunting for food. Can we really blame it?

Of course we can't just say "animals". I don't think anyone would disagree that, say, a worm couldn't be evil. Somewhere between worms and humans must lie the line at which we can say "Yes, that's an evil creature". The question is, is the gap far enough between us that humans are the only animals that count? Or can we go back and say apes, or dolphins, can also be evil?

[toadspittle]

Just snakes. And cats.

[John Mace]

I don't think that we can say what is good or evil in another animal's society, except by the standards of that society. Other primates have at least a sense of reciprocity, if not of morals, but by and large it's might makes right.

[TheLoadedDog]

I remember an Eddie Izzard routine where he asks this question, and ponders the possibility of an evil giraffe:

"I will eat all the leaves off this tree. I have gotten up early to eat all the leaves off this tree, and when the other animals wake up, there will be no leaves for them AND THEY WILL DIE! MWAHAHAHAHA!"

[Revenant Threshold]

That's where I got the inspiration for this, TLD. :)

[John Mace]

When I saw TLD had posted, I was sure we'd get a lesson about Tasmanian Devils. Those things my not be evil but they sure sound evil.

[elelle]

I don't think that animals can be portrayed as having evil intent. In your first example, a bird of prey is doing what it needs to to survive. That's their only means of survival, and there aren't other options. That would fall into the course of Nature category. The only option is to survive as successful tactics honed over time dictate. Taking a life is par for the course. The mental decision is to succeed in that endeavor, with best skill. "Blame" is a human judgement. If you watch the life on this planet Earth, it can appear to be cruel at times (as opposed to evil intent), but also incredibly beautiful in the ways all life adapts to survival. If there is a Creator who dictates Good and Evil; as far as the natural world goes, they are either a sadistic genius or flat out crazy.

By that I mean that there are so many weird permutations of survival here, especially in the insect world, that if you concern yourself with Evil intent, and look at the scope of what goes on in Nature every second of every day, down to microcosm, your head will explode. It's incredibly rude and wonderful and thriving, so Evil intent is better left out. It's the way things happen here, and best to appreciate it as a beautiful model of success. Without the ability to create and cultivate that we humans have developed, animals do what they do best to survive.

In preview, I see the post about the Giraffe. I don't see any evil intent. Most likely, it's just,"Hey, leaves, yep, I'm gonna eat em cause I want to live. Got here first, yeah, yumm!" Me first, sure, but don't know if there's a "Bwaaaahaaa"

[BarnOwl]

There was this big dog named George, who was owned by someone down the
street. George would go through the neighborhood beating the living shit out of every dog he could get his teeth on.

The son of a bitch came on my property and attacked my dog (who was lying there minding his own business) which resulted in a hefty vet bill. George's owner paid.

My point is George would go out of his way to inflict harm on other dogs, and in my book, this suggests canine evilness.

[gonzomax]

Pit bulls

[the PC apeman]

Evil is in the eye of the beholder. So yes, animals can be evil if you choose to view them as such.

[John Mace]

There was this big dog named George, who was owned by someone down the
street. George would go through the neighborhood beating the living shit out of every dog he could get his teeth on.

The son of a bitch came on my property and attacked my dog (who was lying there minding his own business) which resulted in a hefty vet bill. George's owner paid.
Son of a bitch? I don't think that's an insult to a dog...

My point is George would go out of his way to inflict harm on other dogs, and in my book, this suggests canine evilness.
Dogs are pack animals and packs have hierarchies. Those hierarchies re determined by who is the toughest, which is determined by who can beat the living shit out of the other dogs. That's not evil, that's just dog nature.

[panache45]

Good and evil presuppose choice. I don't believe animals "choose" their actions the same as humans; they simply do what they do, and can't act otherwise. We have the ability to choose whether or not to do evil (whatever you consider evil), which is the basic requirement of morality.

[RandMcnally]

And cats.


Seconded. Cats still your breath. That's pretty darn evil if you ask me.

[David Simmons]

I think there's a few things at play here. First of course is whether or not animals understand what they're doing. When a bird of prey kills another bird, does it know it's taking life? Is there a mental decision there where options are weighed? Another point might be whether it's necessary. A bird doesn't really have any other option than hunting for food. Can we really blame it?

Of course we can't just say "animals". I don't think anyone would disagree that, say, a worm couldn't be evil. Somewhere between worms and humans must lie the line at which we can say "Yes, that's an evil creature". The question is, is the gap far enough between us that humans are the only animals that count? Or can we go back and say apes, or dolphins, can also be evil?You're kidding, right?

Animals act as if they had a strong survival instinct. God has made predators carnivores and the only way they can survive is to kill other creatures.

[Colibri]

First you need to define what constitute's "evil."

Evil I think might be defined as intentionally acting in such a way as to cause distress in others, or deliberately disregarding the distress of others in the course of getting what you want. As such, it requires 1) self-awareness of yourself as an individual; 2) the ability to recognize that others are also individuals with their own emotional state, that is, the capacity for empathy, or having a "theory of mind." It's likely that apes have this to some degree, but few if any other animals probably do.

[dropzone]

It's likely that apes have this to some degree, but few if any other animals probably do.Such niceties are generally put forth by people who never had a pet that obviously knew that what it was doing was wrong, by the standards of the society in which it lived. Dogs generally do not live in packs of dogs. They live in--and evolved to their present form in--human societies and are aware of a fair chunk of the rules of those societies. If they do not know that peeing on the floor is WRONG they know that it displeases the alpha members of their society, which is pretty much the same thing. If, knowing that the alpha members do not like it, they persist in peeing on the floor they are purposely violating the societal rules and are, by that purposeful violation, evil.

Do not give "dumb" animals too much leeway because they can't do calculus. They are often at least as aware of the rules of their society as we are.

[Frylock]

What does it mean to be evil?

-FrL-

[askeptic]

From a christian perspective (which I do not hold) the answer is no, only Adam and Eve ate from the tree of life, only they were banished from the garden. Why the other animals left only god knows. For that matter where did cain and abel's wives come from? But I digress...

Though not a christian, I still don't think animals can be evil. For that mater I don't know if humans can be. Outside of religion evil seems to be just that which is very bad. But it seems like it must involve immoral acts. While animals can do great harm can they be said to act immorally? I don't think so.

[LinusK]

Just snakes. And cats.

Snakes are not evil. The jury's still out on cats.

[LinusK]

Seriously, though, in order to be evil, you have to have a certain level of intelligence. And whatever that level is, no animal has it. (At least no animal I've ever met.)

It's like asking whether a 2 year old could be evil. The answer is "no".

[Ottoerotic]

Well watching planet earth this weekend they showed a troupe of Gorillas (I think, I know it was some primate) raid and attack another group of primates. This in and of itself isn't really evil, but after killing them they ate their remains.

The narrator mentioned that this is strange because they usually don't eat meat and don't need the nourishment. Some primates are self aware and presumably intelligent enough to know that they are causing pain on another individual.

So I don't know if its evil or not, but its probably the closest example that I could come up with where an animal inflicts not only unnecessary pain on a rival but also adds a level of unnecessary insult on top of it.

[askeptic]

It's like asking whether a 2 year old could be evil. The answer is "no".

You're obviously not a parent. :)

Just kidding, I completely agree with your post.

[chowder]

Well watching planet earth this weekend they showed a troupe of Gorillas (I think, I know it was some primate) raid and attack another group of primates. This in and of itself isn't really evil, but after killing them they ate their remains.

The narrator mentioned that this is strange because they usually don't eat meat and don't need the nourishment. Some primates are self aware and presumably intelligent enough to know that they are causing pain on another individual.

So I don't know if its evil or not, but its probably the closest example that I could come up with where an animal inflicts not only unnecessary pain on a rival but also adds a level of unnecessary insult on top of it.
I've seen the same programme and they weren't gorillas they were chimps and I think the prey was the Colobus monkey.

As far as them not eating meat, I believe that the narrator said that they were not thought to eat meat, this action of theirs was a revelation

[dropzone]

What does it mean to be evil?In its minimal form, to knowingly violate the societal norms. That is more to be "bad," or "naughty," but it's close to the thread's definition as I understand it.

[Frylock]

In its minimal form, to knowingly violate the societal norms. That is more to be "bad," or "naughty," but it's close to the thread's definition as I understand it.

If that's the definition, then apes, and probably other mammals, can be evil.

-FrL-

[Ludovic]

Evil is in the eye of the beholder. So yes, animals can be evil if you choose to view them as such.[nitpick]A Beholder is an Aberration, not an Animal :cool:

[the PC apeman]

My bad. I threw out my Monster Manual a few years back.

[Colibri]

If they do not know that peeing on the floor is WRONG they know that it displeases the alpha members of their society, which is pretty much the same thing. If, knowing that the alpha members do not like it, they persist in peeing on the floor they are purposely violating the societal rules and are, by that purposeful violation, evil.

What evidence do you have that they are peeing on the floor in order to displease the alphas? Perhaps they are doing it for some other reason, and that reason is stronger than their fear of displeasure.

Dogs may act in such a way to please their masters (pack leaders). But this may be merely because they receive positive reinforcement (affection, praise, treats) when their masters are pleased. It is a big stretch to conclude that a dog is behaving in such a way as to please its master simply to make the master feel happy, absent any reward to the dog.

If a dog is acting in a way to displease its master, it is most likely because it either has a stronger motivation to do the displeasing act, or else is rejecting the dominance of the master. It is unlikely it is doing the act merely to displease the master.

[Zsofia]

Is it evil when a cat takes obvious pleasure in torturing a prey animal? Letting it go, pouncing, letting it go again just to round it up? I know mother cats bring their kittens wounded prey to teach them how to hunt, but my cats obviously get a real kick out of "hurt the cockroach".

[Colibri]

Is it evil when a cat takes obvious pleasure in torturing a prey animal? Letting it go, pouncing, letting it go again just to round it up? I know mother cats bring their kittens wounded prey to teach them how to hunt, but my cats obviously get a real kick out of "hurt the cockroach".

How is this different from a cat playing with a ball of yarn? The cat almost certainly doesn't understand that it is inflicting pain on the prey. It is playing with it as "practice" for actually catching other prey; its objective is not to inflict pain, but to entertain itself and hone its skills.

It would be highly maladaptive for a predatory animal to feel any empathy for its prey. If it injures an animal, its objective is to incapacitate it so it can't escape, not to make it feel pain. A predator that "felt the pain" of its prey would quickly starve to death.

[Odesio]

As expected, before one can determine whether animals are evil one must determine what exactly evil is.

#1. Is evil anything that goes against the norms of society?

Of course not. I'm sure we can all think of many examples of individuals who went against the norms of society who are now thought of as good moral people.

#2. Evil is in the eye of the beholder.

You might as well say there's no such thing as evil; or good for that matter. I recognize that individuals may think that something is evil but does that actually prove that it's evil? I think that moral relativism inevitably leads towards moral nihilism, but that's just my opinion.


Marc

[Zsofia]

How is this different from a cat playing with a ball of yarn? The cat almost certainly doesn't understand that it is inflicting pain on the prey. It is playing with it as "practice" for actually catching other prey; its objective is not to inflict pain, but to entertain itself and hone its skills.

It would be highly maladaptive for a predatory animal to feel any empathy for its prey. If it injures an animal, its objective is to incapacitate it so it can't escape, not to make it feel pain. A predator that "felt the pain" of its prey would quickly starve to death.
Really? Aren't we predators?

[mswas]

I think evil intent in human beings is largely based around what we want humans to do and what we want them not to do. It is in our best interests as a civilization to act a certain way and shun certain behaviors, but I have never in my life met anyone that I could definitively call 'evil'. Human suffering will drive people to do 'evil' things, but I don't know that evil is an irreducible quality of character.

So no, I don't think animals can be evil.

[JThunder]

Some primates are self aware and presumably intelligent enough to know that they are causing pain on another individual.I don't think we can make that presumption.

[Colibri]

Really? Aren't we predators?

We are an exception to that rule, as we are to many others. Humans feel empathy not only for other humans, but also other animals. Of course, that does not prevent us from killing or hurting either humans or other animals. But this often requires some complex rationalizations to short-circuit that empathy, in order to recognize humans or animals as "other" so that it becomes OK to kill them.

It's hard to imagine a cat refraining from killing a mouse because it "felt sorry" for it. Whether a cat is programmed either to not recognize pain in its prey, or simply to ignore it, is a bit irrelevant. Either way, the cat can't be considered to be cruel or evil.

[Ludovic]

Really? Aren't we predators?We are DEVO!

[the PC apeman]

#2. Evil is in the eye of the beholder.

You might as well say there's no such thing as evil; or good for that matter. I recognize that individuals may think that something is evil but does that actually prove that it's evil? ...Yes, I will say it. There is no such thing as good or evil except that which we label good or evil.

