is there an eruption of evil in the US ?? is evil real ??

[PratchettFan]

good and evil do not exist it is a human construct to describe stuff happening

I would take that a step further. It is used to establish that the stuff we cause is ok and the stuff they cause is not ok. During WWII, the cowardly nazis showed their true colors by butchering innocent civilians by bombing cities. Our brave airmen, risking their lives in a glorious effort, struck deep into enemy territory to take the war to the Germans. We were good, they were evil, we were doing exactly the same thing.

That's it, both are good posts, IMO.

All this ancient Manicheism! That there is a Devil versus a God, or at least a Devil responsible for all the tempting and evil while God watches who gives into it and deserves Hell for their free will -----

This is all nonsense.

We just do what we do for sociobiological, evolved reasons that further our genes and those of people like us and attempt to destroy other breeding groups of humans and take their resources. This has been going on forever; it's a main way humans evolve, by fighting each other, at least the males do. There are lots of species in which the males fight and kill each other for evolution; and some other species (ants, other primates) which fight wars to eliminate other gene pools and take resources. Justifying it all by saying the Redskins or Japs or Krauts are "evil" and dehumanizing them by using names like that are all to make it easier to kill a different genetic group, that's all. That's not evil: it's the human condition.

I could not agree more. I think it is possible to control that aspect of our behavior, but only when we finally come to grips with the fact that it is our behavior and stop trying to blame it on mythical creatures - like religion and government. Ideas don't kill people. People kill people.

 

[Circe]

...stop trying to blame it on mythical creatures - like religion and government. Ideas don't kill people. People kill people.

I am very interested in your saying that government is a myth in this connection. I have long thought that: people say Hitler killed 6 million Jews, for instance.

But as far as we know, Hitler never killed anyone personally. He simply persuaded lots of people to kill at his order. But they are still the murderers: the person who does the murdering is the murderer. The bomber pilot and anyone who pulls the trigger on a machine gun is the killer, not some government or inchoate people like "The British."

People like to say Bush caused X deaths or Obama caused Y deaths and so on, but none of that is true unless they are pulling the trigger. We always have choices and one choice can be not to kill, or to kill. The one who kills is the killer, never anyone else.

 

[PratchettFan]

...stop trying to blame it on mythical creatures - like religion and government. Ideas don't kill people. People kill people.

I am very interested in your saying that government is a myth in this connection. I have long thought that: people say Hitler killed 6 million Jews, for instance.

But as far as we know, Hitler never killed anyone personally. He simply persuaded lots of people to kill at his order. But they are still the murderers: the person who does the murdering is the murderer. The bomber pilot and anyone who pulls the trigger on a machine gun is the killer, not some government or inchoate people like "The British."

People like to say Bush caused X deaths or Obama caused Y deaths and so on, but none of that is true unless they are pulling the trigger. We always have choices and one choice can be not to kill, or to kill. The one who kills is the killer, never anyone else.

Exactly. Government and religion are nothing more than structures created by people and populated by people. They have no existence beyond us. They are us. It wasn't the Catholic Church which lit the fires under people during the inquisition, it was people. It wasn't the Nazi party that pushed people into camps, it was people. If the people had refused to do the killing, the killing would not have been done.

Human beings are killers. It is in our nature. We do have the choice not to kill, it is simply that we seldom take that choice. It is easier for us to kill, rape and torture than it is for us to say no. Not what I would call something of which to be proud, but true nonetheless.

 

[Circe]

Government and religion are nothing more than structures created by people and populated by people. They have no existence beyond us. They are us. It wasn't the Catholic Church which lit the fires under people during the inquisition, it was people. It wasn't the Nazi party that pushed people into camps, it was people. If the people had refused to do the killing, the killing would not have been done.

Human beings are killers. It is in our nature. We do have the choice not to kill, it is simply that we seldom take that choice. It is easier for us to kill, rape and torture than it is for us to say no. Not what I would call something of which to be proud, but true nonetheless.

Government structures can control that killing urge for better or for worse. The more that primitive killing instincts are allowed to lash out against family and community, the poorer and more barbaric are the societies.

