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.
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…
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.
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.
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.
This is opinion. Do you have any actual evidence to support it?
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.
What I meant was why should they behave in this fashion.
Again, this is nothing but opinion. Do you have any evidence to support these assertions?
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.
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.
Animals certainly have cultures, but I am unaware of any evidence that moral codes are a part of those cultures.
You gave your opinion, not a logical reason for it.
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.
You mean your subjective interpretation of dog behavior contradicts it.
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.
One aspect of 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 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.
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.
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.
And I disagree. I believe that there are universal moral principles.
Simply stating you are right isn’t a debate.
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.
I do wish you’d argue, instead of picking out individual sentences and saying ‘cite’.
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.
And I answered. Because it is inherent in the nature of being concious.
What sort of evidence would satisfy you?
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?
I believe that morality is indeed adaptive, either culturally or biologically - but this isn’t its origin.
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?
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?
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.
As opposed to your objective interpretation?
That is correct. And very fair to admit it.
More than that.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