... I think that moral relativism inevitably leads towards moral nihilism, but that's just my opinion.If by moral nihilism you mean there is no such thing as absolute morality, then yes, exactly. But far from nihilism, morality does exist. It is what we've determined (either evolutionarily or consciously) it to be.

[GIGObuster]

Some primates are self aware and presumably intelligent enough to know that they are causing pain on another individual.

I don't think we can make that presumption.

I think I agree with Ottoeroic

I do remember seeing the Chimpanzees of Jane Goodal dealing with a mother chimp that began to kill the babies of other mothers. Chimps allow others to take care of the offspring, the murderous former mother killed several thanks to that trust, and did continue because no other apes had seen the killings. Suddenly she was shunned by the group (the cameras did not caught why this was so, but I think we can imagine) and later died (in the documentary one gets the sensation the murderous mother died in a not so natural way).

And speaking of causing pain, I have seen several examples of animal societies where the prominent male has access to all the females of the group, the Alfa male makes mincemeat of any other sneaky males that attempt to mate with a female without having to fight the alpha male for domination.

In a monkey case (Not the big apes) I remember seeing a monkey group that was also like that, Alpha male with a harem, in an interesting scene one female two-times the alpha male in secret, but the the alpha male caught them in the act and not only did the alpha male kicked the opponent out, but then the alpha male did beat the "unfaithful" female.

[Odesio]

Yes, I will say it. There is no such thing as good or evil except that which we label good or evil.


Basically you're going along with an argument based on the dependency theory; that moral principles are defined by cultural acceptance. There are some pretty serious problems with that line of thinking.

#1. There is no room for moral reformers with the dependency theory. Women pushing for the right to vote, the Civil Rights movement, and feminism were all morally wrong because it went against accepted societal norms.

#2. You said that there is no such thing as good or evil except as "we" label it. Please, tell me who this "we" is. If we're talking about society as a whole, then please tell me how many people it takes to make up a society.


If by moral nihilism you mean there is no such thing as absolute morality, then yes, exactly.


Moral nihilism, also known as ethical nihilism, is the belief that no valid moral principles exist. If you fall in with the moral relativist crowd then ultimately I think it leads to ethical nihilism.

Marc

[mswas]

MGibson I tend to think that evil is a property of action, and not a property of being. A person can DO evil, but a person cannot BE evil. What is your opinion on that?

[Odesio]

MGibson I tend to think that evil is a property of action, and not a property of being. A person can DO evil, but a person cannot BE evil. What is your opinion on that?

That is a very interesting question and I'm inclined to say that there are evil people. There's a problem with this though. First, I cannot gaze into the hearts of men to know whether they are good or evil. Second, I have no mathematical equation I can use to plug in the amount of good and evil someone has done in order to calculate whether they are good or evil.

So if a person can do evil but cannot be evil, I take it that he can do good but not be good?

Marc

[Sitnam]

What does it mean to be evil?
Foxes kill for fun, I'd say that fits the definition.

[Sitnam]

A person can DO evil, but a person cannot BE evil. What is your opinion on that?
If someone has done enough evil that it no longer bothers them, or never bother them in the first place, can you now say that person IS evil. I think so.

[mswas]

That is a very interesting question and I'm inclined to say that there are evil people. There's a problem with this though. First, I cannot gaze into the hearts of men to know whether they are good or evil. Second, I have no mathematical equation I can use to plug in the amount of good and evil someone has done in order to calculate whether they are good or evil.

So if a person can do evil but cannot be evil, I take it that he can do good but not be good?

Marc

Yes, I would say the converse is also true. You know the famous old adage about Hilter loving his Mother. It just doesn't make sense to me that good or evil can be a property of being. People are people, and they strive to do what they strive to do, but past behavior is not always a good indicator of future performance, as that would leave out the St. Augustines of the world. Perhaps when all is said and done and we are in a box a sort of tally is taken, some kind of cosmic, karmic process of summation that tells us whether or life was an excitatory or an inhibitory response within the universal mind, but I am not sure that otherwise it can be known.

In the case of Hitler one of the greatest goods came out of his genocide of the Jews, in that ethnic cleansing is not considered beyond the pale, whereas it was in the past sort of standard operating procedure.

[mswas]

If someone has done enough evil that it no longer bothers them, or never bother them in the first place, can you now say that person IS evil. I think so.

I don't know, I don't know that we can really say that evil is that static and uniform. Perhaps all actions are suffused with a proportion of good and evil. An example I give a lot of the time, which is usually scoffed at is that we kill microorganisms every time we breathe. Our existance by it's very nature both ends life and generates it. I am looking at bowl of hash on my table that is growing new life on it, even though it contains a big mixture of dead organisms, from egg to beef, to various vegetables. I enjoyed the eating of it, so is that not also enjoying the killing of it, as they were killed for the purpose of my consumption? Yet, as this thread seems to demonstrate, most people would agree that it is not evil to kill to eat, but it is evil to kill purely for pleasure, as your example of the fox above points out.

I would assume that if evil outweighs good in proportion then that person can be considered evil, but can we know that before their chapter is finished?

[Colibri]

Foxes kill for fun, I'd say that fits the definition.

How so, if the fox doesn't understand that it is causing pain to another being? Doesn't evil have to be a matter of intent?

[Larry Borgia]

No, animals cannot be evil. Evil requires awareness of right and wrong. That's why we are forgiving of someone so mentally ill they don't understand what they were doing. Animals--as far as we know--do not have the ability to form concepts like right and wrong.

Also, pissing off the alpha is not necessarily evil. Sometimes the alpha deserves to be pissed off.

[elelle]

In thinking about what might constitute "Evil", or particularly abhorrent action, one hinging point would be the ability to discern one's action as having an effect on another being's future. From my understanding, animals live in the Now sense, and don't have any concept of time and cause and effect other that what they need to survive. Their choices are immediate in the course of survival. If someone has better knowledge of animal consciousness in this regard, I'd like to know about it.

From my lifelong experience with all kinds of critters, I see intelligence, but not a discernment of suffering of another creature. As Colibri put it well, a predator would
not live long if it had the hesitation of thought to consider it's prey's well-being. Hawks dive down on bunnies, and bunnies have a remarkable ability to breed so many more bunnies. That's the way it goes here.

The difference between humans and animals is that we have memory, beyond basic tooth and nail operations, I hope: the basic ability to discern cause and effect of our actions. Perhaps "Evil" means an intelligent being who , having all appartus of choice, chooses to inflict actions that cause pain and suffering on others. And, usually , that's quite ignorant of so many other better behaviors.

[LinusK]

Yes, I will say it. There is no such thing as good or evil except that which we label good or evil.

You could say the same thing about TVs. "There's not such thing as TVs, except what we label as TVs."


How is this different from a cat playing with a ball of yarn? The cat almost certainly doesn't understand that it is inflicting pain on the prey. It is playing with it as "practice" for actually catching other prey; its objective is not to inflict pain, but to entertain itself and hone its skills.

It would be highly maladaptive for a predatory animal to feel any empathy for its prey. If it injures an animal, its objective is to incapacitate it so it can't escape, not to make it feel pain. A predator that "felt the pain" of its prey would quickly starve to death.

The difference between people and other animals isn't that we have intelligence and they don't, it's that we (most of us) have more intelligence.

A cat doesn't stop to think about whether a mouse feels pain. Cats just don't think of mice that way. Animals are capable of feeling sympathy for other creatures, but not for those they see as prey. If a cat could stop and think, "You know, just because my instincts tell me this thing is prey, that doesn't mean it's not capable of feelings," then cats could be evil.

But if cats were that smart, we'd know it, because they'd rule the world.

[LinusK]

Yes, I will say it. There is no such thing as good or evil except that which we label good or evil.

You could say the same thing about TVs. "There's not such thing as TVs, except what we label as TVs."


How is this different from a cat playing with a ball of yarn? The cat almost certainly doesn't understand that it is inflicting pain on the prey. It is playing with it as "practice" for actually catching other prey; its objective is not to inflict pain, but to entertain itself and hone its skills.

It would be highly maladaptive for a predatory animal to feel any empathy for its prey. If it injures an animal, its objective is to incapacitate it so it can't escape, not to make it feel pain. A predator that "felt the pain" of its prey would quickly starve to death.

(Nice post)

The difference between people and other animals isn't that we have intelligence and they don't, it's that we (most of us) have more intelligence.

A cat doesn't stop to think about whether a mouse feels pain. Cats just don't think of mice that way. Animals are capable of feeling sympathy for other creatures, but not for those they see as prey. If a cat could stop and think, "You know, just because my instincts tell me this thing is prey, that doesn't mean it's not capable of feelings," then cats could be evil.

But if cats were that smart, we'd know it, because they'd rule the world.

[mswas]

But if cats were that smart, we'd know it, because they'd rule the world.

I don't know, I think the 'animals are not intelligent crowd' tend to overstate things. I think the opposable thumbs thing is at least as relevant as the cognitive function.

[David Simmons]

In thinking about what might constitute "Evil", or particularly abhorrent action, one hinging point would be the ability to discern one's action as having an effect on another being's future. From my understanding, animals live in the Now sense, and don't have any concept of time and cause and effect other that what they need to survive. Their choices are immediate in the course of survival. If someone has better knowledge of animal consciousness in this regard, I'd like to know about it.Even if tpredators could feel empathy for prey they would still be forced to kill and eat it. We would feel great empathy if we saw someone take a hammer and hit a steer in the head, or cut a pigs throat while it was still alive.

That empathy wouldn't stop the predator because it must eat to survive, it is driven to survive and it has no other way of getting food.

And because of our empathy we hire others to slaughter our animals for food and make sure they do it out of our sight.( Except in the 1930's Iowa where a trip to a slaughter house/meat packing plant was a feature of the senior year.)

[mswas]

I'd say the majority of dogs and cats are evil. They are cruel and they know exactly what they are doing and that it is wrong. This is unlike wild animals.

They know that humans disapprove of their actions, that is different from knowing that it is wrong.

[the PC apeman]

Basically you're going along with an argument based on the dependency theory; that moral principles are defined by cultural acceptance. There are some pretty serious problems with that line of thinking.

#1. There is no room for moral reformers with the dependency theory. Women pushing for the right to vote, the Civil Rights movement, and feminism were all morally wrong because it went against accepted societal norms.I don't know about dependency theory* but as for moral relativism, I'd say #1 actually supports my position. Successful reformers are just what you would expect: a vanguard of changing social mores. 100% culture-wide agreement is not what I would expect.

#2. You said that there is no such thing as good or evil except as "we" label it. Please, tell me who this "we" is. If we're talking about society as a whole, then please tell me how many people it takes to make up a society. Surely you'll agree that morality changes through time and across cultures. "We" is us here now or them there then. Can we identify morality down to how many people it takes to define it? Of course not. Morality is vague. That's why "we" (at whatever level of society you wish) struggle with various moral issues. Moral relativists aren't asking for a vote on what's right and wrong. They merely claim the vote is constantly going on and largely undetected.

Moral nihilism, also known as ethical nihilism, is the belief that no valid moral principles exist. If you fall in with the moral relativist crowd then ultimately I think it leads to ethical nihilism.It sounds like you're saying that moral relativism might be true but we shouldn't voice it because the future consequences might be disturbing. In any case, I don't see moral nihilism is a necessary or even likely consequence. Perhaps you could flesh out how you see that happening. Remember, moral relativism isn't looking to change anything except how we look at ourselves. It's a proposition of what is, not what ought to be.

*Most hits seem similar to this Wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependency_theory). Can you point me toward a better reference of how you see my position?

[the PC apeman]

You could say the same thing about TVs. "There's not such thing as TVs, except what we label as TVs."Well we could say there's no such thing as TVs except for the TVs we create. We create our own definitions of good and evil (though not nearly as consciously).

[Vinyl Turnip]

I have never in my life met anyone that I could definitively call 'evil'.

Hi! I'm Vinyl. Don't think we've met. You sure look familiar, though. Man, do you hate these things as much as I do?

Anyway, gotta mingle. By the way, don't drink the punch. I put... well, let's just say don't. Trust me. Ciao.

[dropzone]

They know that humans disapprove of their actions, that is different from knowing that it is wrong.In what way?

Good and bad (I haven't seen a solid definition of "evil" as anything besides being a step on the continuum that includes both good and bad), are totally defined by society, and societies evolve, in part because of reformers, which shows MGibson's bit about reformers for the nonsense it is. And if Colibri hasn't watched a dog, who had just been outside and has no pressing bladder reason to do it, lift his leg on a pile of laundry in a direct challenge to Colibri's authority BECAUSE he knows that such behavior is unacceptable, then he should stop watching birds for a while and spend some time watching animals that have been peripheral members of human society for tens of thousands of years.

