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