Nefir

This is just me making up for fueling the thread hijack with the kangaroo mutilation thing

The questions stand thus:
Are animals capable of cruelty, or is the pain they cause to others driven by instinct?
What about humans gives them this quality that they use so liberally?

I currently believe that animals are incapable of the cruelty we humans may act with. Cruelty requires certain mental functions that I do not believe animals posess. Any act which may look cruel to us may be just an instinctual drive, forcing the animal to act this way, or a learned behavior to help it accomplish a certain task easier.

I also believe that humans are capable of cruelty because they can put themselves into the shoes of their "victim" and consider what they are experiencing (not just considering a reaction to their actions, like an animal might), and respond with apathy. ie: "Why don't I just pull the legs off this cricket, and watch it thrash about helplessly? It can't do anything to me!" or "Why don't I just tie this kangaroo to my SUV and lynch it across the countryside? Its pain is so hilarious, and I'm so macho for pulling this off!"

Convince me otherwise.

Macheath

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.

Dragonlich

It is said that the common house-cat is one of the most cruel animals around. They're capable of maiming and slaughtering countless harmless birds and other animals if given half a chance.

Ever seen a cat play with it's prey???

2thumbsup

If a bear breaks my leg, it is called instinct.

If I break a bears leg, it is called cruelty.

Where is the difference?

bermuDa

humans are the only animals capable of sadism in my opinion. An animal will react to a situation when it believes it's defending itself or following its instincts (or habitual behavior taught to them, as in attack dogs). I don't think animals necessarily enjoy inflicting pain on others, a cat playing with its prey is more curious than anything else (except in the case of mousers, where it's for survival); "ok I finally got that damn to hold still, what IS this thing??" Cats also think of it as a service to their humans. My aunt's cats would catch mice and go crunch on their bones under her bed while they were sleeping, to let them know they were keeping the local rodent population in check. My sister's cat will bring rats, mice, and birds inside and leave them on her bed to find. My blind cat caught a bird and was bringing it inside once when i caught her and yelled. she jumped outside and the bird literally flew out of her mouth into a tree... I was amazed.

I still find dragonflies on the floor near my bed every so often. So pride, yes. curiosity, yes. cruelty? no.

as for humans, I'd say cruelty comes from how we were raised.

__________________
I am the very model of a moderator gentleman.

ratbastid

But surely you're not saying that we Human Animals are devoid of instinct? I don't believe that in the least.

We have an instinct to protect ourselves from harm. We have an instict to reject that which is different from us. We have an instict to be suspicious of strangers.

One of the things that is mankind's greatest triumph is the ablility NOT to operate from instinct. But you better believe we have 'em.

So it's a cop-out (IMO) to say "An animal can't be cruel because it's operating on instinct. Only a human can be cruel."

NOW. That said. I think cruelty is a subjective thing. I observe Nazi concentration camps and I consider them cruel. To the nazi who designed them, they were practical, maybe even beautiful, in their way. I reserve the right to judge what's cruel and what's not (I mean.. you know, I'll be judging anyway, so why not reserve the right!).

There are a million questions like this that begin from a position of assuming that such a thing as Cruelty (for instance) exists in the world as a fact, or an outside property of people or things, when in fact, there IS no such thing as cruelty. There is only our ASSESSMENT of cruelty, or our STORY of cruelty.

Nefir

Ratbastid, I never said that humans do not have instincts. I agree with you completely on that account. I also did not say that animals can't be cruel because they operate on instincts and humans can because they don't.

Would you agree with me if I said that instinct makes the animal more predisposed to make a certain decision? That it is like a nagging feeling at the back of their minds, telling them "do it! do it!"? That how well they can supress this feeling depends on higher processing functions?

Sure there is. For one of the countless examples, see the kangaroo thread. I seriously doubt the drivers of that vehicle thought their act was "practical, maybe even beautiful". Their thought process went more like "This is gonna be so funny!" and "I know the kangaroo is going to get hurt, but I don't care about the stupid animal!".

Macheath, you are right - we need to understand cruelty in order to understand those responsible for it. I can break down cruelty into three parts:
1)Knowing that you are causing harm
2)Knowing that the harm is not necessary
3)Not caring about 1) and 2)

You can't get entertainment from satisfying your instinct, only a temporary relief of that mental itch, so cruelty is not possible with instinct alone. You have to be able to suppress the instinct, and act:
1)With knowledge
2)With motive (even if its just to satisfy boredom)
3)With apathy

Dragonlich, yea cats do have that reputation, don't they? I think they lack the knowledge and understanding to meet the above criteria of cruelty. bermuDa's example is very valid to illustrate my point.

If a kid is pulling the legs off a bug, and doesn't understand that the bug is another living thing that is suffering because of his actions, thats not cruelty. Thats ignorance. Once you tell the kid this, and he keeps doing it, thats cruelty.