This discussion, and the way people keep talking past one another, is what happens when biologists, social scientists, and philosophers try to "describe an elephant." We should probably give up now. :D

[Odesio]

Successful reformers are just what you would expect: a vanguard of changing social mores. 100% culture-wide agreement is not what I would expect.


What percentage of agreement does one need to move from the evil to the good category? Typically, when people are on the forefront of social change they don't have a whole lot of support from society at large.



Surely you'll agree that morality changes through time and across cultures.


I would certainly agree that what is thought of as moral has changed throughout time and culture. That isn't the same as saying that what is or isn't moral has changed.


"We" is us here now or them there then. Can we identify morality down to how many people it takes to define it? Of course not. Morality is vague. That's why "we" (at whatever level of society you wish) struggle with various moral issues.


So "we" can be defined at whatever level of society I wish. So if I belong to a group that believes homosexuality to be evil and should be erradicated does that make my gay bashing good? After all, by the standards of my own little society "we" have deemed my actions to be moral, therefore they must be good. Right?


Moral relativists aren't asking for a vote on what's right and wrong. They merely claim the vote is constantly going on and largely undetected.


There is a lot more to moral relativism than this.


It sounds like you're saying that moral relativism might be true but we shouldn't voice it because the future consequences might be disturbing. In any case, I don't see moral nihilism is a necessary or even likely consequence. Perhaps you could flesh out how you see that happening.


I'm a little confused as to how anything I said suggested that I thought moral relativism might be true. Ah well, we'll chalk it up to the vaugeries of internet communication. The Great Pumpkin knows I've certainly made my share of miscommunications and misinterpretations. As I said earlier in this post, there is a lot more to moral relativism than voting for what is moral. Some adherents to moral relativism believe that all systems of morality are equal. If it is accepted that all moral systems are equally valid then it's a pretty short step to say that there is no such thing as right or wrong.



*Most hits seem similar to this Wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependency_theory). Can you point me toward a better reference of how you see my position?

Enter "ethical relativism" or "dependency theory of morality" into Google and you'll have better luck.

Marc

[Colibri]

And if Colibri hasn't watched a dog, who had just been outside and has no pressing bladder reason to do it, lift his leg on a pile of laundry in a direct challenge to Colibri's authority BECAUSE he knows that such behavior is unacceptable, then he should stop watching birds for a while and spend some time watching animals that have been peripheral members of human society for tens of thousands of years.

We're not disagreeing that dogs do such things, we are disagreeing why they do it. The dog may indeed be challenging the owner's (alpha pack member's) authority, but it is not performing the act in order to make him unhappy. The dog doesn't care about your emotional state unless it has a positive or negative feedback for the dog. You are projecting human awareness and motivations on the dog.

[dropzone]

The dog may indeed be challenging the owner's (alpha pack member's) authority, but it is not performing the act in order to make him unhappy. No? That is the whole point of a challenge to the Alpha Animal! You challenge him and either he responds to your challenge or else he acquiesces, making you the Alpha. The dog doesn't care about your emotional state unless it has a positive or negative feedback for the dog. Of course. Works the same if the Alpha is a human or God or the societal rules that govern atheists. You are projecting human awareness and motivations on the dog. And you are denying that "dumb animals" possess them. On that point you, a biologist, and I, a social scientist, will have to disagree. After all, I'm the one who sees little behavioral difference between children and dogs. As they (the kids) mature the differences grow, but, in the beginning, it's all about learning how to fit into human society.

[Blake]

No? That is the whole point of a challenge to the Alpha Animal! You challenge him and either he responds to your challenge or else he acquiesces, making you the Alpha.

True enough, but you still haven't adressed Colibri's point, which was that the dog is not performing the act in order to make him unhappy. The dog is performing the act in order to increase it's status, not in order ot make the owner unhappy. There is no reason to believe it even understands that it can make the owner unhappy. That is extremely high level reasoning and I have yet to see any evidence that dogs are that smart.

Imagine that I run a business supplying widgets, and I undercut a competitor company by 50c/widget on a tender. That is not in any way an evil act, it is simply business. Even if by doing this I drive my competitor into bankruptcy it is still in no way an evil act, it is simply normal business. The reason why we know it isn't an evil act is because my intention is not to cause pain to my competitor, my sole intention is to make more money for myself and hence increase my status and security. If I could have made the same amount of money without hurting my competitor I would havce done so.

Now in contrast imagine that I undercut my competitor solely because I don't like him and I want to cause him pain. That then becomes an evil act. The action itself is excatly the same, the consequences are exactly the same, but the act becomes evil because my motivations have changed.

As a human I have the ability to make this action evil because I can know that my competitor wil fell pain. Dogs can't know such things, they only know the consequences for themselves, not for others. They have little if any theory of mind.

A dog that pisses on the rug isn't doing it to cause you pain. It may be doing it to increase its own status and securoty, but that is a compeletely different outcome that just happens to also necessitate causing you pain. The dog isn't capable of being evil because it isn't even capable of knowing that it can cause you pain, much less wanting to cause you pain.


And you are denying that "dumb animals" possess [human awareness and motivations ].

Of course, by definiton. If dogs posessed human awareness and motivations then they wouldn't be human motivations and awareness human motivations and awareness, they would be generic mammalian motivations and awareness.


After all, I'm the one who sees little behavioral difference between children and dogs. As they (the kids) mature the differences grow, but, in the beginning, it's all about learning how to fit into human society.

Exactly, and if you are knowledgable about small children then you must also be fully aware that they too posess no theory of mind. They too are unable to be evil because they can not comprehend that thier actions can cause someone else pain without causing themselves pain. As theory of mind develops and as they develop increasingly complex social understnding they can be come evil.

[Frylock]

No? That is the whole point of a challenge to the Alpha Animal! You challenge him and either he responds to your challenge or else he acquiesces, making you the Alpha.

Where's the part about trying to make the Alpha dog unhappy?

-FrL-

[Odesio]

Good and bad (I haven't seen a solid definition of "evil" as anything besides being a step on the continuum that includes both good and bad), are totally defined by society, and societies evolve, in part because of reformers, which shows MGibson's bit about reformers for the nonsense it is.


If good or evil (bad) are defined by society then how to reformers fit into the grand scheme of things? If a reformer stands upon his soapbox and loudly proclaims, "this is not right and we should change," if the people are happy with the status quo then the reformer's ideas are automatically bad. Someone could argue that the reformer's ideas are bad (evil) until the point where society in general agrees with him, in which case the reformer's ideas become good. Logically that doesn't make sense because the reformer's ideas cannot have been both good and bad (evil) at the same time.

You may be laboring under the misconception that I don't realize that social mores have changed due to time, cultural shifts, etc. I recognize that, but at the same time, just because society says something is morally right doesn't mean it actually is.

Marc

[OtakuLoki]

I do think that some animals can be evil, or at least perform actions that seem both deliberate, and intended to cause anguish to another animal or creature that the animal is not planning to eat.

Before I get into the behavior I saw that had convinced me of this, I want to make it clear the following are NOT "evil" behaviors:


predation
trial by combat, even if it end up going to the death, between members of the same species
in general, when an animal is behaving in a 'normal' manner for its species: Fish eating their young as they hatch, lions killing cubs from the previous male after gaining a breeding position in a pride, or even kill frenzies by weasels or other predators - even if the predator can't possibly eat all that its killed.
rival species meeting in uncontrolled situations, where they may attack, and often, try to kill the rival. The classic example of this that I'm thinking, now, are cats and dogs.



But I have seen animals do things that struck me as incredibly cruel, and very hard for me to justify as anything other than cruelty for cruelty's sake, to members of their own species. A cat won't see a mouse as anything other than food/chew toy. It's not sensible to ascribe to the cat motives of wanting to terrify and abuse the mouse, just because it's playing with the mouse - the mouse's feeling just don't matter to the cat.

What I saw was one of my old dogs. He was an intact male German Shepherd/Husky mix, and meaner than Silas Marner.

He wasn't allowed to run free because we knew he wasn't good with other dogs. But he got out from time to time, and he would act to establish himself as the alpha dog in the neighborhood, until he got dragged back home.

In our neighborhood there were a couple other dogs that approached his size, the most notable being a neighbor's German Shepherd dog, Thor. When our dog got out, he went to Thor's residence, and chased him up onto the front door step for Thor's family's house. There he made Thor surrender, that is go belly up to the alpha dog. All very normal canine social interactions.

Then, instead of the token bite that is the usual thing, our dog turned, and marked Thor. Pissed all over him. That, as far as I've ever read, is not normal canine behavior, not in the wild, nor among dogs in general. The only interpretation I've ever been able to have for that act was to shown scorn and utterly humiliate the dog so marked. It's only one anecdote, I know, but... it's a rather graphic proof to me that some animals can be cruel beyond simple predator/prey actions.

[mks57]

I've seen dogs that will kill every chicken or rabbit that they can get at. Not for food, just for the joy of the kill. Others may disagree, but I think that's evil.

Chimpanzees also seem to share a disturbing similarity to humans when it comes to violence against other members of their species.

[the PC apeman]

What percentage of agreement does one need to move from the evil to the good category? Typically, when people are on the forefront of social change they don't have a whole lot of support from society at large.Yes. This is the experience of reformers. Successful reformers are those whose ideas catch on and/or allow unspoken views to rise. Unsuccessful reformers are those whose ideas find no traction. We agree there have been plenty of each kind, yes?

As to the renewed call for numbers I can only say I see such questions being irrelevant. The range of possible answers is exactly the range a culture can be divided on what is immoral. Ideas do not move discretely from one category to another except perhaps in an individual.

I would certainly agree that what is thought of as moral has changed throughout time and culture. That isn't the same as saying that what is or isn't moral has changed.Then you face a difficult choice. You are then forced to declare that your current morality perfectly matches objective morality or that you are somehow immoral. Do you care to speculate?

So "we" can be defined at whatever level of society I wish. So if I belong to a group that believes homosexuality to be evil and should be erradicated does that make my gay bashing good? After all, by the standards of my own little society "we" have deemed my actions to be moral, therefore they must be good. Right?If your culture believes gay-bashing is good then your culture believes it to be good. You're asking me to debate a tautology. The question of validity should not be conflated with approval. This is a common mistake. The moral relativist concedes only that there is no ultimate standard for validity and, may, at the same time strongly disagree with particular moral stances.

There is a lot more to moral relativism than this. Then please elaborate.

I'm a little confused as to how anything I said suggested that I thought moral relativism might be true. Ah well, we'll chalk it up to the vaugeries of internet communication. ...I got that impression from your statements that you "think that moral relativism inevitably leads towards moral nihilism" and that "[i]f you fall in with the moral relativist crowd then ultimately I think it leads to ethical nihilism." Why is the consequence pertinent rather than the truth value of relativism itself?

... Some adherents to moral relativism believe that all systems of morality are equal. If it is accepted that all moral systems are equally valid then it's a pretty short step to say that there is no such thing as right or wrong.I disagree. See my earlier point. The question of ultimate validity does not deprive a relativist of what they hold to be right or wrong. Such things are too biologically and culturally ingrained. Morality is an aesthetic. There is no objective standard of validity for an aesthetic.

Enter "ethical relativism" or "dependency theory of morality" into Google and you'll have better luck.I just come up with more of the same. Please link to an explanation of "dependency theory" that you feel describes my position.

[Frylock]

If your culture believes gay-bashing is good then your culture believes it to be good. You're asking me to debate a tautology. The question of validity should not be conflated with approval. This is a common mistake. The moral relativist concedes only that there is no ultimate standard for validity and, may, at the same time strongly disagree with particular moral stances.



I think your interlocutor was pointing out that almost no one belongs to just a single culture. We each belong to several overlapping cultures, and to some nested cultures. So for example, some people belong to white supremist cultures and also to something like "Mainstream American" culture. Now, belonging to a white supremist culture, (on your account, apparently,) it is inherently right for them for white people to dominate black people. But, belonging to Mainstream American culture, it is inherently wrong for them for white people to dominate black people. This appears to be a contradiction.

-FrL-

[the PC apeman]

I think your interlocutor was pointing out that almost no one belongs to just a single culture. We each belong to several overlapping cultures, and to some nested cultures. So for example, some people belong to white supremist cultures and also to something like "Mainstream American" culture. Now, belonging to a white supremist culture, (on your account, apparently,) it is inherently right for them for white people to dominate black people. But, belonging to Mainstream American culture, it is inherently wrong for them for white people to dominate black people. This appears to be a contradiction.

-FrL-Yes and I would point back to the idea that cultures, at whatever grouping or level you wish to specify, can be divided on what is moral. The larger the numbers the more likely the disagreement. Morality is one ingredient in the fuzzy definition of what constitutes a culture.

On the "inherently right" question I would disagree. There is no inherently right or wrong. That's what moral relativism is about.

