Can animals do evil?

[Philosophy Explorer]

I would have no problems in coming up with examples of animals doing good, whether towards humans or other animals. But it seems to be a horse of a different color when it comes to animals doing evil? Why? Could it be because evil must be planned? Must there be intent in the action?

I turn the floor over to you.

PhilX

[Arising_uk]

No and they can't do 'good' either.

[uwot]

I don't think that 'evil' means anything without reference to some god, which to me means that even humans can't do evil. Don't get me wrong, people can be completely batshit insane, but if you have in mind a particular type of human behaviour that is evil, I'd be surprised if there were no example of some animal doing something very similar.

[Gee]

I would have no problems in coming up with examples of animals doing good, whether towards humans or other animals. But it seems to be a horse of a different color when it comes to animals doing evil? Why? Could it be because evil must be planned? Must there be intent in the action?

Hi PhilX;

No. There must be an observer, who thinks that there is intent in the action. Evil is an objective concept. Evil is always the "other", the other person, the other culture, the other religion, the other guy. It is never subjective. Even when we are thought to be evil by some "other", we know that we are not really evil and have what we believe to be valid reasons for our actions.

It is interesting to note that the idea of evil generally comes up in fiction, books and movies; or in religion, good versus evil. The problem here is that good and evil are not opposites, as bad is the opposite of good. So what is the opposite of evil? Well, that would be innocence.

So this is where intent comes in because we judge other people's intent to be innocent or evil. Since we don't believe that other species possess intent, then we can not judge them to be innocent or evil.

Consider the Bible stories where "God" demanded that some people could be spared in wars, but in other instances, his people were required to exterminate their enemies to every last man, woman, and child. This sounds pretty evil to me. But I suspect that if we asked one of those warriors why they were killing women and children, they would respond that they don't want to, but they have to because these people are evil.

I have heard it said that mankind creates evil. I suspect this is true, because when we judge it to exist, we cause it to exist. imo

Gee

[hammock]

I would have no problems in coming up with examples of animals doing good, whether towards humans or other animals.

Individuals in an animal social group could have behaviors that are deemed desirable or undesirable by the dominate hierarchy or lesser members; or that evolution has innately discriminated over the ages as either profitable / destructive to the species. But concepts like good / evil and their application in the evaluation of animal acts is not internal to the animal groups, but appended to them extrinsically via relations from human society.

[duszek]

A feeling for good and evil arises from empathy.

Some pets also have empathy: when the master is sad and crying a dog or a cat can come and try to comfort, by licking the tears and sharing the pain.

It is more difficult with evil.

When a dog disobeys continuesly one can wonder if he or she is trying to annoy. This would be slightly evil.

[Skip]

Of course they can.*
As with everything else in the realm of life, the performance of good and bad acts falls on a continuum. Animals with big, complex brains and intricate social relations have more desires, feel more emotions, participate in more kinds of interaction than solitary animals with little brains. Action is motivated by feelings and guided by cognitive processes. It's a question of capacities and abilities.

Whether a behaviour is considered good or bad depends on the point of view. A Spaniard who hates the religion and wants the gold of the Incas may consider their eradication a good and godly undertaking. Me, I consider genocide wrong and bad. An officer of national security may consider enhanced interrogation techniques a boon to his profession, while I think torture is wrong undesirable. We do what our needs, wants, feelings, training and plans require us to do and we label our actions, in retrospect, according to pov.

So do all other animals. When we perceive them as doing good, it's because they're acting out of kindness, generosity or love (toward us, or toward one another) and we identify with those motivations. When we perceive them doing something bad, it's either counter to our requirements of them (which is merely misguided or disobedient) or else motivated by emotions like anger and envy, which we recognize, but repudiate.

The herbivores we understand (or should understand) best are the product of human-directed breeding: we shouldn't expect any great intelligence from walking meat and beasts of burden. Yet even a cow is capable of some rebellion, some resistance to the will of another, some anger and resentment. A horse is certainly capable of holding a grudge and taking revenge on someone who has wronged him. A ram can be downright malevolent and goats can invent practical jokes as well as plot against a perceived enemy. We have plenty of opportunity to observe our most common pets, two of the clever carnivores. Both cats and dogs can act on jealousy, envy, greed, ambition, revenge, spite - as well as fear and hate. Of course, we know chimpanzees can be a lot nastier, especially when acting as a mob.