I suppose that the Opening Post question about evil increasing is based on the fact that in the United States we do seem to have deteriorating law and order structures. Britain, too. There was a day in Britain when murderers were tried immediately and executed directly by hanging if found guilty, and people who committed other crimes simply carried off on boats, either imprisoned in the Fleet or off-loaded in Georgia or Australia or the Gold Coast. This really minimized crime by minimizing criminals, and it worked. The crime rate was incredibly low. And there was much better structure to law and order here in America in the '50s, say, than there is now with the PC and the revolving door of overcrowded prisons and no deportations and no executions. When there is no particular penalty to people killing and maiming each other, of course there is much more of it, because that's what people do, unless forcibly stopped. Everyone would kill and injure if they could get away with it, especially males, and so the more it is allowed, the more of it happens.

The strong instinct to kill is useful for whole breeding groups when a society can organize that desire to kill other people into war bands, soldiers, but if they don't and the controls are poor, a lot of male violence just gets acted out on women and children in the homes of the males and on the same block and in the workplace and early as school bullying, and the society deteriorates and becomes poor and dangerous, like in Africa, or most major inner cities in Europe and America now.

I don't think it's "evil," I think it is direly deteriorated government control of violence, hamstrung by PC and uncontrolled immigration. It is no wonder people want guns and ammo so much these days: they can feel, we can all feel, that the law and order structures are deteriorating all around us. The gun are a terrible double-edged sword, often used by superviolents to massacre, but if the police and the government are no longer willing to keep law and order, we do have to defend ourselves, or die. I suppose the concern about "evil" and the whole gun mess is a sign that government is failing to defend the citizens and we are no longer willing for government to have a monopoly on violence, because they won't use it to protect us.

 

[PaulS1950]

Circe, if you know old latin you could look up the passages in the Vulgate texts and see where the substitutions have been made but if you really want to understand the "Old Testament" you have to understand Ancient Hebrew. The Vulgate does not have a true translation of the "Old Testament".

 

[PMZ]

We are all free to live within the law without legal consequence. Even free to live outside the law if we're willing to accept the legal consequences. We are all subject to the natural consequences of our actions.

Why on earth, under those circumstances, is anyone surprised that we all behave in ways that some would see as "good" (consistent with the viewers self interest), and some would see as "evil" (contrary with the viewers self interest)?

 

[PratchettFan]

Government and religion are nothing more than structures created by people and populated by people. They have no existence beyond us. They are us. It wasn't the Catholic Church which lit the fires under people during the inquisition, it was people. It wasn't the Nazi party that pushed people into camps, it was people. If the people had refused to do the killing, the killing would not have been done.

Human beings are killers. It is in our nature. We do have the choice not to kill, it is simply that we seldom take that choice. It is easier for us to kill, rape and torture than it is for us to say no. Not what I would call something of which to be proud, but true nonetheless.

Government structures can control that killing urge for better or for worse. The more that primitive killing instincts are allowed to lash out against family and community, the poorer and more barbaric are the societies.

I suppose that the Opening Post question about evil increasing is based on the fact that in the United States we do seem to have deteriorating law and order structures. Britain, too. There was a day in Britain when murderers were tried immediately and executed directly by hanging if found guilty, and people who committed other crimes simply carried off on boats, either imprisoned in the Fleet or off-loaded in Georgia or Australia or the Gold Coast. This really minimized crime by minimizing criminals, and it worked. The crime rate was incredibly low. And there was much better structure to law and order here in America in the '50s, say, than there is now with the PC and the revolving door of overcrowded prisons and no deportations and no executions. When there is no particular penalty to people killing and maiming each other, of course there is much more of it, because that's what people do, unless forcibly stopped. Everyone would kill and injure if they could get away with it, especially males, and so the more it is allowed, the more of it happens.

The strong instinct to kill is useful for whole breeding groups when a society can organize that desire to kill other people into war bands, soldiers, but if they don't and the controls are poor, a lot of male violence just gets acted out on women and children in the homes of the males and on the same block and in the workplace and early as school bullying, and the society deteriorates and becomes poor and dangerous, like in Africa, or most major inner cities in Europe and America now.

I don't think it's "evil," I think it is direly deteriorated government control of violence, hamstrung by PC and uncontrolled immigration. It is no wonder people want guns and ammo so much these days: they can feel, we can all feel, that the law and order structures are deteriorating all around us. The gun are a terrible double-edged sword, often used by superviolents to massacre, but if the police and the government are no longer willing to keep law and order, we do have to defend ourselves, or die. I suppose the concern about "evil" and the whole gun mess is a sign that government is failing to defend the citizens and we are no longer willing for government to have a monopoly on violence, because they won't use it to protect us.