[Colibri]

No? That is the whole point of a challenge to the Alpha Animal! You challenge him and either he responds to your challenge or else he acquiesces, making you the Alpha.

Explain why challenging the alpha animal is "evil." This is the normal way dog social systems work. It is no more evil than having an election is in human society.

If you clash with your superior at work, do you feel that asserting yourself is necessarily "evil"?

Of course. Works the same if the Alpha is a human or God or the societal rules that govern atheists.

It certainly doesn't work that way for humans, unless you think that those who believe in God (for example) are actually responding to explicit and definite positive or negative reinforcement from the diety.


And you are denying that "dumb animals" possess them. On that point you, a biologist, and I, a social scientist, will have to disagree. After all, I'm the one who sees little behavioral difference between children and dogs. As they (the kids) mature the differences grow, but, in the beginning, it's all about learning how to fit into human society.

To echo one of Blake's points, do you believe very small children then can be "evil"?" Because that is what we are discussing.

To elaborate a bit on some of the behavior you and OtakuLoki mention, defecation and urination have a much different behavioral significance in dogs than they do in humans. We regard feces and urine as disgusting; primates, being of arboreal ancestry, rarely need to deal with them and most do not use them as a primary means of social communication.

Anyone who owns a dog can see that dogs do not regard excretions in the same way. Instead, they and their scent are an important part of social communication. Far from finding feces and urine disgusting and repellant, anyone who has taken a dog for a walk knows that they find them extremely interesting and attractive. Dogs use urine and feces to mark their territories, and communicate information to other dogs. Dogs will even happily role in feces.

When a dog defecates or urinates in a place the owner regards as inappropriate, or in OtakuLoki's case on another dog, it is not doing so in order to spite, disgust, or humilate the human or dog. It is doing so to mark its territory or assert its dominance. The dog has no concept that feces or urine is disgusting. You are intepreting the dog's behavior on the basis of your own primate biases.

[OtakuLoki]

When a dog defecates or urinates in a place the owner regards as inappropriate, or in OtakuLoki's case on another dog, it is not doing so in order to spite, disgust, or humilate the human or dog. It is doing so to mark its territory or assert its dominance. The dog has no concept that feces or urine is disgusting. You are intepreting the dog's behavior on the basis of your own primate biases.


Colibri, I just want to make it clear I wasn't concerned about the disgust factor - I agree and recognize that dogs do use urine, in particular, for marking territory and communication. What got me was that, given what I know of canine behavior he was marking the other dog as his territory, not simply his inferior.

If I'd read, or seen, that behavior as being a common one for dogs or other canines, I'd not have thought any more about it. It's that the signal seemed so far from the normal communicative use of urine, and that I've never heard of, nor seen, that behavior being replicated, that I have such strong questions and opinions about it.

[mswas]

dropzone I don't think the word evil has any meaning in terms of moral relativism. I guess we can use it as a sort of catch-all for 'socially unacceptable', but because society contains moral absolutists, it gets confusing. We're using the same words but meaning different things. I try to stay away from using the word 'evil' in a non-poetic license sort of way for that reason. Like I have a special class in school that I cannot be absent for, and some evil fuck in administration scheduled it for July 5th at 8:30 AM, but do I really think that person is evil? Not really? Inconsiderate, mildly, but I also recognize that they have to schedule many rooms, many teachers, many students and many days, so really I don't hold any animosity toward them at all, even if it does kind of piss me off.

Basically, it's pointless for a moral relativist to use the word evil.

colibri I think you are performing your calculations in the wrong order. Making someone unhappy is generally an assault on their status. People work to make people unhappy out of the same behavior as a dog testing status. The act of making someone unhappy doesn't reverse the power role, but it does affect the power dynamic. I don't think the underlying motivation in humans is to make each other unhappy, I think it is to affect social status, working to make someone unhappy is just a sophisticated level of the mammalian status instinct.

[Colibri]

Colibri, I just want to make it clear I wasn't concerned about the disgust factor - I agree and recognize that dogs do use urine, in particular, for marking territory and communication. What got me was that, given what I know of canine behavior he was marking the other dog as his territory, not simply his inferior.

If I'd read, or seen, that behavior as being a common one for dogs or other canines, I'd not have thought any more about it. It's that the signal seemed so far from the normal communicative use of urine, and that I've never heard of, nor seen, that behavior being replicated, that I have such strong questions and opinions about it.

Even if the behavior itself it isn't normal, it is still just an extreme form of normal territorial behavior. The dog's intent is to assert its dominance so thoroughly that the opponent will not be tempted to challenge it again, not to "humiliate" it, which is I think a human social concept. It is not behavior that is "wrong" in dog terms.

[Colibri]

colibri I think you are performing your calculations in the wrong order. Making someone unhappy is generally an assault on their status. People work to make people unhappy out of the same behavior as a dog testing status. The act of making someone unhappy doesn't reverse the power role, but it does affect the power dynamic. I don't think the underlying motivation in humans is to make each other unhappy, I think it is to affect social status, working to make someone unhappy is just a sophisticated level of the mammalian status instinct.

I agree that making others unhappy is often part of human social dynamics. To what extent we regard this behavior is being as acceptable, and at what point it qualifies as "evil," is largely defined socially. But because what constitutes "evil" behavior is largely culturally defined, it is generally inappropriate to extend this label to animals.

[Odesio]

Then you face a difficult choice. You are then forced to declare that your current morality perfectly matches objective morality or that you are somehow immoral. Do you care to speculate?


I am forced to do no such thing. I cannot ignore the possiblity that I am in the wrong when I make certain moral decisions because, after all, I am not omniscient.


The moral relativist concedes only that there is no ultimate standard for validity and, may, at the same time strongly disagree with particular moral stances.


Unfortunately, the ethical relativist has no basis on which to agree or disagree with any particular stance of another culture. He can neither approve nor condemn because he believes that morals are valid within the context. Sure, he's free to believe chopping the hands off of someone for stealing a loaf of bread is wrong within his culture, but he can't say it's immoral for Arabs to do it if it's an accepted practice in their culture.



Then please elaborate.


I'm going by memory here and the following aren't my original thoughts.


Ethical relativism is the belief that there are no universally valid moral systems that apply to all people, instead morality is relative to culture. Most ethical relativist use the following to build their case.

#1. Cultural relativism: Different cultures have different ideas of what is moral and immoral.

#2. Dependency thesis: Moral principles are derived from the acceptance of the culture.


The question of ultimate validity does not deprive a relativist of what they hold to be right or wrong. Such things are too biologically and culturally ingrained.


The ethical relativist has no basis to hold his morality as being superior to the morality of another culture. If my culture says that it's alright to throw mentally or physically handicapped babies from the nearest cliff then it's just as valid as your culture's morality that finds this morally repugnant.


Morality is an aesthetic. There is no objective standard of validity for an aesthetic.


What philosophy holds morality as an aesthetic?



I just come up with more of the same. Please link to an explanation of "dependency theory" that you feel describes my position.

Try "dependency thesis of morality" then. Or look up "ethical relativism" and you shouldn't have any problem.

Marc

[Cervaise]

What does it mean to be evil?Pouring the last of the coffee in the breakroom and not starting a fresh pot!

Animals do not drink coffee.

QED. :cool:

[the PC apeman]

I am forced to do no such thing. I cannot ignore the possiblity that I am in the wrong when I make certain moral decisions because, after all, I am not omniscient.Sorry about that. I did word that a bit presumptuously. Can you put a (very) rough estimate on the probability of your morality matching objective morality? Pretty high, middling, low? I do take your point about having to be omniscient to know what objective morality is. That's why I am a relativist. If we can't know it, then for all practical purposes it doesn't exist.

Unfortunately, the ethical relativist has no basis on which to agree or disagree with any particular stance of another culture. ...Don't you see the same problem for the objectivist? What is the difference between not having an objective perch and not know where one is?

...He can neither approve nor condemn because he believes that morals are valid within the context. Sure, he's free to believe chopping the hands off of someone for stealing a loaf of bread is wrong within his culture, but he can't say it's immoral for Arabs to do it if it's an accepted practice in their culture.Sure he can. If he believes it is immoral he can say it is immoral. He can be a reformer.

Something to think about... what is that largest group or culture that you can identify or imagine that is 100% morally homogenous?

I'm going by memory here and the following aren't my original thoughts.

Ethical relativism is the belief that there are no universally valid moral systems that apply to all people, instead morality is relative to culture. Most ethical relativist use the following to build their case.

#1. Cultural relativism: Different cultures have different ideas of what is moral and immoral.

#2. Dependency thesis: Moral principles are derived from the acceptance of the culture.We agreed that #1 the case - though you make a distinction between what is thought to be moral and what is actually moral. I don't make such a distinction. I'm hesitant to address #2 until it's fleshed out better.


The ethical relativist has no basis to hold his morality as being superior to the morality of another culture. If my culture says that it's alright to throw mentally or physically handicapped babies from the nearest cliff then it's just as valid as your culture's morality that finds this morally repugnant.I suspect we equally feel such an act is morally repugnant. I freely admit my basis for that is completely determined by my nature and nurture. What is your basis?


What philosophy holds morality as an aesthetic?Mine. (Sorry to be flippant but I really don't have a better name for it than moral relativism.)

Try "dependency thesis of morality" then. Or look up "ethical relativism" and you shouldn't have any problem.I'd like you to pick the definition you feel most apt. A link is all I ask.

[Odesio]

I did word that a bit presumptuously. Can you put a (very) rough estimate on the probability of your morality matching objective morality?


I cannot, because as I've already admitted I am not omniscient. I'm a moral objectivist and a big fan of natural law. So while, as a rational being, I can use logic to discover what is moral and what is immoral, I cannot know how much my moral system matches reality because I cannot know everything.


That's why I am a relativist. If we can't know it, then for all practical purposes it doesn't exist.


That puts you into the ethical skepticism camp.


Don't you see the same problem for the objectivist? What is the difference between not having an objective perch and not know where one is?


Not at all. A moral objectivist can use natural law, divine command theory, or whatever, to look at an alien culture and say, "that's wrong and here's why." An ethical relativist holds that morals are valid only within the context of a specific culture. It doesn't matter how the ethical relativist feels because morality is not determined via logic, personal belief, or any other method other than what is accepted in society at the time.


Sure he can. If he believes it is immoral he can say it is immoral. He can be a reformer.


How can he be a reformer? If he says society is wrong while he is correct then he admits that what is moral isn't determined by societal fiat. It kind of kicks the legs out from under ethical relativism.


Something to think about... what is that largest group or culture that you can identify or imagine that is 100% morally homogenous?


I imagine it would be a fairly inconsequential number. The point is that there's no useful way to decide what a "society" is when determining what moral system to use. As another posted noted, we've got cultures within cultures in todays world. How do you determine which system of morality takes precedence if you believe what is moral is simply whatever society says is moral?


We agreed that #1 the case - though you make a distinction between what is thought to be moral and what is actually moral.


My disctintion is a very very important one.



Mine. (Sorry to be flippant but I really don't have a better name for it than moral relativism.)


I think most other philosophers put questions about morality into metaethics and normative ethics. You seem to have a completely unique philosophical bent and you might want to consider publishing something in the future.


I'd like you to pick the definition you feel most apt. A link is all I ask.

Philosophy is pretty darn complex and I'm not sure if just one link will do it. You might be better off looking for a book at the local library.

http:/socrates.berkeley.edu/~cfrees/im-sj/er.pdf

http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~gmyers/ehe.relat.html

Marc

[Colibri]

Pouring the last of the coffee in the breakroom and not starting a fresh pot!

Animals do not drink coffee.

QED. :cool:

But one does make coffee: the versatile Kopi Luwak. (http://www.animalcoffee.com/luwak.php)

How the Luwak makes coffee. (http://www.animalcoffee.com/process.php)

Cecil's take on it. (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/010525.html) .

[Malthus]

Good and evil are concepts only applicable to beings with a conciousness, because only such beings are able to make choices rather than act on instincts.

With the ability to make choices comes the ability to make good, altuistic and other-loving choices -- and the ability to make evil, selfish and hateful choices as well.

I'd say that some animals definitely have the capacity for conciousness. Thus, and to that extent, they have the capacity for evil.

[Colibri]

Good and evil are concepts only applicable to beings with a conciousness, because only such beings are able to make choices rather than act on instincts.

With the ability to make choices comes the ability to make good, altuistic and other-loving choices -- and the ability to make evil, selfish and hateful choices as well.

I'd say that some animals definitely have the capacity for conciousness. Thus, and to that extent, they have the capacity for evil.

But altruism is only "good" and selfishness "evil" by human definition. In evolutionary terms, true altruism (in which an organism unequivocally sacrifices its own interests to that of another for no gain in overall reproductive fitness) is quite definitely bad, while selfishness is good. In fact, such disinterested altruism rarely if ever occurs at all. (What appears to be altruism to us normally benefits offspring or other relatives or other members of a social group, and so enhances the overall reproductive fitness of the supposedly "altruistic" individual.)

