Abstract
Cruelty is widely regarded to be a uniquely human trait. This follows from a standard definition of cruelty as involving the deliberate infliction of suffering together with the empirical claim that humans are unique in their ability to attribute suffering (or any mental state) to other creatures. In this paper I argue that this definition is not optimum for the purposes of scientific inquiry. I suggest that its intuitive appeal stems from our abhorrence of cruelty, and our corresponding desire to define cruelty in such a way that it is almost always morally wrong. Scientifically speaking this is an arbitrary condition that inhibits our attempt to study cruelty as a natural phenomenon. I propose a fully naturalized definition of cruelty, one that considerably expands the range of creatures and behaviors that may be conceived as cruel.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ainslie G (2006) What good are facts? The “drug” value of money as an exemplar of all non-instrumental value. Behav Brain Sci 29:176–177
Dallman MF (2006) Make love, not war. Behav Brain Sci 29:227–228. doi:10.1017/S0140525X06259053
David W (1991) On the relationship between evolutionary and psychological definitions of altruism and egoism. Biol Philos 7:61–68
Herzog H, Arluke A (2006) Human–animal connections: recent findings on the anthrozoology of cruelty. Behav Brain Sci 29:230–231. doi:10.1017/S0140525X06299059
Hobbes T (2004) Leviathan. Kessinger Publishing
Kekes J (1996) Cruelty and liberalism. Ethics 106:834–844. doi:10.1086/233675
Kraemer S (2006) The cruelty of older infants and toddlers. Behav Brain Sci 29:233–234. doi:10.1017/S0140525X06329056
Milgram S (1974) Obedience to authority. Harper Collins, New York
Nell V (2006) Cruelty’s rewards: the gratifications of perpetrators and spectators. Behav Brain Sci 29:211–224
Nietzsche F (1966) Beyond good and evil, trans. by Walter Kaufmann. Vintage Books, New York
Palmer C (1989) Rape in nonhuman animal species: definitions, evidence, and implications. J Sex Res 26:355–374
Panksepp J (2006) The affective neuroeconomics of social brains: one man’s cruelty is another’s suffering. Behav Brain Sci 29:234–235. doi:10.1017/S0140525X06349059
Potts M (2006) Cruelty’s utility: the evolutions of same-species killing. Behav Brain Sci 29:238. doi:10.1017/S0140525X06379058
Schuster R (2006) Nice idea but is it science? Behav Brain Sci 29:240–241. doi:10.1017/S0140525X06409055
van den Berghe PL (2006) Cruelty, age, and thanatourism. Behav Brain Sci 29:245. doi:10.1017/S0140525X06459057
Zimbardo P (2007) The Lucifer effect: understanding how good people turn evil. Random House, New York
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mayes, G.R. Naturalizing cruelty. Biol Philos 24, 21–34 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-008-9120-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-008-9120-3