I don't think the crime rate was a matter of how crime was dealt with. I think it was a matter of population density.

The government has never been able to defend people. They are always after the fact. So I would disagree we are seeing a deterioration of government structure. Merely one which is in a state of flux, as any healthy system should be. If anything, we are in a period of unheard of personal liberty and security. There are terrible tragedies, but there have always been such things. It is just that now we hear about it immediately and follow it blow by blow. It seems worse than it is because the entire world is now right next door.

 

[tipofthespear]

I would take that a step further. It is used to establish that the stuff we cause is ok and the stuff they cause is not ok. During WWII, the cowardly nazis showed their true colors by butchering innocent civilians by bombing cities. Our brave airmen, risking their lives in a glorious effort, struck deep into enemy territory to take the war to the Germans. We were good, they were evil, we were doing exactly the same thing.

To deal with the questions posed in the OP, and to ignore the other sidebars.......

Evil is no more present today than it has been throughout recorded history in my opinion.

Yes, evils exists, evil separate from man exists. Now, those of you who are engulfed in the "carnality" of man, and are blinded to the "spirituality" of man cannot and will not understand this, however evil is real. Good is real.

Simple question: "Is wind more present in today's world? Does wind even exist?"

Wind is the movement of air. Certainly it exists. Evil, however, is just a convenient word. I doubt you can point to any particular act which could not be called evil and good, depending upon one's point of view.

Just as wind exists.....even though it cannot be seen, good and evil exist outside of the being of man.......with wind, we see the effects of wind.......just as with good and evil, we see the effects each of these have on mankind.............good and evil are only subject to a point of view if one believes that an evil person committing an evil act can be considered good by some, and throughout History mankind has recognized the difference between the two, and not accepted your idea that good can be evil or evil good.

Murder, for one, has no part of "good" within the act. Regardless of the individual's rationalization for committing such an act, it is recognized that murder is an evil act.

Adultery, for another, has no part of "good" within the act. Regardless of the two indvidual's rationalization for committing such an act, it is recognized that adultery is an evil act, and can not be justified by immoral rationalizations.

Theft, for another, has no part of "good" within the act. Regardless of the individual's rationalization for committing such an act, it is recognized that theft is an evil act.

There are many more.............

Charity, for one, is an act of kindness which expects no thanks, nor any return for what is given. Of all earthy things that are good, charity is the most good, for it is the most God-like. Charity, true charity is best explained as Agape Love...........

An individual who would sacrifice their life to save the life of another is good. Jesus Himself said "Greater love hath no man.............." There is no instance where this act of true love can be said to contain evil.

Now, given all this, evil people with evil hearts who have strayed so far down the path of evil away from the Goodness of God will disagree with me.......however, as they themselves are servants of evil, it is to be expected.

 

[PratchettFan]

To deal with the questions posed in the OP, and to ignore the other sidebars.......

Evil is no more present today than it has been throughout recorded history in my opinion.

Yes, evils exists, evil separate from man exists. Now, those of you who are engulfed in the "carnality" of man, and are blinded to the "spirituality" of man cannot and will not understand this, however evil is real. Good is real.

Simple question: "Is wind more present in today's world? Does wind even exist?"

Wind is the movement of air. Certainly it exists. Evil, however, is just a convenient word. I doubt you can point to any particular act which could not be called evil and good, depending upon one's point of view.

Just as wind exists.....even though it cannot be seen, good and evil exist outside of the being of man.......with wind, we see the effects of wind.......just as with good and evil, we see the effects each of these have on mankind.............good and evil are only subject to a point of view if one believes that an evil person committing an evil act can be considered good by some, and throughout History mankind has recognized the difference between the two, and not accepted your idea that good can be evil or evil good.

Murder, for one, has no part of "good" within the act. Regardless of the individual's rationalization for committing such an act, it is recognized that murder is an evil act.

Adultery, for another, has no part of "good" within the act. Regardless of the two indvidual's rationalization for committing such an act, it is recognized that adultery is an evil act, and can not be justified by immoral rationalizations.