They are not quite as ambitious, greedy, vengeful, jealous and petty as humans are, and they have less imagination, as well as a limited range of physical abilities. Just give them time to evolve!



* I'm ruling out any 'spiritual' component to the concept of evil having an independent existence, and treating it as a function of mental activity and its valuation as an aspect of interaction between conscious entities. That's why I avoid using the e word. That, and because there is no commonly-used secular equivalent on the other side of the balance: good and bad are on a level scale, but evil is out on that end all by itself, with n counterbalance, unless you resort to some tainted word like 'saintly' or 'holy'.

[Arising_uk]

Fair point as I'd forgotten that dolphins rape. Is dolphin rape evil? If so then yes some animals, apparently those with a complex neural-net, can do evil. Then again, until someone can demonstrate that dolphins have a moral code that they think about and disobey I doubt such actions could be considered evil.

[Wyman]

I would have no problems in coming up with examples of animals doing good, whether towards humans or other animals. But it seems to be a horse of a different color when it comes to animals doing evil? Why? Could it be because evil must be planned? Must there be intent in the action?

I turn the floor over to you.

PhilX

Meaningless question, because you don't define 'evil.' Since you have no problem coming up with examples of animals doing 'good,' why not give some? Definition by elucidation.

[Philosophy Explorer]

I would have no problems in coming up with examples of animals doing good, whether towards humans or other animals. But it seems to be a horse of a different color when it comes to animals doing evil? Why? Could it be because evil must be planned? Must there be intent in the action?

I turn the floor over to you.

PhilX

Meaningless question, because you don't define 'evil.' Since you have no problem coming up with examples of animals doing 'good,' why not give some? Definition by elucidation.

Giving companionship to its owner, being a guard dog, riding a horse are some examples.

PhilX

[Wyman]

I would have no problems in coming up with examples of animals doing good, whether towards humans or other animals. But it seems to be a horse of a different color when it comes to animals doing evil? Why? Could it be because evil must be planned? Must there be intent in the action?

I turn the floor over to you.

PhilX

Meaningless question, because you don't define 'evil.' Since you have no problem coming up with examples of animals doing 'good,' why not give some? Definition by elucidation.

Giving companionship to its owner, being a guard dog, riding a horse are some examples.

PhilX

All those examples involves a 'good' to the owner - companionship, security, enjoyment of horse riding. Under this 'effects' analysis, where the actions of the animal are judged according to their effects on the (human) owner, then I suppose the answer would be 'yes.' But, as with Gee, I would probably call such negative effects 'bad' rather than 'evil.' Getting bit by a dog, thrown from a horse, etc.. Effects-based analyses do not rely on the intent of the actor, which I would agree is inappropriate when dealing with animals.

[Skip]

I'd even suggest that it's an inappropriate basis for assessment of anyone's actions. What we have bred and trained animals to do, and what we pay or force other people to do, may be good for us, but not a product of their own goodness.

More useful examples of animals doing good would be a mother cat adopting a baby skunk. (She had 3 healthy kittens; it's not a case of substitution, but of taking pity.) A dog bringing earthworms for orphaned kittens (He didn't know what they eat; boneless meat was a pretty shrewd guess from a Newfoundland.) or rescuing a child from water (which the same Newfie did regularly, even if the child didn't want rescuing, but once he saved the life of a strange puppy who'd swum out too far after a stick.) A horse defending a wounded deer against coyotes; a donkey guiding a blind horse. There are many examples of protective, comforting, nurturing behaviour of adult animals of both sexes toward young or injured animals of any species: compassion for the helpless seems a very common emotion. There are many examples of affection and loyalty from companion and draught animals toward their friends, of the same or another species, as well as their human companion.

Just don't insult a tom-cat, because he will, deliberately - and even if he has to wait a week for the opportunity - piss on your bed. Some dogs will, too, out of revenge, spite, or as a hint that you've outstayed your welcome in their house.

In the wild, we have fewer opportunities to observe spontaneous acts of kindness or meanness, and it's improbable that animals of different species would interact very often, without the artificial environment we create. Among the same species and clan, it's harder to judge whether an action is motivated by altruism or genetic self-interest.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.








.............................................



........................I had been thinking that I was drooling on my pillow...guess not. Thanks Rusty.




.

[Advocate]

Good/evil is best understood as intent.

Good/bad is best understood as results.