2thumbsup, if you are close enough to a bear to be attacked, you are infringing upon its territory and its acting to protect its interests. It doesn't care if you are suffering or not, but it has a very clear motive - to stop you from hurting it or its young.

__________________
You do not use a Macintosh, instead you use a Tandy
Kompressor break your glowstick, Kompressor eat your candy
Kompressor open jaws, Kompressor release ants
Kompressor watch you scream, Because Kompressor does not dance

Killconey

Cruelty stems from both intellectual and social environments. I think that animals are incapable of cruelty because they only inflict pain during times when that pain in practical. You have invaded my territory, so I will bite you. I need to eat, so I will eat you.

Humans are the only creatures with a wide variety of unnecessary reasons for inflicting pain upon other members of that species. You are a Protestant, so I will burn you at the stake. You are black, so I will hang you. You were glasses, so I will break them and then laugh at you while you cry. All of these reasons stem more from the social learnings of humanity than from anything instinctual.

Intellectually speaking, it is human ingenuity that makes cruelty our stock in trade. No other creature could possibly come up with crucifixion, the rack, Chinese Water Torture and the countless other methods we have devised for inflicting pain. If you have any doubts on the human creativity for torture, just watch the last part of Braveheart. Would a cat do that?

__________________
Look out for numbers two and up and they'll look out for you.

CSflim

Great post Macheath! Pretty much summed up my way of looking at things.

__________________

Beltruckus

How about this? From what i've seen people who are cruel to others may feel insecure about themselves, it's an instinct to do this? I know when i have been mean or belittle someone afterwards i start feeling really bad and think why I did that. I don't think at the time that I feel threatened by the person so i'm going to be a dick. This probably is confusing but it's something to think about.

__________________
The most important things are the hardest things to say. They are the things you get ashamed of because words diminish your feelings. Words shrink things that seem timeless when they are in your head to no more than living size when they are brought out. -Stephen King

onetime2

Cruelty is all relative and can only be defined by something/someone with a certain level of situational awareness. By this I mean, if something knows that what it's doing causes pain/suffering and there is no other goal in it, that is cruelty.

I absolutely think that animals can be cruel. Cats have been used as an example and there's little doubt in my mind that they can be cruel. I've seen cats torture mice and other small animals. The shrieks from the mouse most certainly told the cat that it was causing pain. The cat was not killing for food or to defend its territory or to please its human masters or any other reason. It was enjoying itself.

Allegedly, a male lion when taking over a pride will hunt down and kill the offspring of the previous Alpha male. Theories say that it's to preserve its own bloodline. Now, if a human had the same goal and killed his new wife's child from another marriage, would this be cruel? Absolutely.

Cruelty is a human defined term. Some situations will be labeled cruel in one culture/situation while not in others.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

MuadDib

cruelty

n 1: a cruel act; a deliberate infliction of pain and suffering [syn: inhuman treatment] 2: feelings of extreme heartlessness [syn: mercilessness, pitilessness, ruthlessness] 3: the quality of being cruel and causing tension or annoyance [syn: cruelness, harshness]

Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University

Now most people here have argued that animals can not be cruel because they do not possess the necessary intellect or will. By definition they could therefore not act deliberately. Now, I don't totally believe that claim so I am not going to argue that way. The reason I don't believe that animals can not/ do not possess such will or intellect is because it is unprovable. There is no way to measure consciousness or self awareness with any amount of certainty. The best test to date has actually shown many insects and simians to be "self aware" by placing them in front of a mirror and then placing a red dot on their heads and watching their reactions of removing the dot from themselves once they saw it. It is contended that this shows the animals recognized that the image was themselves and not another being and that shows self awareness. Now that is clearly not the most scientifically valid test desirable so take that into account, but still thats the best we can do to measure consciousness at this time.

The reason I do not think animals can be cruel is that it is almost unknown for an animal to attack without justification. Animals generally attack for food (survival) or in perceived defense of their lives or their kin. What a human might perceive as cruelty is almost without a doubt a function of that species survival. The question of cruelty is then rather the act is done out of necessity or defense or if it is done out of malice, apathy, or vengence. At that most human violence against itself, the other species of this plant, and the Earth itself is generally unnecessary and frivilous while the alleged "cruelty" in nature is otherwise.

__________________
"The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751

onetime2

So what is the necessity of the cat examples people have given? Where a cat plays with and eventually kills a mouse without eating it? Certainly the cat wasn't defending itself. It wasn't a case of kill or be killed.

MuadDib

It is territorial. Cats perceive the mice as a threat because they are invading a cats sole domain and home. The same attacks happen often when any new animal is brought into the home.

__________________
"The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751

onetime2

Alright, then why do they not just kill it outright instead of batting it around and killing it over a long period of time?