Theft, for another, has no part of "good" within the act. Regardless of the individual's rationalization for committing such an act, it is recognized that theft is an evil act.

There are many more.............

Charity, for one, is an act of kindness which expects no thanks, nor any return for what is given. Of all earthy things that are good, charity is the most good, for it is the most God-like. Charity, true charity is best explained as Agape Love...........

An individual who would sacrifice their life to save the life of another is good. Jesus Himself said "Greater love hath no man.............." There is no instance where this act of true love can be said to contain evil.

Now, given all this, evil people with evil hearts who have strayed so far down the path of evil away from the Goodness of God will disagree with me.......however, as they themselves are servants of evil, it is to be expected.

Murder is a legal term, which simply means to kill someone illegally. If I kill someone legally, then it is not murder. A man with a high powered rifle sitting on top of a building shooting someone may be commiting murder or may not be, depending upon the circumstances. But those circumstances are entirely subjective.

I think you really came the closest to an accurate description of evil at the end of the post. Evil is disagreeing with you. That is as universal a definition of evil I have seen to date.

 

[Circe]

I think you really came the closest to an accurate description of evil at the end of the post. Evil is disagreeing with you. That is as universal a definition of evil I have seen to date.

[

Well, almost.

I think it's okay to disagree with Tip.......

Disagreeing with me, though, is definitely evil.

 

[PaulS1950]

If you gave your life to save a man who was trying to commit suicide rather than go through the hell of advanced Parkinsins desease your wife and children might not think it was "good" and the man you "saved" might not think it was good either. You might think it was a good idea - a selfless act but it would be selfish to force the man to suffer and it would be selfish to make your wife and children to suffer as well.
Stealing a loaf of bread to feed hungry children is not an evil act.
If you have a wife who is an addict and there is no love in your relationship but you can't get a divorce for whatever reason might make a loving relationship - adulterous though it may be - with another woman good for you and the woman. Your wife wouldn't know or care as long as she got her next fix.

If good and evil exist outside the mind of mankind then why don't we see good and evil in nature?

The warning at the end of your post is classic - I may have just condemned myself in your eyes as a Godless worshipper of the devil with no hope of making it into heaven but I say to you that if you judge others by your own understanding without the compassion of God, you condemn yourself to the same fate as you judge others to be worthy of. I think that God is the only one who can do His work. You and I are not big enough to do it for Him.

 

[PratchettFan]

I think you really came the closest to an accurate description of evil at the end of the post. Evil is disagreeing with you. That is as universal a definition of evil I have seen to date.

[

Well, almost.

I think it's okay to disagree with Tip.......

Disagreeing with me, though, is definitely evil.

I stand corrected. I knew it was evil to disagree with someone.

 

[itfitzme]

Evil has been studied scientifically. *The two landmark studies are the Milgram Experiment and the Stanford Prison Experiment. Both, due to their nature, have not been performed in the same way since the original studies. *The experiments were so dramatic as to be psychologically traumatic to the subjects and do not meet ethical standards today.

The Milgram Experiment was devised by Stanley Milgram, a psychologist at Yale University in 1961. *A description of the Milgram Experiment can be found at*
Milgram experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Stanford Prison Experiment was devised by Stanford psychologist Phillip Zimbardo in 1971. A description may be found here
Stanford prison experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Interestingly,*Zimbardo and Milgram were high school classmates, growing up in New York City *Zimbardo graduated from Yale, eventually teaching at Stanford. *Milgram graduated from Harvard, eventually teaching at Yale.

Zimbardo spent much of his career studying evil. He has since*changed his focus to studying amd teaching heroism. *He*founded the Heroic Imagination Project

Phil Zimbardo, Ph.D. | Heroic Imagination Project

I had the opportunity to meet Zimbardo, in 2010, when he was lecturing on the Lucifer Effect, Abu Ghraib, and his newest work on heroism.