So even if some animals do have conciousness 1) true altruism almost never occurs; 2) even if it did, it would only be "good" in human terms; it would be bad in biological terms (assuming that "good" means persistance of your evolutionary lineage).

[Malthus]

But altruism is only "good" and selfishness "evil" by human definition. In evolutionary terms, true altruism (in which an organism unequivocally sacrifices its own interests to that of another for no gain in overall reproductive fitness) is quite definitely bad, while selfishness is good. In fact, such disinterested altruism rarely if ever occurs at all. (What appears to be altruism to us normally benefits offspring or other relatives or other members of a social group, and so enhances the overall reproductive fitness of the supposedly "altruistic" individual.)

So even if some animals do have conciousness 1) true altruism almost never occurs; 2) even if it did, it would only be "good" in human terms; it would be bad in biological terms (assuming that "good" means persistance of your evolutionary lineage).

"Good" and "evil" are moral concepts, having nothing to do with what is "good" and "bad" in terms of evolution.

I'm not religious in a conventional sense and so I do not believe in supernatural concepts such as a "soul" which has traditionally been used as the justification for why animals are different than humans. I do not believe that there is any huge divide between humans and animals; or rather, that it is conciousness which defines what is (generally speaking) different. To the extent that animals have conciousness, they are "human"; to the extent that humans act on instinct, they are "animal".

I believe that humans have more developed conciousness than animals; but I would not deny that some animals have some level of conciousness. To the extent that they do, they are capable of deliberately making choices that are good or evil in a purely moral sense.

Nor do I believe that the fundamentals of morality are different between different species; to all beings everywhere, the Golden Rule would apply - do unto others as you would be done by ("others" of course meaning others possessing conciousness, or the capacity for conciousness; lesser duties apply to animals without conciousness - essentially, not to treat them with capricious cruelty). This is the bedrock basis of "human" morality and I have no reason to doubt it would apply equally well to any other animal. Naturally, this would be meaningless to an automoton operating on instinct alone.

[Frylock]

But altruism is only "good" and selfishness "evil" by human definition. In evolutionary terms, true altruism (in which an organism unequivocally sacrifices its own interests to that of another for no gain in overall reproductive fitness) is quite definitely bad, while selfishness is good. In fact, such disinterested altruism rarely if ever occurs at all. (What appears to be altruism to us normally benefits offspring or other relatives or other members of a social group, and so enhances the overall reproductive fitness of the supposedly "altruistic" individual.)

In nature, organism sacrifice their own interests to those of others for no gain in their own reproductive fitness. You've pointed out that there is a gain in reproductive fitness for someone--i.e., usually relatives or at least co-speciates of the altrustic individual. But this does not mean it's not "true altruism." The altruistic individual itself gains zero benefit--quite the opposite--in an act of altruism.

-FrL-

[Colibri]

"Good" and "evil" are moral concepts, having nothing to do with what is "good" and "bad" in terms of evolution.

As moral concepts, they are human constructs and thus completely irrelevant to animals.

I believe that humans have more developed conciousness than animals; but I would not deny that some animals have some level of conciousness. To the extent that they do, they are capable of deliberately making choices that are good or evil in a purely moral sense.

Nor do I believe that the fundamentals of morality are different between different species; to all beings everywhere, the Golden Rule would apply - do unto others as you would be done by ("others" of course meaning others possessing conciousness, or the capacity for conciousness; lesser duties apply to animals without conciousness - essentially, not to treat them with capricious cruelty). This is the bedrock basis of "human" morality and I have no reason to doubt it would apply equally well to any other animal. Naturally, this would be meaningless to an automoton operating on instinct alone.

Explain why, exactly, the Golden Rule should apply to animals. The Golden Rule is something devised by humans to formalize reciprocal altruism, which is a form of altruism speculated to be present in some highly developed social animals. If you want to judge animals as "good" or "evil" according to human standards, I suppose you can. But this really has no more real significance than deciding whether they are "beautiful" or "ugly." It is not something intrinsic to the animal, but rather something that depends on human judgement and standards.

[Colibri]

In nature, organism sacrifice their own interests to those of others for no gain in their own reproductive fitness. You've pointed out that there is a gain in reproductive fitness for someone--i.e., usually relatives or at least co-speciates of the altrustic individual. But this does not mean it's not "true altruism." The altruistic individual itself gains zero benefit--quite the opposite--in an act of altruism.

You're not understanding the concept here (which admittedly I did not explain in detail). In kin selection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kin_selection), the "altruistic" individual gains because it shares genes with its relatives. Since the "objective" of evolution is to propagate your own genes, it doesn't matter whether you propagate them through your own descendents or those of your close relatives. (These genes are the same by descent.) In evolutionary terms, it is not at all atruistic to sacrifice your own interests in order to benefit your own offspring. Depending on the degree of relatedness, it may also not be altruistic to sacrifice your interests on behalf of your siblings or their offspring or even more distant relatives.

More on reciprocal altruism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocal_altruism), which I mentioned above.

Human altruism may have originated through kin selection or reciprocal altruism. Now it may also be maintained through cultural selection via memes such as the "Golden Rule."

[mswas]

Good and evil are concepts only applicable to beings with a conciousness, because only such beings are able to make choices rather than act on instincts.

I am skeptical of the notion that animals are not conscious.

[dropzone]

If dogs posessed human awareness and motivations then they wouldn't be human motivations and awareness human motivations and awareness, they would be generic mammalian motivations and awareness. (pointing to the tip of my nose) And to deny that human behavior is NOT on a continuum that also includes canine and bovine behavior comes perilously close to a belief that humans are some sort of special creation. We are animals, pure and simple, and, if some of us, through a surplus of brain power, managed to come up with some sort of "Theory of Mind" when other mammals apparently have not, it does not necessarily speak that well of us. Try explaining any theory of mind to an innocent, young child, the closest we have to dogs that can talk, and he'll tell you it's the dumbest thing he's ever heard, and I'd cede the point. But I consider philosophy mental masturbation, so I'd think like that, wouldn't I? :) If good or evil (bad) are defined by society then how to reformers fit into the grand scheme of things? If a reformer stands upon his soapbox and loudly proclaims, "this is not right and we should change," if the people are happy with the status quo then the reformer's ideas are automatically bad.Yes, by the standards of that society they would be bad.dropzone I don't think the word evil has any meaning in terms of moral relativism....

Basically, it's pointless for a moral relativist to use the word evil.Yeah, and I'd love to throw it out of this discussion. It is an American Tourister word; it doesn't just HAVE baggage, it IS baggage and it pollutes any discussion in which it is used. Or is that the sort of request a moral relativist would make? ;) colibri I think you are performing your calculations in the wrong order. Making someone unhappy is generally an assault on their status. People work to make people unhappy out of the same behavior as a dog testing status. The act of making someone unhappy doesn't reverse the power role, but it does affect the power dynamic. I don't think the underlying motivation in humans is to make each other unhappy, I think it is to affect social status, working to make someone unhappy is just a sophisticated level of the mammalian status instinct. I agree completely. And, to go back to the disgust factor, of course dogs don't find their droppings disgusting and use them for communication. In fact, when I'm told that one shouldn't scold a dog too long after he soiled the carpet because he will have forgotten he had done it, I laugh and say, "That dog may not understand higher math, but he knows more about who did that, when he did it, and his frame of mind when he did it than we can imagine." And sometimes they did it as a challenge because they knew it pissed me off. Animals generally know who they can challenge with some hope of victory and they learn quickly, if they don't realize it from the first, that challenging an adult human is unwise. Most of my dogs understood all along that they live because I allow them to live. A couple needed the occasional reminder, spoken in language they understand (a quick tackle and shake them by the throat while I growled my displeasure), not to displease me.

It's good to be king.

[Malthus]

As moral concepts, they are human constructs and thus completely irrelevant to animals.

You state that as if it was axiomatic.

What, pray tell, is the huge overwhelming difference between a person and an animal - assuming you are not religious and so do not believe in concepts such as a "soul" endowed by smoe sort of creator?

Explain why, exactly, the Golden Rule should apply to animals. The Golden Rule is something devised by humans to formalize reciprocal altruism, which is a form of altruism speculated to be present in some highly developed social animals. If you want to judge animals as "good" or "evil" according to human standards, I suppose you can. But this really has no more real significance than deciding whether they are "beautiful" or "ugly." It is not something intrinsic to the animal, but rather something that depends on human judgement and standards.

Again, you appear to posit some sort of major difference between animals and humans. Of what does it consist?

In my opinion, the difference between animals and humans is one of degree and not, of necessity, of kind - namely, that humans have more conciousness and its atributes than an animal - they have better cognitive functions, more clarity and precision of communications, are more social, and the like.

The Golden Rule is not, I think, about "reciprocal altruism" merely; I do not of necessity expect others to treat me altruistically, and I do not of necessity treat others altruistically. It is definitely an ethic of reciproicity - meaning that its inherent meaning is that of putting yourself, the actor, into another's shoes and attempting to see things from their point of view - and as such, I do not believe it is any less applicable to (say) a dog than it is to a person - other than the obvious fact that a person is better able to understand such things.

However, there is no doubt that even a dog is capable of understanding reciprocity to a certain extent. A dog can understand when it is being treated kindly and when it is not, and of responding in kind. Cross-species communication in terms of reciprocity actually works pretty well, because these matters have a pretty solid objective basis - a dog understands being patted and being beaten; it would, I believe, to the extent it is capable of concious thought, think of unearned beatings as morally "bad" - and unearned biting of humans within its social circle as morally "bad" as well.

These things have, I submit, a very objective basis to them; they are understood by creatures exactly as much as those creatures are capable of "understanding" anything. If you don't belive an animal knows the difference between right and wrong - then wrong one and see what happens.

[the PC apeman]

How can he be a reformer? If he says society is wrong while he is correct then he admits that what is moral isn't determined by societal fiat.Determined can be used too rigidly - as I think you may be doing here. Society (working on the individual) doesn't perfectly determine morality, it heavily influences it. Across bigger numbers, society usually has its way. If it didn't, it'd be changing so fast you couldn't discern a culture. But societies are not homogeneous and do change over time. There's always going to be the interplay between the group and the individuals. The guy who is in the minority can change minds. He can awaken those who haven't considered the question (and by their silence fed the status quo). If he's successful we call him a reformer. Otherwise he might get labelled a loon or deviant.

The relative/objective question is about the ultimate validity of morality. And I've got to say, we seem to be so close on how morality works. We both say it's defined, in actual practice, by us. Where you list logic and personal belief I add in culture and biology. It all comes down to nature and nurture. You and I might have the exact same morality. It's just that you feel there's also this other, unrelated, objective morality out there somehow. My position is that no such thing exists. But even if you convinced me that it did, I'd have to ask why it matters since it doesn't inform our morality.

[mswas]

dropzone We have two little cats that we've been at war with for two years. When they are displeased they like to piss on the things. Dogs are easier to cow than cats. Cats plot their revenge, and if you get them down and growl at them then they just learn to fear you, and will run away when you aren't even chasing them. I like fucking with them with the tools, pulling out the blanket from under them, or shooting them with a squirt gun. They definitely understand the social cues. I don't know if 'evil' is the appropriate word.

[elelle]

I said this above in a previous post, but to reiterate: animal consciousness is not guided by temporal thought as it is with humans. From what I've been taught, animals live in an eternal Now sense, and do not comprehend finer distinction in what humans see as moral choices. I have no problem at all with seeing animals as sentient beings: and in fact see that in my own choice to be a vegetarian.

But, the consciousness is different, and should be appreciated as that. If you look at the goings on of Nature in an everyday sense, all aspects of human morality very much pale and fall aside; you will go simply crazy if you go by those dicates. Young snakes eat spiders..saw that today..., and spiders pounce on their prey, and then praying mantids chomp, then birds chomp on them..on and on, up the food chain.
It's really a free for all out there. So, on up to mammals, and the same thing; hungry
critters looking for food. Kill, eat, rinse, repeat. It's not a choice, but an instinctive behavior.

With domestic animals, often it's the case of the human not knowing what the animal requires. Ms Was, gotta say I see that in your case. From what you've said, you are being a bit disruptive with your cats. Cats don't like to be "fucked with", it makes them really nervous. They like to be cultivated, and have a secure space. They are very much creatures of habit, and with that, flourish into nice intricate fellas.

[dropzone]

dropzone We have two little cats that we've been at war with for two years.The thing is, cats have been domesticated a far shorter time than dogs, and are, by nature, solitary creatures. For all intents, dogs and modern humans evolved together, as well as starting with similar pack societies. That "domestic" cats became as successfully socialized is a credit to their intelligence and perception. They quickly realized which side of the bread was buttered, so to speak, and, liking butter as only a cat can, they play by enough of the rules to ensure a continuing supply of butter. And the creme inside Twinkies. And Vaseline--God, mine loved Vaseline!

