Can (other) animals be evil?

[Blake]

@dropzone

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]

@dropzone

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]

@dropzone

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:

[ul]
[li]predation[/li][li]trial by combat, even if it end up going to the death, between members of the same species[/li][li]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.[/li][li]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.[/li][/ul]
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]

@MGibson

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 “*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]

@the PC apeman

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]

@Frylock

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]

@dropzone

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]

@Colibri

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]

@OtakuLoki

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]

@mswas

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]

@the PC apeman

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]

@Frylock

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.

[the_PC_apeman]

@MGibson

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]

@the PC apeman

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]

@Cervaise

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

Animals do not drink coffee.

QED.

But one does make coffee: the versatile Kopi Luwak.

How the Luwak makes coffee.

Cecil’s take on it. .

[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]

@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.

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).