What I found quite interesting was his more detailed accounting of the effect that his Stanford Prison Experiment had on himself as an objective observer. *

The experiment was set up to mimic a prison, with guards and prisoners. *Other than the subject being assigned the roles of prisoners and guards, and provided with the suitable uniforms for their roles, no detailed instructions were provided. *Zimbardo, being the observer, also presented his role as the prison warden. *

As the experiment played out, the "guards" became increasingly more authoritarian and sadistic on their treatment of the prisoners.*

Now, Zimbardo was dating another psychologist, Christina Maslach, who met him at the prison and observed the experiment. *This was on the fifth day. *She was appalled by the experiment, the behavior of the guards, and the treatment of the prisoners. *She told Zimbardo that if he didn't end the experiment then he was not the man she thought he was and would nomlomger date him.*

By the time the experiment dragged out into it's sixth day, the prisoners had begun to plan an escape. The guards, having gotten wind of it, prepared themselves for the prison break and informed the "warden". *Zimbardo, himself began preperations for the upcoming escape. *In a monent of claritymand objectivity, he remembered that it was an experiment and he wasn't really the warden.

On the seventh day, a week before it was planned to end, he pulled the plug on the experiment.

"Evil is a slippery slope", Zimbardo explained, "Each day is a platform for the abuses of the next day. Each day in only slightly use to the next day."

Maverick academic Philip Zimbardo says we are all capable of evil. Is he right? - Profiles - People - The Independent

 

[sparky]

Well i don't feel evil....~S~

 

[PaulS1950]

The reality is that neither of those experiments tested the existance of evil. Zimbardo tested the reaction of people to authority - absolute authority without governing rules.
Milgram tested the willingness of a person to circumvent their own moral code to do something they felt was not within their personal moral code.
Both studies showed that those with absolute authority abused that authority - simply because they had no guidelines to follow. In the real world (in the USA) no one has absolute control or authority over another. Even in the prison system there are checks and balances on the amount of control a guard can exert over an inmate.
Domination and the tendancy to increase that domination to the furthest extent is an animal instinct - not "evil".

 

[itfitzme]

The reality is that neither of those experiments tested the existance of evil. Zimbardo tested the reaction of people to authority - absolute authority without governing rules.*
Milgram tested the willingness of a person to circumvent their own moral code to do something they felt was not within their personal moral code.
Both studies showed that those with absolute authority abused that authority - simply because they had no guidelines to follow. In the real world (in the USA) no one has absolute control or authority over another. Even in the prison system there are checks and balances on the amount of control a guard can exert over an inmate.
Domination and the tendancy to increase that domination to the furthest extent is an animal instinct - not "evil".

So that's not YOUR definition of evil?

So in your opinion is that Milgam's and Zimbardo's opnion is wrong? *Your "objective" opinion vs ...

Let's see, two PhD psychologists studying human behavior their entire lives on one hand... on the other hand... which one has the most experience at identifying what reality is? *Hmm....

So if society can be organized to lessen the occurance of evil behavior, there is no evil?

If it is identifiable as instinctual behaviors, it is not evil?

**Instinct and evil are mutually exclusive categories?

Abi Ghrab had checks and balances to curb that behavior? *Nazi Germany?

We've got a good poll going anyways

 

[tipofthespear]

Wind is the movement of air. Certainly it exists. Evil, however, is just a convenient word. I doubt you can point to any particular act which could not be called evil and good, depending upon one's point of view.

Just as wind exists.....even though it cannot be seen, good and evil exist outside of the being of man.......with wind, we see the effects of wind.......just as with good and evil, we see the effects each of these have on mankind.............good and evil are only subject to a point of view if one believes that an evil person committing an evil act can be considered good by some, and throughout History mankind has recognized the difference between the two, and not accepted your idea that good can be evil or evil good.

Murder, for one, has no part of "good" within the act. Regardless of the individual's rationalization for committing such an act, it is recognized that murder is an evil act.

Adultery, for another, has no part of "good" within the act. Regardless of the two indvidual's rationalization for committing such an act, it is recognized that adultery is an evil act, and can not be justified by immoral rationalizations.

Theft, for another, has no part of "good" within the act. Regardless of the individual's rationalization for committing such an act, it is recognized that theft is an evil act.

There are many more.............

Charity, for one, is an act of kindness which expects no thanks, nor any return for what is given. Of all earthy things that are good, charity is the most good, for it is the most God-like. Charity, true charity is best explained as Agape Love...........

An individual who would sacrifice their life to save the life of another is good. Jesus Himself said "Greater love hath no man.............." There is no instance where this act of true love can be said to contain evil.

Now, given all this, evil people with evil hearts who have strayed so far down the path of evil away from the Goodness of God will disagree with me.......however, as they themselves are servants of evil, it is to be expected.