[mswas]

With domestic animals, often it's the case of the human not knowing what the animal requires. Ms Was, gotta say I see that in your case. From what you've said, you are being a bit disruptive with your cats. Cats don't like to be "fucked with", it makes them really nervous. They like to be cultivated, and have a secure space. They are very much creatures of habit, and with that, flourish into nice intricate fellas.

You make my house sound like it's Sarajevo or something. ;)

[Odesio]

It's just that you feel there's also this other, unrelated, objective morality out there somehow. My position is that no such thing exists. But even if you convinced me that it did, I'd have to ask why it matters since it doesn't inform our morality.

I had a lot more in my original draft, but when I got down to this part I can see that we're not going to get anywhere. I'm afraid you've left the realm of the ethical relativist and have entered the realm of the ethical subjectivist. I am a moral objectivist, and believe me when I say that we're miles apart in how we think morality works.

I'm going to cut bait at this point. It's been an interesting conversation and I thank you for it.

Marc

[Colibri]

You state that as if it was axiomatic.

Why should a human cultural construct have any relevance to animals? Morality isn't even consistant between human cultures; if it isn't an absolute even among humans how can it be applied to different species?

Define morality (a general, objective definition). Explain what obligates humans to act in a moral fashion. Explain what exactly obligates animals to act in a moral fashion.


What, pray tell, is the huge overwhelming difference between a person and an animal - assuming you are not religious and so do not believe in concepts such as a "soul" endowed by smoe sort of creator?

....


Again, you appear to posit some sort of major difference between animals and humans. Of what does it consist?In my opinion, the difference between animals and humans is one of degree and not, of necessity, of kind - namely, that humans have more conciousness and its atributes than an animal - they have better cognitive functions, more clarity and precision of communications, are more social, and the like.[/quote]

No, I agree there is no absolute difference between humans and animals. However, as a biologist I tend to see human behavior more in terms of animal behavior, rather than extending human behavior to animals.

"Morality" in many human societies is largely a formalization and codification of principles of reciprocal altruism. However, it sometimes goes beyond that. For example, the dictum of "turning the other cheeck" - of behaving the same way towards another no matter what the other does - is something that cannot be understood easily in terms of reciprocal altruism. Such behavior is in biological terms maladaptive, and persists not through selection but by propagation as a cultural meme. (However, I would say this principle is honored more in the breach than the observance. Although expressed as an ideal, very few humans behave this way in actual practice.)


The Golden Rule is not, I think, about "reciprocal altruism" merely; I do not of necessity expect others to treat me altruistically, and I do not of necessity treat others altruistically. It is definitely an ethic of reciproicity - meaning that its inherent meaning is that of putting yourself, the actor, into another's shoes and attempting to see things from their point of view - and as such, I do not believe it is any less applicable to (say) a dog than it is to a person - other than the obvious fact that a person is better able to understand such things.

You still fail to explain why a dog should behave in such a manner. What makes the Golden Rule applicable to the dog?

However, there is no doubt that even a dog is capable of understanding reciprocity to a certain extent. A dog can understand when it is being treated kindly and when it is not, and of responding in kind. Cross-species communication in terms of reciprocity actually works pretty well, because these matters have a pretty solid objective basis - a dog understands being patted and being beaten; it would, I believe, to the extent it is capable of concious thought, think of unearned beatings as morally "bad" - and unearned biting of humans within its social circle as morally "bad" as well.

If a dog gets a beating for which it doesn't understand the reason it becomes upset because it is confused, not because of a sense of moral outrage. If it is punished for jumping on the couch when it has jumped on the couch, it probably has no conception that that is "fair," only that it is a consistent sequence of cause and effect. If it is punished when it has not jumped on the couch or done something else which is forbidden, it doesn't understand the cause of the punishment, and so may become more distressed than if it can associate it with a cause.

As for thinking that "dogs within its social circle are morally bad" for biting humans unfairly, that's just a fantasy on your part. How can you tell which dogs are thought by other dogs to be "morally bad"? Do they ostracize them, perhaps? Dogs may shun others that are unpredicable, to be sure, but that's because they fear being bitten themselves, not because they are morally outraged.

Certainly a dog can understand reciprocal behavior. It will friendly to those that behave in a friendly fashion, and hostile to those that are hostile. But there is no need to invoke morality to understand this behavior.


These things have, I submit, a very objective basis to them; they are understood by creatures exactly as much as those creatures are capable of "understanding" anything. If you don't belive an animal knows the difference between right and wrong - then wrong one and see what happens.

Again, such behavior can be understood in terms of reciprocal altruism or in the expectation of cause and effect. There is absolutely no need to invoke morality to explain them.


In many animal societies, behavior we would consider "immoral" is the norm. A couple of examples:

Ravens are highly intelligent (possibly as intelligent as some primates) and recognize each others as individuals. When they find more food than they can eat, they cache it for later. Other individuals watch carefully for this, and will steal it if they have any opportunity. All ravens are habitual thieves from other ravens; does this make them "immoral." Do they have an "evil" society? If not, why not?

Female orangutans prefer to mate with fully adult males, which hace large facial pads. Young males, which are unable to get females to mate with them voluntarily, typically engage in rape in order to mate. Virtually all male orangs are thus rapists at some stage in their lives. Are they "immoral"? Do they have an "evil" social system? If not, why not?

(This also highlights the fallacy of describing atypical behavior for a species as "immoral." Is a non-thieving raven, or a non-raping orangutan, "immoral" because it does not conform to the social norms of its species?)

[Colibri]

In nature, organism sacrifice their own interests to those of others for no gain in their own reproductive fitness.

Not normally.

You've pointed out that there is a gain in reproductive fitness for someone--i.e., usually relatives or at least co-speciates of the altrustic individual. But this does not mean it's not "true altruism." The altruistic individual itself gains zero benefit--quite the opposite--in an act of altruism.


You're still not understanding this. The important thing for any individual, in evolutionary terms, is that its own genes, or genes that are identical to its own genes because they came from a recent ancestor, are propagated. For genes I possess, it makes no difference to them whether I propagate them through my own offspring, or through the offspring of my brother. (Many of these genes will be identical because both I and my brother got them from our parents.)

I share more genes with my own offspring (50%, because half are from the mother) than I do with my nephews (25%, because I share 50% with my brother, and his offspring share 50% with him). Therefore it's preferable to raise my own offspring, but I still gain reproductive benefit in evolutionary terms if I provide support to my nephews as well. Neither of these cases is true altruism, since I procure reproductive benefit from them.

[Colibri]

(Most of my dogs understood all along that they live because I allow them to live. A couple needed the occasional reminder, spoken in language they understand (a quick tackle and shake them by the throat while I growled my displeasure), not to displease me.

It's good to be king.

Aha. Now I am beginning to understand where you are coming from. ;)

[Malthus]

Why should a human cultural construct have any relevance to animals? Morality isn't even consistant between human cultures; if it isn't an absolute even among humans how can it be applied to different species?

Define morality (a general, objective definition). Explain what obligates humans to act in a moral fashion. Explain what exactly obligates animals to act in a moral fashion.

Well, I'm hardly likely to draft a PhD in moral philosophy to respond to a post here. :p However, I will try my best to respond to your barrage of questions.

1. You have stated that "Morality isn't even consistant between human cultures; if it isn't an absolute even among humans how can it be applied to different species?". Are you now advancing the thesis that human morality 'doesn't exist' any more than animal morality does? Because that appears to be the logic of your position.

To my mind, you are onto something - either morality exists or it doesn't; the issue is not whether animals possess it or not, but whether any being, animal or not, possesses it.

I am of the opinion that morality exists, that there is a difference between acts good and evil, that this difference exists for humans and for animals (that possess conciousness) as well.

2. Morality defined - in general, objective terms: "morality", at base, is an ethic or reciprocity in which the subject strives to treat other concious beings as subjects in their own right and not as objects for exploitation. At least, that's what I've always understood it to mean.

This definition applies across cultures and, in my opinion, across species as well.

3. What obligates humans (and animals) to act in a moral manner: why, nothing at all; in fact, many don't.

What motivates humans (and animals) - I believe it is inherent in the very nature of conciousness itself; part of what it means to be concious is to be curious about others, and this curiousity leads to empathy - which leads to reciprocity and thus morality; the fact that this is an engine of cultural evolution is I think of interest to anthropologists (and I would assert to behavioral scientists).

No, I agree there is no absolute difference between humans and animals. However, as a biologist I tend to see human behavior more in terms of animal behavior, rather than extending human behavior to animals.

This makes no sense. Either the two are similar or they are different. What exactly is unique "human behaviour" you are unwilling to extend to animals?

"Morality" in many human societies is largely a formalization and codification of principles of reciprocal altruism. However, it sometimes goes beyond that. For example, the dictum of "turning the other cheeck" - of behaving the same way towards another no matter what the other does - is something that cannot be understood easily in terms of reciprocal altruism. Such behavior is in biological terms maladaptive, and persists not through selection but by propagation as a cultural meme. (However, I would say this principle is honored more in the breach than the observance. Although expressed as an ideal, very few humans behave this way in actual practice.)

I'm not fully understanding your point here. Are you saying that the essence of morality is to behave in a manner that is not adaptive? I don't think that is the case (and indeed, I thought you were tending towards the opinion morality doesn't exist at all - something non-existant can't be maladaptive).

Or perhaps you are saying that morality is something specific to culture, and animals don't have culture - yet that isn't the case: many social animals have culture of a sort - for example, pods of dolphins.

You still fail to explain why a dog should behave in such a manner. What makes the Golden Rule applicable to the dog?

Answered above.

If a dog gets a beating for which it doesn't understand the reason it becomes upset because it is confused, not because of a sense of moral outrage. If it is punished for jumping on the couch when it has jumped on the couch, it probably has no conception that that is "fair," only that it is a consistent sequence of cause and effect. If it is punished when it has not jumped on the couch or done something else which is forbidden, it doesn't understand the cause of the punishment, and so may become more distressed than if it can associate it with a cause.

Seems to me you are claiming to know what subjectively motivates a dog. How do you know a dog doesn't have any concept of fairness?

My own experience with dogs tends to contradict this.

As for thinking that "dogs within its social circle are morally bad" for biting humans unfairly, that's just a fantasy on your part. How can you tell which dogs are thought by other dogs to be "morally bad"? Do they ostracize them, perhaps? Dogs may shun others that are unpredicable, to be sure, but that's because they fear being bitten themselves, not because they are morally outraged.

Certainly a dog can understand reciprocal behavior. It will friendly to those that behave in a friendly fashion, and hostile to those that are hostile. But there is no need to invoke morality to understand this behavior.

I never claimed that dogs are thought by other dogs to be morally bad for biting people. I do not think that communication between dogs is sufficiently advanced to be able to make distinctions of this sort.

As for "understanding reciprocal behaviour" - well, that is at base one of the very bases of morality.

Again, such behavior can be understood in terms of reciprocal altruism or in the expectation of cause and effect. There is absolutely no need to invoke morality to explain them.

Now I'm confused again. What is the difference in your mind between "reciprocal altruism" and "morality"?

In many animal societies, behavior we would consider "immoral" is the norm. A couple of examples:

Ravens are highly intelligent (possibly as intelligent as some primates) and recognize each others as individuals. When they find more food than they can eat, they cache it for later. Other individuals watch carefully for this, and will steal it if they have any opportunity. All ravens are habitual thieves from other ravens; does this make them "immoral." Do they have an "evil" society? If not, why not?

Female orangutans prefer to mate with fully adult males, which hace large facial pads. Young males, which are unable to get females to mate with them voluntarily, typically engage in rape in order to mate. Virtually all male orangs are thus rapists at some stage in their lives. Are they "immoral"? Do they have an "evil" social system? If not, why not?

(This also highlights the fallacy of describing atypical behavior for a species as "immoral." Is a non-thieving raven, or a non-raping orangutan, "immoral" because it does not conform to the social norms of its species?)

Nonsense. Humans habitually behave in ways that are "immoral"; whole human societies do. That doesn't to my mind mean morality doesn't exist for humans. This is why I'm no cultural relativist when it comes to matters of basic morality - the fact that Mongol culture of the middle ages considered rape and murder of non-Mongols to be acceptable doesn't make it acceptable.

[dropzone]

Colibri, like the old joke says, "First you have to get their attention." And attention is best gotten when spoken in the inattentive's native language. In a fight for pack position a superior dog will roll another on its back and grab hold of the other's throat and give it a shake, demonstrating that it could kill it if he chose. A dog that knows it's the scum of the earth and accepts it (for now) will assume a submissive position by rolling over and offering its throat to be ripped. We may have grown up together as species but they are still not people. A dog owner and his dog need to be bilingual. Sometimes trilingual; even dogs that weren't trained in German sometimes respond better when bossed around in it. Probably because its gutteral sounds sound like growling.

