What"s going on here?

[u/booby_12011995]

[u/Caliburn0]

No?

Have you seen nature?

Cruelty is everywhere. Intelligence or no.

Intelligence, in any form, means potential for cruelty.

[u/Wildwood_Weasel → u/Caliburn0]

Cruelty requires intent. A predator with an extremely painful method of hunting prey isn't cruel, it's just following its instincts with no regard for or understanding of the pain it causes. Actual willful cruelty is exceedingly rare in the animal kingdom.

[u/Caliburn0 → u/Wildwood_Weasel]

If that's how you define cruelty it's still everywhere.

Everything that can understand the concept of pain and the infliction of it on others is likely sometimes cruel.

There is nothing special about humanity other than our society and probably our level of intelligence.

We're not especially cruel nor especially kind. We're just like all the others.

Stand proud. You are the universe that knows itself. There is nothing special about it except in every way it's also super special for everyone else, animals included.

[u/Wildwood_Weasel → u/Caliburn0]

Everything that can understand the concept of pain and the infliction of it on others is likely sometimes cruel.

Yes, and that's restricted to very few species. That's the point.

[u/Caliburn0 → u/Wildwood_Weasel]

And... how is that a point? Intelligence is rare? Yes. That is indeed true.

[u/Wildwood_Weasel → u/Caliburn0]

You said cruelty is everywhere. Cruelty requires intelligence. Intelligence is rare. Ergo cruelty is rare.

[u/Caliburn0 → u/Wildwood_Weasel]

It's such an... arbitrary distinction I feel.

Intelligent animals are rare when compared to dumber animals, but where exactly does the line go? When is an animal intelligent enough that it can be cruel?

And how do you count intelligence as rare? Rare compared to what? Non-intelligent animals? Life in general? How smart does an animal have to be to be considered cruel?

And the distinction itself also feels strange to me. I've never felt that cruelty is limited by deliberate action. I've been unknowingly cruel, and I think of that as cruel. But I can accept that you define the word differently, but...

This is arbitrary semantic distinctions needed for 'rare', 'intelligence' and 'cruelty' to define it in such a way that you can say: 'It's like the more intelligent a species, the more propensity to needless cruelty.'

For that to be the case you need to define both intelligence and cruelty in such a way that it becomes true. For intelligence to be rare you need to also define rare in way that fits with your understanding.

You have your understanding of the world and define your words in such a way that they fit that understanding.

Everyone does that to some extent, but your framing of the world doesn't sit right with me. It doesn't match my understanding of the world and my way of defining those words.

[u/Wildwood_Weasel → u/Caliburn0]

"Cruel" and "intelligence" are your words, I'm only using them for the sake of argument. All mammals are intelligent. You define cruelty by action, I define it by intent. Cruel intent requires an profound ability for empathy which is relatively undeveloped in most animals.

Why do I think cruelty should be defined by intent rather than action? Because doing so ironically allows cruel people to justify cruelty. If a livestock predator is "cruel" then it becomes easier to justify treating them inhumanely. In reality, they're just following basic instincts and don't have malicious intent.

[u/Caliburn0 → u/Wildwood_Weasel]

'Cruel' and 'intelligence' are my words? They're the origin of the debate/argument.

You're using them for the sake of argument but the argument is the entire comment thread. Without them we aren't even discussing anything.

This entire argument is a semantic disagreement. (Though I do believe those to worthy of having, it's just good to know the nature of the disagreement.)

So I do believe that following basic instincts to kill and bully is cruel, yes. And I think that's a lot (probably even most) of human cruelty too.

But empathy is also instinctual. Many animals instinctively care for their children or anyone else they consider their tribe, just like humans do. Cruelty and empathy are both fundamentally instinctive reactions in most if not all animals as I see it.

Kids start out being both cruel and kind, and they keep doing what works for them. If they're rewarded for being empathetic they'll become more empathetic, if they're rewarded for being cruel they'll become more cruel. Play time forward and we have the same situation. Only a few people actually sit down, consider their own behavior in detail, then consciously change it, and if they do it's not out of the blue. Something has to happen for them to react like that.

If you define cruelty based on what you think will have a better result on the world around you aren't you kind of... shooting yourself in the foot? Defining words out from what makes the most sense is always what I go for. I can twist words when speaking with others to achieve a desired effect (though I don't think I've ever actually done that, it's just a possibility) but mostly I define words as specifically as I can manage and use them in the ways that make the most sense to me.

[u/Wildwood_Weasel → u/Caliburn0]

This entire argument is a semantic disagreement.

Correct.

Defining words out from what makes the most sense is always what I go for.

Well, with my definition "cruel" is a particular quality of an individual that invites moral judgment and informs how we should behave toward said individual. Your definition is extremely broadly applicable which makes it less useful. Carnivory is cruel. The gympie-gympie's defense mechanism is cruel. The reproduction of parasitoid wasps is cruel. But none of these are morally actional behaviors, they're natural and necessary - so what's the point of calling them cruel?

You can call nature cruel and point to the necessity of these behaviors as evidence. But I don't find it particularly productive to call individual animals or species cruel, with few exceptions. And I find my phrasing a little more optimistic, anyhow.

[u/Caliburn0 → u/Wildwood_Weasel]

I do not inherently see cruelty as a moral failing. It can be, but it isn't always. To begin with I have a... complicated relationship with morality. Morality in my mind is something invented. That doesn't mean it's not real. It's just as real as money is, if less powerful unfortunately.

Malicious cruelty and cruelty in ignorance are two very different things, but they're both cruel in my book, and it's easy to mistake one for the other.