MuadDib

Pheromones. The scent of death is more spread through moving a corpse around and that wards of further intruders. But, if you're looking for a concession I'll give you that domestic animals differ from wild animals greatly in lifestyles and methods of hunting. I'd contend that exposure to the luxuries of being domesticated (aka exposure to humanity) has caused many of these animals to pick up traits that aren't present in nature.

__________________
"The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751

onetime2

Not looking for concessions in the least, just clarifications. However, it's not a corpse until it actually is killed. The "victim" is alive and kicking the entire time that the cat is "playing" or whatever it is doing.

refusion

I think cruelty could be a number of different things. Most of all control or the state of being in control. Can animals be curl? If taught. I don't thing animals have the mantel state or complex thinning to handle that emotion.

But because people are complex in thinking and behavior. You can't ever pin point where cruelty comes from. One could say cruelty comes from childhood or abuse. Maybe you didn't enough affection or maybe you had to much. Why are some people better at handling stress then others. What drives men to kill instead of cry.

__________________
http://www.mooseink.net/sigart/Fusion2.jpg

MuadDib

Pheromones are only giving off while living or while the blood is still warm so it makes more sense to keep the animal alive as long as possible in spreading the scent.

__________________
"The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751

tekaweni

A cat plays with a mouse, a school of dolphins tosses a baby seal about like a football; is this cruel?

A man beats his wife senseless, a child bullies another to the point of tears and genuine fear; is this cruel?

In order to define 'cruel' properly we have to establish a term of reference - responsible action (I meant that) or non-responsible (I was a kid/mamal who doesnt have any conception of cruel)

Until kids are adults, and until animals can speak, I'd say not cruel.

My 2p

__________________
If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always gotten

tekaweni

Oh - and the guy who beats his wife senseless is not just cruel but a dumbass

__________________
If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always gotten

Shpoop

its all about dominance

if you really need to prove it, its not cruelty

if you are exploiting it, it is

onetime2

So speaking/age are critical factors for cruelty? Seems a little arbitrary.

Nefir

onetime2, not speaking and age, but the mental sophistication to allow understanding of others' suffering. Its not as trivial as it sounds, and definitely not arbitrary. Until childrens' and animals' minds are sophisticated enough to understand their own motives and not care about the suffering of others, you can't say they are cruel.

We can't really prove that animals perceive other animals as living things that feel pain, but for most of them, evidence (like the mirror test, as posted above), shows that they don't think of the animals they see the same way as they think of themselves... Make of that what you will.

Shpoop, IHMO cruelty in people is often caused by the need for dominance, and they are NOT mutually exclusive. Someone feels the need to make up for some deficiency, so they justify their cruelty without usually realizing it (think bully).

refusion, can you really teach cruelty? IHMO it would not be cruelty anymore - it would be doing as you are taught. I think there is a difference here...

MuadDib, great post! Malice, apathy, and vengence are emotions that are very human, aren't they? They are all components of cruelty, but are lacking in animals, as far as I can tell.

__________________
You do not use a Macintosh, instead you use a Tandy
Kompressor break your glowstick, Kompressor eat your candy
Kompressor open jaws, Kompressor release ants
Kompressor watch you scream, Because Kompressor does not dance

onetime2

So the shrieks from a dying mouse aren't recognizable by cats as resulting from the bites/scratches that come immediately prior to their broadcast? I don't buy it. Certainly there are no studies that point to this along the lines of a mirror test. I would think that predatory animals have an instinctual ability to recognize sounds and associate them with certain actions. After all, that is a key part of hunting.

MuadDib

But you can't assume that animals are not intelligent either. You can't really prove empathy or sentience... even in other human beings. You just have to assume based on similarities. Isn't it better to err on the side of caution and assume they are sentient beings that we just don't understand? Alternately, the mirror test does allegedly prove that they don't think of animals they see the same way as themselves, but neither do we. Human beings objectify other animals and other humans all the time. Our entire society is based off of self interest for crying out loud. While I don't think it amounts to cruelty, I do agree with onetime2 that I think all animals can recognize sound & associate that with action. I'll take it a step further and say that I think they understand that they are killing another being and that that being is pry not thrilled about it. However, one thing I have noticed in my study of various animals is that animals have a certain dignity in dying that is absent in the human race. No matter how animals die they seem to be always ready for death and recognize it as a part of life. I don't think it is cruel to kill for food. What is cruel to kill an animal and not make use of it. Or to raise an animal just to be slaughtered. Or to inject an animal with chemicals and hormones to make them better eating.

__________________
"The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751

Conclamo Ludus

I don't think cruelty is only a human trait. I think that it can be an instinctual method of survival. The Alpha male in groups of primates often displays examples of cruelty to prove that he is top dog. He does this to instill fear in the others and to let them know where their place is. He knows what he is doing. He's inflicting pain deliberately.