Recent study on altruism in chimps: (http://www.world-science.net/othernews/070626_chimp-altruism.htm) Past work has failed to turn up unequivocal evidence that chimpanzees act purely altruistically toward peers, except family members. But in new research, Felix Warneken and colleagues of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, reported what they called strong evidence that chimps do so.

Both chimpanzees and 18-month-old human infants helped altruistically regardless of any expectation of reward, they wrote—even when some effort was required, and even when the recipient was an unfamiliar person. All these features were previously thought to be unique to humans, the researchers said.

“Chimpanzees perform basic forms of helping in the absence of rewards spontaneously and repeatedly,” they wrote in a paper on the study, published in the July issue of the research journal PloS Biology. Altruism’s evolutionary roots may thus go deeper than previously thought, as far back as the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees, Warneken and colleagues said.

[the PC apeman]

I had a lot more in my original draft, but when I got down to this part I can see that we're not going to get anywhere. I'm afraid you've left the realm of the ethical relativist and have entered the realm of the ethical subjectivist. I am a moral objectivist, and believe me when I say that we're miles apart in how we think morality works.

I'm going to cut bait at this point. It's been an interesting conversation and I thank you for it.

MarcIt's kinda hard to talk about moral relativism to a moral objectivist without using subjectivist concepts. At least it is for me. Anyway, I do agree that it has been an interesting conversation. Thank you.

[Contrapuntal]

Pit bullsPit bulls are not evil. Even if they deserved all of the overblown hysteria directed against them they would not be evil. Evil is entirely a human construct, and can only be applied to human beings.

[Acid Lamp]

Evil is defined by the society's rules in which an individual moves. If an individual chooses to engange in an unnacceptable behaviour, then it is engaging in an evil act. I rather doubt that any one or anything can "be" evil consistently at all times conciously.

In the case of dogs, they are to a great degree like a slow small child. They percieve and react to their world and family members with about the same level of language understanding and emotional response. I have seen toddlers do something forbidden and when asked about it they either cry or answer "I don't know." I have seen my dog do this EXACT same respose when caught doing something she KNOWS displeases us and has no real "doggy" motivation to do so.
Let us take the example of taking a bag of barley out of the pantry and tearing it open. She didn't eat any of it, and is fully aware that taking things out of the cuppord is a forbidden behaviour. Her bowl was full of food and by virtue of the fact she didn't eat any of the food she was not hungry. When confronted about it she acted in the following manner: While making the appropriate body language to appease the alphas she gives us a quizzical look as if to say "I don't KNOW why I did that...". She then offers to "share" the mess she's made which she knows is a praised behaviour in our home. Fifteen minutes later she had gotten over being scolded and was happily playing with a toy.

She didn't seem to be challenging anyone's authority...or to be looking for food. This simply seems to be a case of "acting out" for no real reason. If she was looking for attention then she got it, but wanting attention simply for its own sake implies at least SOME level of emotional and intellectual conciousness, as well as a sense of self.

[alice_in_wonderland]

I remember seeing Jane Goodall speak many years ago about her bonobo work. Of particular interest were her descriptions of a mother/daughter team that displayed what can only be described as sociopathic tendencies. The two would hide in wait and when another bonobo wandered by they would murder them for no particular reason. The pair did not gain any social status or access to a better fruit patch with the kills, the kills appeared to be random (ie - every type of bonobo was targeted) and there did not appear to be a precipitating incident. Essentially the mother/daughter were killing because they enjoyed it. That certainly strikes me as being evil.

eta: I changed "chimp" to "bonobo" for accuracy. I also wanted to add that among bonobo populations, this type of action is exceedingly rare. Also because I’m an appallingly bad speller, and this IS GD…

[Colibri]

Well, I'm hardly likely to draft a PhD in moral philosophy to respond to a post here. :p However, I will try my best to respond to your barrage of questions.

I'm not really interested in a dissertation on philosophy. What I am interested in is having you back up your statements with facts and logic, which you haven't been doing much of so far.



1. You have stated that "Morality isn't even consistant between human cultures; if it isn't an absolute even among humans how can it be applied to different species?". Are you now advancing the thesis that human morality 'doesn't exist' any more than animal morality does? Because that appears to be the logic of your position.


It's quite obvious that no absolute human morality exists. This is objective fact. Different human cultures have different moral standards. Even a slight familiarity with cultural anthropology will show this to be true.

To my mind, you are onto something - either morality exists or it doesn't; the issue is not whether animals possess it or not, but whether any being, animal or not, possesses it.

Morality exists, certainly, but in exactly the same sense that "culture" exists. There is a phenomenon that we call culture, and various sets of beliefs we call morality. That doesn't mean that there is a universal culture, or a universal morality.


I am of the opinion that morality exists, that there is a difference between acts good and evil, that this difference exists for humans and for animals (that possess conciousness) as well.

This is opinion. Do you have any actual evidence to support it?



2. Morality defined - in general, objective terms: "morality", at base, is an ethic or reciprocity in which the subject strives to treat other concious beings as subjects in their own right and not as objects for exploitation. At least, that's what I've always understood it to mean.

This definition applies across cultures and, in my opinion, across species as well.

This is not a standard definition of morality, but rather your personal interpretation of one specific moral code.

From Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: mo·ral·i·ty
Pronunciation: \mə-ˈra-lə-tē, mȯ-\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural mo·ral·i·ties
Date: 14th century
1 a: a moral discourse, statement, or lesson b: a literary or other imaginative work teaching a moral lesson
2 a: a doctrine or system of moral conduct bplural : particular moral principles or rules of conduct
3: conformity to ideals of right human conduct
4: moral conduct : virtue

I think any of the bolded definitions might apply to this particular discussion.

Main Entry: 1mor·al
Pronunciation: \ˈmȯr-əl, ˈmär-\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin moralis, from mor-, mos custom
Date: 14th century
1 a: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical<moral judgments> b: expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior <a moral poem> c: conforming to a standard of right behavior d: sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment <a moral obligation> e: capable of right and wrong action <a moral agent>2: probable though not proved : virtual<a moral certainty>
3: perceptual or psychological rather than tangible or practical in nature or effect <a moral victory><moral support>

Again, the bolded definitions I think apply to this discussion.

These definitions imply that a variety of different moral standards and moral systems exist, which I think is the common understanding of the term. "Right" and "wrong" are subjective judgements, that vary between cultures, moral systems, and even individuals.

3. What obligates humans (and animals) to act in a moral manner: why, nothing at all; in fact, many don't.

What I meant was why should they behave in this fashion.

What motivates humans (and animals) - I believe it is inherent in the very nature of conciousness itself; part of what it means to be concious is to be curious about others, and this curiousity leads to empathy - which leads to reciprocity and thus morality; the fact that this is an engine of cultural evolution is I think of interest to anthropologists (and I would assert to behavioral scientists).

Again, this is nothing but opinion. Do you have any evidence to support these assertions?


This makes no sense. Either the two are similar or they are different. What exactly is unique "human behaviour" you are unwilling to extend to animals?

This is not an either/or situation. Two things can be similar in kind but different in degree, but that difference in degree can make them very different in practical terms. Many animals have learned behavior, and some have simple elements of culture. Humans are however unique in the influence that learning and culture have in determining and shaping their behavior.

I'm not fully understanding your point here. Are you saying that the essence of morality is to behave in a manner that is not adaptive? I don't think that is the case (and indeed, I thought you were tending towards the opinion morality doesn't exist at all - something non-existant can't be maladaptive).

Much of morality (moral systems) is in fact adaptive behavior for social animals like humans. As I said, it can be understood in terms of reciprocal altruism, and has been selected for. However, some kinds of morality, such as the dictum of "turning the other cheek," that is, behaving the same towards an individual regardless of how they treat you, would seem to be maladaptive and must be understood in cultural terms instead of strictly biological ones.

A taboo against incest, especially mother-son incest, is one of the most general moral strictures in human societies, and many animals also have behavioral barriers against incest. There is a good biological basis for this stricture, in that close inbreeding can cause genetic problems. Human morality in this case codifies a behavior that was selected for for biological reasons, and can be understood in those terms. In some human societies, it is considered "moral" to marry individuals from a different tribal grouping than your own and immoral to marry within your own, regardless of the actual degree of relatedness. Such a moral stricture needs to be understood in cultural terms rather than biological.


Or perhaps you are saying that morality is something specific to culture, and animals don't have culture - yet that isn't the case: many social animals have culture of a sort - for example, pods of dolphins.

Animals certainly have cultures, but I am unaware of any evidence that moral codes are a part of those cultures.


Answered above.

You gave your opinion, not a logical reason for it.



Seems to me you are claiming to know what subjectively motivates a dog. How do you know a dog doesn't have any concept of fairness?

You're familiar, I hope, with the principle of Ockham's Razor? As a biologist, my default premise is that an animal should not be presumed to have more complex capacities if its behavior can be explained in terms of simpler ones. There is no reason to suppose a dog has a concept of fairness unless experimental evidence can be provided to support it.

My own experience with dogs tends to contradict this.

You mean your subjective interpretation of dog behavior contradicts it.

I never claimed that dogs are thought by other dogs to be morally bad for biting people. I do not think that communication between dogs is sufficiently advanced to be able to make distinctions of this sort.

On re-reading your post, I see that you might have meant that the dog understands that its own unearned biting of humans was morally "bad." I misinterpreted what you said.



As for "understanding reciprocal behaviour" - well, that is at base one of the very bases of morality.

One aspect of morality.



Now I'm confused again. What is the difference in your mind between "reciprocal altruism" and "morality"?

Reciprocal altruism is a kind of behavior that evidently evolved through natural selection. Morality is a cultural feature that in part codifies behavior that is based on reciprocal altruism (although morality also governs other types of behavior, such as sexual). Morality is not necessary to explain the existence of behavior that evolved through reciprocal altruism.


Nonsense. Humans habitually behave in ways that are "immoral"; whole human societies do. That doesn't to my mind mean morality doesn't exist for humans. This is why I'm no cultural relativist when it comes to matters of basic morality - the fact that Mongol culture of the middle ages considered rape and murder of non-Mongols to be acceptable doesn't make it acceptable.

Nonsense yourself. The fact that you disapprove of another moral system doesn't mean it isn't a moral system. You are using "moral" to mean "correct according to my own personal moral system (which I believe to be universal)," not "correct according to some specific moral system.

Moral systems are, in my view, very much like political allegiances. If I am a Democrat (say) I may believe the positions of the Democratic party are the "good" or "correct" ones. That is because I personally would prefer to live in a country where these positions prevail. This is a valid attitude. Likewise, I may believe that people should treat other people generously and not kill or hurt others unneccesarily. This is because I would prefer to live in a society where such values prevail. This is also a valid position. However, my attitudes on both these topics depend in large part on my cultural and educational background and my life experiences. I don't think there is something intrinsic in the fabric of the universe that makes my positions "true."

Humans have a very strong tendency to think that their own culturally determined moralities are intrinsically and universally true. This aspect of human behavior may have been selected for, or it may be simply a very powerful cultural meme. Whatever the root cause, the prevalence of this tendency means that extreme care should be applied in examining the premises behind any beliefs about morality.

[Colibri]

eta: I changed "chimp" to "bonobo" for accuracy. I also wanted to add that among bonobo populations, this type of action is exceedingly rare. Also because I’m an appallingly bad speller, and this IS GD…

You shouldn't have. Goodall's main studies were on Common Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) in Tanzania, not on Bonobos Pan paniscus, which are found in central Africa. ;)

[Frylock]

Humans have a very strong tendency to think that their own culturally determined moralities are intrinsically and universally true. This aspect of human behavior may have been selected for, or it may be simply a very powerful cultural meme. Whatever the root cause, the prevalence of this tendency means that extreme care should be applied in examining the premises behind any beliefs about morality.

Show me a part of your own moral code which you think is not universally valid, and I will show you that it's not actually part of your own moral code.

-FrL-

[Malthus]

I'm not really interested in a dissertation on philosophy. What I am interested in is having you back up your statements with facts and logic, which you haven't been doing much of so far.

*Must* we go there? I've been enjoying this so far. :(

It's quite obvious that no absolute human morality exists. This is objective fact. Different human cultures have different moral standards. Even a slight familiarity with cultural anthropology will show this to be true.

And I disagree. I believe that there are universal moral principles.

Simply stating you are right isn't a debate.

Morality exists, certainly, but in exactly the same sense that "culture" exists. There is a phenomenon that we call culture, and various sets of beliefs we call morality. That doesn't mean that there is a universal culture, or a universal morality.