Murder is a legal term, which simply means to kill someone illegally. If I kill someone legally, then it is not murder. A man with a high powered rifle sitting on top of a building shooting someone may be commiting murder or may not be, depending upon the circumstances. But those circumstances are entirely subjective.

I think you really came the closest to an accurate description of evil at the end of the post. Evil is disagreeing with you. That is as universal a definition of evil I have seen to date.

That last part is actually funny............seriously......I did smile reading it. Now as for the first part of your comment, you did not discount the fact that I laid out various things/situations that were inherently good or evil, which you said I could not do.

So you dodge the fact that I DID [ doubt you can point to any particular act which could not be called evil and good, ] point to particular acts which COULD BE called GOOD, and acts which COULD BE called EVIL..........without regard for one's opinion.

Thanks for the humor though...........

 

[PaulS1950]

Itfitzme,
Instincts are not evil. If they were then predatory animals would be considered evil - they are not.
Predatory humans are considered evil. So predation is not evil in animals but it is in humans.
Evil has to be a human construct.

 

[PratchettFan]

Just as wind exists.....even though it cannot be seen, good and evil exist outside of the being of man.......with wind, we see the effects of wind.......just as with good and evil, we see the effects each of these have on mankind.............good and evil are only subject to a point of view if one believes that an evil person committing an evil act can be considered good by some, and throughout History mankind has recognized the difference between the two, and not accepted your idea that good can be evil or evil good.

Murder, for one, has no part of "good" within the act. Regardless of the individual's rationalization for committing such an act, it is recognized that murder is an evil act.

Adultery, for another, has no part of "good" within the act. Regardless of the two indvidual's rationalization for committing such an act, it is recognized that adultery is an evil act, and can not be justified by immoral rationalizations.

Theft, for another, has no part of "good" within the act. Regardless of the individual's rationalization for committing such an act, it is recognized that theft is an evil act.

There are many more.............

Charity, for one, is an act of kindness which expects no thanks, nor any return for what is given. Of all earthy things that are good, charity is the most good, for it is the most God-like. Charity, true charity is best explained as Agape Love...........

An individual who would sacrifice their life to save the life of another is good. Jesus Himself said "Greater love hath no man.............." There is no instance where this act of true love can be said to contain evil.

Now, given all this, evil people with evil hearts who have strayed so far down the path of evil away from the Goodness of God will disagree with me.......however, as they themselves are servants of evil, it is to be expected.

Murder is a legal term, which simply means to kill someone illegally. If I kill someone legally, then it is not murder. A man with a high powered rifle sitting on top of a building shooting someone may be commiting murder or may not be, depending upon the circumstances. But those circumstances are entirely subjective.

I think you really came the closest to an accurate description of evil at the end of the post. Evil is disagreeing with you. That is as universal a definition of evil I have seen to date.

That last part is actually funny............seriously......I did smile reading it. Now as for the first part of your comment, you did not discount the fact that I laid out various things/situations that were inherently good or evil, which you said I could not do.

So you dodge the fact that I DID [ doubt you can point to any particular act which could not be called evil and good, ] point to particular acts which COULD BE called GOOD, and acts which COULD BE called EVIL..........without regard for one's opinion.

Thanks for the humor though...........

I wasn't trying to be funny. I was using the universal "you" rather than the specific. IOW, evil is always what the other guy is doing that I don't like. It is never what I am doing. Using the universal "I", just to be clear.

As to your examples, you are wrong. Neither of those examples were absolute, as I pointed out to you. They were all dependent upon the circumstances and the perceptions of others. So while you may well think you did it, you did not. Give me one specific act (such as killing children) that is evil and I will give you a circumstance in which it is not.

 

[itfitzme]

Itfitzme,
Instincts are not evil. If they were then predatory animals would be considered evil - they are not.
Predatory humans are considered evil. So predation is not evil in animals but it is in humans.
Evil has to be a human construct.

Says who? Evil actions and outcomes are not dependent on why they occur. It doesn't matter if it is due to some instinctual or whatever.

The question isn't if instincts are inherently or intrinsically evil.

People have instincts. Maybe that is what you were talking about, animals, not people.

Just because you have some personal motivation isn't what constitutes not evil. Evil is as evil does, not as it is motivated.

Why were we talking about non-human animals?