Humans

[Revan]

That's instinict

[[Syl]]

And are you sure the most base motives of mankind aren't? It's our instinctual nature to find a mate, but it's not exaclty instinctual to go out to buy a nice set of clothes, go out to a club, and hook up with some girl on the dance floor (if this was true, more people would know how to dance) who we eventually persuade to marry us and then bear our children, but that is how we answer that instinctual requirement (granted, there are other methods, but they're usually just as complex).

In fact, this is where we as a people draw the line between civility and barbarity. The animal and the barbarian act without a concept of social rules (except in the form of hierarchy... you don't touch the alpha male's woman, deer carcass, etc. generally a creed even barbarians keep amongst eachother) to answer their immediate needs. "I'm hungry, I kill the deer", or "I'm hungry, I steal this money."

The problem, if you ask me, is that the rational mind is not very adept at dealing with pain, a very irrational force. Animals will learn to fear, to run, cringe, or fight in response. Humans learn it, too (this is why every criminal has a sob story, imo), but it is their innate complexity that makes their way of running, cringing, and fighting so vicious.

There is nothing inherently human about evil because there is nothing inherently human about suffering.

[Earthfriend]

There is nothing inherently human about evil because there is nothing inherently human about suffering.

Alternatively, it is only humans that label an act as 'evil', or who refer to a condition as 'suffering'.

A cat has no conception that 'torturing' it's prey before it eats it, causes it's prey to 'suffer'; or that this 'playing' might be 'evil' - only humans have the capacity to reflect upon their actions and judge them accordingly. I would argue that an animal knows niether good nor evil, right nor wrong; an animal simply is.

Because humans have free-will, (supposedly), they are capable of murder and rape, because they choose to commit these acts - animals don't choose, they repond instinctively to both internal and external stimuli.

Therfore, i think 'evil' and 'suffering' are inherently human, because it is only humans that can use such terms.

[KaosArcana]

Earthfriend:

A cat has no conception that 'torturing' it's prey before it eats it, causes it's prey to 'suffer'; or that this 'playing' might be 'evil' - only humans have the capacity to reflect upon their actions and judge them accordingly. I would argue that an animal knows niether good nor evil, right nor wrong; an animal simply is.

Because humans have free-will, (supposedly), they are capable of murder and rape, because they choose to commit these acts - animals don't choose, they repond instinctively to both internal and external stimuli.

Therfore, i think 'evil' and 'suffering' are inherently human, because it is only humans that can use such terms.

Oh I disagree.

At least SOME animals are capable of empathy, and that's what's
required to understand whether or not your actions are causing
suffering to another creature.

[Fist and Faith]

There are definitions for instinct that allow Sylvanus to say, "It's our instinctual nature to find a mate," but I don't like using the word that way. I would prefer to say, "It is a human drive to find a mate." Also, "It is a human drive to stay alive." But we do not have any instincts to help us achieve either goal. An example of an instinct to find a mate is the way some male birds build nests, which the female inspects, and, hopefully, decides is good enough for her to mate with him. An instinct to stay alive is the way some spiders and alligators hatch, scatter, and begin hunting. There is "an unerring and automatic form of knowledge" that tells them how to achieve the specific drive.

Bears and Killer Whales are taught quite a bit from their mothers, and they would die without this education. But I assume both have instincts also.

I'm not sure how many instincts humans have. An infant's rooting for the mother's breast might be one, but it might just be considered reflex.

The ability to learn may be an instinct that humans have. You can demonstrate mathematical concepts to other animals all you want, but most will never get past the ability to count the number of offspring in their current litter. But humans can figure out what is being demonstrated, and even expand on the idea.

[Ageless Stranger]

also, think about elephants that bury their dead or a mother gorilla that will hold its dead baby for days. or even my dog. when we found my cat hit by a car, dead by the road, he pawed at it and cried for a good five minutes. animals have feelings such as suffering and sadness and mourning. i have no idea whether or not they can judge between good and bad, but i think they can be sympathetic. i would not think that my dog crying and pawing at the dead body of my cat is instinct, but the result of an emotional bond that is not ruled by instinct. i would agree that evil is a human term, but suffering, i think, is a term that animals can be familiar with.

[[Syl]]

I think Darwin said it best.

I will not attempt any definition of instinct. It would be easy to show that several distinct mental actions are commonly embraced by this term; but every one understands what is meant, when it is said that instinct impels the cuckoo to migrate and to lay her eggs in other birds' nests. An action, which we ourselves require experience to enable us to perform, when performed by an animal, more especially by a very young one, without experience, and when performed by many individuals in the same way, without their knowing for what purpose it is performed, is usually said to be instinctive. But I could show that none of these characters are universal. A little dose of judgment or reason, as Pierre Huber expresses it, often comes into play, even with animals low in the scale of nature.

www.classicreader.com/read.php/sid.2/bookid.107/sec.54/

[Guest]

i would agree that evil is a human term, but suffering, i think, is a term that animals can be familiar with.