I believe that there are universal moral principles along the lines I have suggested; I do not think these principles are exactly congruent with "culture". In short, I'm not a relativist.

But this is going beyond the terms of the original argument.

Your original point was that animals could not be "evil". Really, your point is now revealed - that neither animals nor humans can be truly "evil", since there is no such thing as "evil" in any universal sense - all is culturally specific.

Fair enough. I think you are wrong, but let's assume, purely for the purpose of argument, that you are 100% right. Does this then mean that animals can't be "evil"?

Only if no animals possess culture.

This is opinion. Do you have any actual evidence to support it?

I do wish you'd argue, instead of picking out individual sentences and saying 'cite'.

This is not a standard definition of morality, but rather your personal interpretation of one specific moral code.

From Merriam-Webster:



I think any of the bolded definitions might apply to this particular discussion.



Again, the bolded definitions I think apply to this discussion.

These definitions imply that a variety of different moral standards and moral systems exist, which I think is the common understanding of the term. "Right" and "wrong" are subjective judgements, that vary between cultures, moral systems, and even individuals.

You asked me for *my* definition of morality. If you didn't want them, why did you ask?

Obviously, "those elements of morality that are universal and objective" is not the same as "a standard dictionary definition".

But we are not arguing about dictionary definitions, but rather whether morality is universal or relative. I strongly doubt you will find the answer to that question in a dictionary.

What I meant was why should they behave in this fashion.

And I answered. Because it is inherent in the nature of being concious.

Again, this is nothing but opinion. Do you have any evidence to support these assertions?

What sort of evidence would satisfy you?

This is not an either/or situation. Two things can be similar in kind but different in degree, but that difference in degree can make them very different in practical terms. Many animals have learned behavior, and some have simple elements of culture. Humans are however unique in the influence that learning and culture have in determining and shaping their behavior.

And I would agree that humans are unique in this manner.

*You* however make the extraordinary claim that, in spite of the fact that animals as we know (and as you have admitted) have the rudiments of culture, they *lack* the rudiments of morality.

This, in spite of scientific studies that show, as dropzone has demonstrated, that animals can even behave altruistically.

May I ask - what evidence do *you* have (other than saying "it is obvious" as you have been doing up until now) to support this extraordinary claim?

Much of morality (moral systems) is in fact adaptive behavior for social animals like humans. As I said, it can be understood in terms of reciprocal altruism, and has been selected for. However, some kinds of morality, such as the dictum of "turning the other cheek," that is, behaving the same towards an individual regardless of how they treat you, would seem to be maladaptive and must be understood in cultural terms instead of strictly biological ones.

A taboo against incest, especially mother-son incest, is one of the most general moral strictures in human societies, and many animals also have behavioral barriers against incest. There is a good biological basis for this stricture, in that close inbreeding can cause genetic problems. Human morality in this case codifies a behavior that was selected for for biological reasons, and can be understood in those terms. In some human societies, it is considered "moral" to marry individuals from a different tribal grouping than your own and immoral to marry within your own, regardless of the actual degree of relatedness. Such a moral stricture needs to be understood in cultural terms rather than biological.

I believe that morality is indeed adaptive, either culturally or biologically - but this isn't its origin.

Animals certainly have cultures, but I am unaware of any evidence that moral codes are a part of those cultures.

Since you appear to be claiming that morality is an adaptation of culture, and since we know that studies reveal that at least some animals, acting within culture, act in manners that appear to be "moral" within the sense I have described, how do you justify the extraordinary claim that animals do *not* possess the rudiments of morality along with other cultural traits?

You gave your opinion, not a logical reason for it.

I gave my reasons, yes.

Personally, I think your habit of classifying any reasoning you do not agree with as "not logical" is neither effective argumentation, nor demonstrative of an open mind on the subject.

If you agree to drop this habit, I will drop any similar annoying habits I may have, and we will both have a more fun & fruitful debate. Deal?

You're familiar, I hope, with the principle of Ockham's Razor? As a biologist, my default premise is that an animal should not be presumed to have more complex capacities if its behavior can be explained in terms of simpler ones. There is no reason to suppose a dog has a concept of fairness unless experimental evidence can be provided to support it.

A fancy way of saying "my subjective opinion is better than yours".

To my mind, Ockhams's Razor points in the other direction. It is simpler to presume that a dog understands the rudiments of fairness.

You mean your subjective interpretation of dog behavior contradicts it.

As opposed to your *objective* interpretation?

On re-reading your post, I see that you might have meant that the dog understands that its own unearned biting of humans was morally "bad." I misinterpreted what you said.

That is correct. And very fair to admit it.

One aspect of morality.

More than that.

Reciprocal altruism is a kind of behavior that evidently evolved through natural selection. Morality is a cultural feature that in part codifies behavior that is based on reciprocal altruism (although morality also governs other types of behavior, such as sexual). Morality is not necessary to explain the existence of behavior that evolved through reciprocal altruism.

One must disentangle what is truly universal about morality, from what is merely cultural. It is the failure to do this that leads to relativism, since it is obvious to any thinking person that things such as whether or not to keep Kosher vary from culture to culture and are equally "morally valid".

However, it is apparently *not* obvious to every thinking person that (for example) torturing concious beings for fun is not "equally valid" just because it is culturally acceptable within some culture or other. Hence, relativists.

Nonsense yourself. The fact that you disapprove of another moral system doesn't mean it isn't a moral system. You are using "moral" to mean "correct according to my own personal moral system (which I believe to be universal)," not "correct according to some specific moral system.

I daresay that this exchange encapsulates the difference between a moral universalist and a moral relativist.

A moral relativist must, I would imagine, look at middle ages Mongol culture, in which it was apparently morally acceptable to commit rape, murder and frightful tortures on non-Mongols for fun and profit, and say "gee, the decision to accept a moral code that embraces rape and murder as fun is exactly as culturally specific as the decision whether to keep kosher or not ... and since we don't morally condemn people for not keeping kosher, because cultures are all equally valid, we have no universally valid basis to condemn people for raping and murdering for fun - since it is acceptable in their culture".

A universalist such as myself does not agree. Now, I do not *know* exactly what is morally acceptable in any situation. I have no divine guidance. However, it appears to me to have something to do with treating others as subjects in their own right ... and from that perspective, raping and murdering them for fun is just plain morally wrong.

To my mind, culturally-specific moral systems must be evaluated against this (admittedly non-specific) universal morality; only in this way can it be seen how truly "moral" they are. A "moral system" embraced by a culture, in which immoral acts are encouraged, isn't really "moral" at all.

Moral systems are, in my view, very much like political allegiances. If I am a Democrat (say) I may believe the positions of the Democratic party are the "good" or "correct" ones. That is because I personally would prefer to live in a country where these positions prevail. This is a valid attitude. Likewise, I may believe that people should treat other people generously and not kill or hurt others unneccesarily. This is because I would prefer to live in a society where such values prevail. This is also a valid position. However, my attitudes on both these topics depend in large part on my cultural and educational background and my life experiences. I don't think there is something intrinsic in the fabric of the universe that makes my positions "true."

And I disagree. What political policies people adopt can easily be the subject of honest differences of opinion among people of good will.

However, the very *concept* of "good will" is dependant on some shared notions of universal morality.

Without some principles of univerally recognized morality, humans of different cultures would simply be unable to engage in shared enterprises.

Humans have a very strong tendency to think that their own culturally determined moralities are intrinsically and universally true. This aspect of human behavior may have been selected for, or it may be simply a very powerful cultural meme. Whatever the root cause, the prevalence of this tendency means that extreme care should be applied in examining the premises behind any beliefs about morality.

And I'd agree with that. Which is why I've attempted to take that care.

Please let me know what exactly is "culturally determined", in your opinion, about my own personal version, as previously explained.

To my mind, the notions of cultural relativism are strongly culturally determined - it peculiar to mid to late 20th century Western academia; it is premised on an unstated universalist notion: that the only universally valid aspect of morality is that one must be fair and even-handed among cultures. This notion grew originally out of the discipline of anthropology, as a necessary corrective in order to understand cultures on their own terms.

Yet it is internally incoherent. If there exists no universal aspects of morality at all, why must we be "fair" and "evenhanded" among cultures? If it is within the nature of our culture to dominate and destroy other cultures, why not do so?

[alice_in_wonderland]

You shouldn't have. Goodall's main studies were on Common Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) in Tanzania, not on Bonobos Pan paniscus, which are found in central Africa. ;)

You are correct, of course. To be honest, it's been a number of years since I saw her speak and I was conflating things in my head.

As a matter of interest, the chimps in question were Passion and Pom. Total baddies, I gather. Dr. Goodall certainly considered their behaviour sociopathic, and by extension evil. And who am I to argue with Jane Goodall. :)

[Colibri]

*Must* we go there? I've been enjoying this so far. :(

This is, after all, Great Debates rather than IMHO, so that in general facts and logic should be introduced in support of statements. I tend to avoid this forum, however, since many people do like to argue opinions, which often cannot be proven or disproven decisively. I personally find these kinds of discussions extremely tedious, which is why I generally stay out of here and stick to GQ.

It appears to me that most of your previous post is based on opinion, rather than facts. Also, it is obvious we are using quite different definitions of "morality." I am not particularly interested in continuing the discussion in these terms.

I apologize to you, because you have been arguing in good faith and obviously have put some effort into your last post. I am not conceding the argument, and believe I can refute many of your points. However, I lack both the time and the interest to pursue this discussion further. You make consider this a "forfeit" of the debate on my part. Perhaps someone else will be willing to take it up.

[Malthus]

This is, after all, Great Debates rather than IMHO, so that in general facts and logic should be introduced in support of statements. I tend to avoid this forum, however, since many people do like to argue opinions, which often cannot be proven or disproven decisively. I personally find these kinds of discussions extremely tedious, which is why I generally stay out of here and stick to GQ.

It appears to me that most of your previous post is based on opinion, rather than facts. Also, it is obvious we are using quite different definitions of "morality." I am not particularly interested in continuing the discussion in these terms.

I apologize to you, because you have been arguing in good faith and obviously have put some effort into your last post. I am not conceding the argument, and believe I can refute many of your points. However, I lack both the time and the interest to pursue this discussion further. You make consider this a "forfeit" of the debate on my part. Perhaps someone else will be willing to take it up.

Well, that's fair enough, though I'd dispute the characterization of my posts as lacking facts and logic. Perhaps another time.

[Contrapuntal]

I have seen my dog do this EXACT same respose when caught doing something she KNOWS displeases us and has no real "doggy" motivation to do so.
Let us take the example of taking a bag of barley out of the pantry and tearing it open. She didn't eat any of it, and is fully aware that taking things out of the cuppord is a forbidden behaviour.How do you know that the dog knows she is doing something that displeases you? How do you know that her behavior is not a result of "doggy motivation?" How do you know that she is "fully aware" that such behavior is forbidden? For that matter, how do you know that a dog even understands the concept of "forbidden?"

[Acid Lamp]

How do you know that the dog knows she is doing something that displeases you? How do you know that her behavior is not a result of "doggy motivation?" How do you know that she is "fully aware" that such behavior is forbidden? For that matter, how do you know that a dog even understands the concept of "forbidden?"

I'll try to address these points but really it is a bit of an interpretative situation just like dealing with another person.

She knows that a behaviour displeases us because when we have caught her doing it we react by punishing her. When punished she displays submissive behaviour and follows it by a period of "overly good" behaviour in an obvious attempt to get back in the "good graces" of the alphas. She then avoids repeating the behaviour that got her punished. much like a small child it takes a few repetitions until she learns that a certain behaviour is considered "bad manners" by her packmates.

If we assume that dogs are motivated by nothing more than instinct we can infer that they are motivated by the following: Need to survive ( food, water, denning, and reproduction), and status climbing.

In this case I KNOW she was not hungry as she has access to food at all times and is often spoiled with treats. She further did not eat any of the pearled barley, merely tore up the bag and rolled it about on the floor. She was no fulfilling any basic need that I can concieve of and was engaging in a behaviour that she has been punished for in the past; one that she rarely has engaged in since puppyhood.

She is aware that people-food, as well as the panty are "No"s. She is aware that "good pack manners" dictate not to steal the alpha's food as it results in punishment. She routinely avoids both the pantry and any food we may have out and politely waits for her turn to get a share of leftovers.

In this case, she went into the pantry, removed an item, tore it open, played with it, and showed the usual pattern of remorse when confronted about it by an alpha pack member who was upset by the behaviour. The item was not new or interesting, she had seen it many times before, and is usually allowed to sniff dry goods before they are put up. I cannot concieve of any particular motivation for her to do such a thing, but she is certainly capable of the basic thought process I described in my earlier post.

I'd welcome any additional thoughts you migh have on it because frankly I'm mystified as to why she would deliberately do something like that at all.