__________________
Lord, have mercy on my wicked soul
I wouldn't mistreat you baby, for my weight in gold.
-Son House, Death Letter Blues

Killconey

In a Machiavellian sense, is inflicting pain to maintain order and prove you are in charge cruelty? I would say no because cruelty is needless pain.

__________________
Look out for numbers two and up and they'll look out for you.

MuadDib

I would say yes because "need" is subjective. Especially in the context of a "need" for "order". During the dawn of our country slavery served a "need". For modern America to exist the Native American peoples and way of life "needed" to be eradicated. For the order of Germany and the Aryan way of life to continue the Jews "needed" to be exterminated. To protect our nation in times of war we "need" to place members of foreign decent into concentration camps. In order to win the war against terrorism we "need" to topple all authoritarian regimes. For the safety and order of Islamic society, America "needs" to be destroyed. Do I need to go on or is it clear yet how what is needed to maintain order is always subject to the desires of those with power and often far beyond cruel.

__________________
"The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751

psicon

Think on this.The human species is the only species of creature on earth that goes out of its' way to make themselves extinct.Animals don't kill more than they can eat.A lot of people do it just for the hell of it.

onetime2

That's a completely ridiculous statement. The human population is ever growing, nowhere near extinction. There are many species out there with populations growing faster than us. Animals kill for reasons other than food quite a bit (as discussed ad nauseum throughout this thread).

Killconey

That statement may have been phrased wrong, but its far from ridiculous. Human beings are indeed the only species that needlessly slaughters itself and other species. While I don't think that we're near extinction, I also don't think that comes from a lack of effort on our part.

__________________
Look out for numbers two and up and they'll look out for you.

psicon

Hey Onetime2, I never said we as a species are almost extinct.I said we are working our way to extinction.And yes animals do kill for more than just food.They kill for protection,out of fear,or territorially, but they don't go out of their way to kill,not like the human race that will kill anything for no good reason.Most of the human race are destroyers.They destroy the earth with pollution,they kill each other if you don't believe in what they believe in.They kill to get what possessions the other has.shall I go on.One last thing to remember with a push of a few buttons the human race can be extinct no problem.Two words Nuclear Holocaust.

onetime2

First off, animals do kill for other than the reasons you mention as discussed in the thread. Second, nuclear holocaust will not kill all human life.

And you claimed that we were "going out of our way to make ourselves extinct" I pointed out that our population is growing significantly and we're obviously not trying to make ourselves extinct.

Animals kill to get what other animals have, they do it for territory, they do it for food, they do it to reduce competition. For some reason you seem to think that animal behavior is more altruistic than human behavior. I disagree.

psicon

Hey Onetime2 I respect your opinion ,but if the animals are so much more cruel than humans.Think about this the animals work within nature and humans seems to be doing their best to conquer it and the world faces the consequence of those actions.We're Killing our world what's more cruel than that.One more thing when I say nuclear holocaust,I mean worldwide they push the button,we push the button everybody will follow suit.You think you will survive?Would you even want to live in such a world?Remember the movie "Wargames".nobody wins.How about the line from "The Matrix" we are defined as a virus.We take What we want and screw this rest and we don't think about the consequences.

onetime2

I never said animals were more cruel than humans. People have posted that we are the only species that kills for pleasure or desire without cause. I was simply responding to that theory.

As far as a nuclear holocaust, no I wouldn't survive because I'm pretty much in the crosshairs midway between Philly and New York with a major weapons development center virtually in my backyard. Would I want to survive? You're damn right I would, that's the point of life.

I think the issue is we see humans in a much different light. You see us as outsiders to nature and the things we do as being out of place. I see us as a part of nature. Is everything we do good? No. Is it all bad? Of course not. We are bit players compared to nature. Nature has made species extinct for billions of years and will continue to do so long after we are gone. When we abandon a city nature takes it back in a hearbeat of geologic time.

Even if all the nuclear weapons in the world were exploded at the same time, the earth would survive. The human race would survive. Most animal species would survive.

As far as not thinking about the consequences, I think we're about the only species that does think about the consequences.

MSD

My thoughts on cruelty are based on my thoughts on unhappiness, evil, and sadism. I believe that intelligence is teh root cause of all three. Of all the people I know, the smartest of them are the most miserable, resentful, and sadistic.

On the other hand, look at those who have a disability that affects intelligence. I've worked with special-ed kids before, and I've noticed a trend. Of all the people I've met, the kids with Down's syndrome are the happiest, most care-free and nicest people. I would say that because of their disability, they did not develop mentally as far as the average person, but they also haven't developed the ability to be mean, to be unhappy, to be cruel, that the rest of us have.

Intelligence is a mixed blessing. It gives us the power to do good, and the instinct to do bad.