I don't think animals can be familiar with any term, per se. They may experience suffering, pain, loss, happiness, etc - but they don't say to themselves, 'I am happy' or, 'I suffered this winter because there was no food'.

And i agree that they can feel love, Ageless, like your dog expressed towards your cat, but what im saying is that i think a dog, or pretty much any animal, are incapable of saying/thinking to themselves, 'I am sad because my friend got hit by the car. Cars are bad!'. I don't believe animals are self aware in that way - only humans are. The exception to this belief may be the great apes, i don't know...

Humans alone are self-aware, imho. And i would argue that self-awareness is requirement of free-will, of choice, and therefore motive ladened terms like murder and rape only apply to humans. We can describe an animals actions using such terms, but to attribute motive or choice to the animal is to risk anthropomorphism.

(This is Earthfriend, by the by...too lazy to log on! )

[Ageless Stranger]

i totally agree with you, Earthfriend

[[Syl]]

Does a dog have buddha nature?

[danlo]

yes

[Earthfriend]

I would argue that a dog has a buddha nature only if we percieve the dog to have buddha nature.

(What i need now is, one of Vain's emoticons that looks like Mr Miyagi )

[Hellfire]

Humans alone are self-aware, imho. And i would argue that self-awareness is requirement of free-will, of choice, and therefore motive ladened terms like murder and rape only apply to humans. We can describe an animals actions using such terms, but to attribute motive or choice to the animal is to risk anthropomorphism.

I had a ferret once that got along with dogs really well. When aproaching his seniority, he got loose one day and was attacked by a dog after digging his way into a backyard pen. From that day forth he abhorred dogs. Dogs he met later down the road were scared of him because he was now rewired to attack them.

I don't think the dogs branded him EVIL but if I was a dog with self- awareness and came across a peeved ferret that tried to bite my nose, I think he would go down as being rotton to the core in my book.

Good, bad, evil, buddha nature- just words. Neat little labels we stick on things to make our selves feel more secure and in control. Nothing is that black and white. We all do things we are not proud of and then rationalize to make it all okay no matter how horrible or trivial. Then we deny that anything is wrong at all or feel guilty knowing that from someone elses point of view we would look really bad.

And realizations like that are what sets us apart from the animal kingdom. The capacity to regret, rehabilitate, and change for the better.

[Skyweir]

struggling to remember what this topic is about .. lol .. but i think all the points raised are valid ..

i found it interesting that F&F distinguished the label .. instinct from .. what alterantively could be called .. 'genetic imperative' .. and i think this distinction is a useful observation ..

some actions are most definitely instinctual and others are a part of one's genetic imperative .. and to make this distinction is imho .. brilliantly perceptive.

as for my brother Tuvor .. you say you did not intend to imply all humankind was barbaric .. yet you did suggest that the human race was the most barbaric .. and it is this not the proposition that ALL are barbaric .. that is being challenged

it would be a ludicrous propostion to infer that all humans are barbaric .. and this is not at all .. relevant to the counter arguement ..

whether evil is inherently human .. does not interest me as much as the fact of whether .. humans are not inherently evil .. or shall we say barbaric ..

i do not accept that humans are inherently evil .. to the same degree i dont accept that humans are inherently barbaric ..

[Revan]

as for my brother Tuvor .. you say you did not intend to imply all humankind was barbaric .. yet you did suggest that the human race was the most barbaric .. and it is this not the proposition that ALL are barbaric .. that is being challenged

There is a difference between actually being completely barbaric, and being the most barbaric of all animals. We are the most barbaric animal on this earth. But I'm not saying we're all barbaric.

[Skyweir]

and that premise is being challenged

[Kinslaughterer]

The closest living relative of Homo sapiens is Pan troglodytes or the chimpanzee. We are genetically between 96 and 98% identical to our smaller primate relatives. Sure we look different but when the gloves come off we are just about the same only smarter. Its the intelligence that makes us capable of all the things we consider barbaric. Chimps just can't think that hard! Anytime you see a chimp in captivity or in a movie chances are its a young female. You can't handle males especially older males because they can and will brutally beat humans for no reason other than the possiblity of a threat. Barbarism is a human word the rest of the animal kingdom doesn't know.
I heard a great quote somewhere:
"Civilization is only skin deep"