Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Humans and Animals

Macheath · 10-04-2003, 09:25 PM

The first thing I wanted to figure out here is what is the purpose of cruelty?

I mean, you're walking down the street and you see a child pulling the legs of a grasshopper or maybe even torturing a larger animal. You ask "why are you doing that" and they might say "I don't know, I'm just bored". We call that child cruel because we judge peoples actions in the context of society. We don't like people doing things without a motive; it undermines our social order. We'd rather the kid did something wholesome like put hooks in the mouths of fish.

So this child is cruel and their excuse is boredom, but what do they really feel? They have trouble describing it but maybe they feel that same flash or thrill that you feel posting on the internet about how you'd like to gut Saddam or sodomise some child molester with a red hot poker. You're vocally expressing a feeling of brutality in a "socially righteous" way but you have to admit that the righteousness does stir a strong feeling in your gut. Maybe that feeling is an instinctive adrenaline rush that allowed our predatory ancestors to be primed for the kill.

In modern society it serves very little purpose. Maybe it has to be expressed through things like patriotism or team sports. Physical cruelty to animals or other people is the worst way of expressing that feeling. Vocal cruelty to other people, though easier to turn a blind eye to, is equally unacceptable but I'm sure the average bully gets a kick out of it nevertheless.

I don't necessarily think that empathy for a victim would make a person more cruel. Perhaps if that person was a bona fide sociopath, they might demonstrate a full understanding of their victims pain without any emotional connection. But we're taking about regular cruelty here, not a pathology. We're talking about the mean kid who shoots a squirrel one day and then has to helplessly watch it die over many hours. A child can often become LESS cruel after an experience like that.

So maybe us humans are particularly brutal animals and cruelty is something within us that is kept under close control for the purpose of social harmony and control.

Where does this leave other animals? I understand Nefir's point that the actions of animals serve a purpose - the acqusition of food, procreation or self defence. Does this mean that all the actions of animals are completely task oriented or does the human species have a monopoly on "pointless" behaviour?

Look at babies; human babies play just as bear cubs play. At first glance, both activities seem pointless. Experts in both human and animal behaviour, however, can demonstrate the importance of play to their development.

I think animals do have some capacity to empathise. There was a recent documentary in which a lion cub was abandoned. A female cheetah found the cub. The narrator stated that the cheetah would normally kill the cub. There was, however, a moment ot hesitation; perhaps meternal instinct. Without trying to anthropomorphize, It's possible that the cheetah's uncharacteristic confusion and hesitation indicated some kind of rudimentary empathy. The cheetah, realizing the impossibility of raising the cub, then walked away - without killing it.

The cub remained doomed of course; but how many human animals in moral quandries have chosen a similar "middle path"? The cheetah was faced with two competing instincts, the instinct to kill and the instinct to nurture. It allowed neither of these instincts to triumph. Perhaps this indicates some ability to overcome instincts, to exercise a kind of rudimentary judgement. Would this ability, by definition, also allow an animal to be cruel as well as merciful?

Our capacity for awareness of the world around us makes instinctive physical violence unnecessary in human society. We still have feelings of aggression and cruelty is one of the worst manifestations of those feelings.

Much of the violence in the animal world has a purpose. This does not necessarily mean that animals are incapable of cruelty. If an animal has even the most rudimentary kind of empathy or awareness of a wider world then it has the capacity to be cruel. Not everything an animal does is for sustenance or procreation - homosexuality in the animal world is one example. As we have continued to research, higher animals have demonstrated unexpected capacity for complex thought. We still do not definitively know what makes our species unique. By extension then, we do not know for certain that cruelty is unique to our species.

10-04-2003, 09:25 PM	#2 (permalink)
Macheath Junkie Location: Sydney, Australia	The first thing I wanted to figure out here is what is the purpose of cruelty? I mean, you're walking down the street and you see a child pulling the legs of a grasshopper or maybe even torturing a larger animal. You ask "why are you doing that" and they might say "I don't know, I'm just bored". We call that child cruel because we judge peoples actions in the context of society. We don't like people doing things without a motive; it undermines our social order. We'd rather the kid did something wholesome like put hooks in the mouths of fish. So this child is cruel and their excuse is boredom, but what do they really feel? They have trouble describing it but maybe they feel that same flash or thrill that you feel posting on the internet about how you'd like to gut Saddam or sodomise some child molester with a red hot poker. You're vocally expressing a feeling of brutality in a "socially righteous" way but you have to admit that the righteousness does stir a strong feeling in your gut. Maybe that feeling is an instinctive adrenaline rush that allowed our predatory ancestors to be primed for the kill. In modern society it serves very little purpose. Maybe it has to be expressed through things like patriotism or team sports. Physical cruelty to animals or other people is the worst way of expressing that feeling. Vocal cruelty to other people, though easier to turn a blind eye to, is equally unacceptable but I'm sure the average bully gets a kick out of it nevertheless. I don't necessarily think that empathy for a victim would make a person more cruel. Perhaps if that person was a bona fide sociopath, they might demonstrate a full understanding of their victims pain without any emotional connection. But we're taking about regular cruelty here, not a pathology. We're talking about the mean kid who shoots a squirrel one day and then has to helplessly watch it die over many hours. A child can often become LESS cruel after an experience like that. So maybe us humans are particularly brutal animals and cruelty is something within us that is kept under close control for the purpose of social harmony and control. Where does this leave other animals? I understand Nefir's point that the actions of animals serve a purpose - the acqusition of food, procreation or self defence. Does this mean that all the actions of animals are completely task oriented or does the human species have a monopoly on "pointless" behaviour? Look at babies; human babies play just as bear cubs play. At first glance, both activities seem pointless. Experts in both human and animal behaviour, however, can demonstrate the importance of play to their development. I think animals do have some capacity to empathise. There was a recent documentary in which a lion cub was abandoned. A female cheetah found the cub. The narrator stated that the cheetah would normally kill the cub. There was, however, a moment ot hesitation; perhaps meternal instinct. Without trying to anthropomorphize, It's possible that the cheetah's uncharacteristic confusion and hesitation indicated some kind of rudimentary empathy. The cheetah, realizing the impossibility of raising the cub, then walked away - without killing it. The cub remained doomed of course; but how many human animals in moral quandries have chosen a similar "middle path"? The cheetah was faced with two competing instincts, the instinct to kill and the instinct to nurture. It allowed neither of these instincts to triumph. Perhaps this indicates some ability to overcome instincts, to exercise a kind of rudimentary judgement. Would this ability, by definition, also allow an animal to be cruel as well as merciful? Our capacity for awareness of the world around us makes instinctive physical violence unnecessary in human society. We still have feelings of aggression and cruelty is one of the worst manifestations of those feelings. Much of the violence in the animal world has a purpose. This does not necessarily mean that animals are incapable of cruelty. If an animal has even the most rudimentary kind of empathy or awareness of a wider world then it has the capacity to be cruel. Not everything an animal does is for sustenance or procreation - homosexuality in the animal world is one example. As we have continued to research, higher animals have demonstrated unexpected capacity for complex thought. We still do not definitively know what makes our species unique. By extension then, we do not know for certain that cruelty is unique to our species.