I know (a little) because I've been in the military, and if anyone in it wants to go to war for any... reason, then that's a sign of the derangement of the mind or some sort of illness. — Wallows

What can I say? I guess I was lied to. But that’s not my impression, nor is it from the reading I've done.

It's the job of the military to not engage in conflict, but, to be so battle-ready that any adversary would think twice before bombing one of your home cities. — Wallows

When was the last time you saw that happen? If that was the theory then Britain would have waited battle ready for Hitler’s invasion?

Officers are trained to prevent and limit the liability of warfare to themselves (a nation) and there subordinates, as are or moreso, generals. — Wallows

How do you know that? I think they’re trained to win.

Sorry brett, but, not much of it makes sense insofar as to say that a police officer is there to shoot and kill bad civilians. — Wallows

That’s not the same at all.

Are we talking about artist statements as they actually function, — csalisbury

I don’t think it has a function for the viewer. It doesn’t help except add another patina to the intellectual or concept level. I do think it’s a curator/ gallery thing. How to write an artists statement is part of the visual arts units at uni. I don’t think things would be any worse or confusing without them. It’s almost like the artists/curators/gallery owners/critics are talking to each other, which is fine I guess, if that’s how they want it, to exist on another level besides the art itself and the audience.

We don’t really know why humans murder. If we don’t know that, or can’t reach agreement, then I can’t see why we can say other primates don’t murder.

The few soldiers I’ve spoken to, and these are special forces, want to go to a war. That’s what they trained for, not sitting around doing exercises. They want to know how they’ll do. Officers want to move up the ranks, make their mark and prove themselves. They want to be the ones to make the big move in Afghanistan, change the paradigm.

So these people are always there. They want leaders to engage in a war. They’re warriors. We are not. I’m guessing by the time they reach the level of advising the President or Prime Minister they’re going to be pushing for the opportunity.

This doesn’t have to make sense.

Yes of course. But that’s not really my point. What I mean is that acts of evil are not necessarily caused by outside influence , or culture. Otherwise all those that were abused would commit acts of evil. I can’t prove that without data of course, or without knowledge of the degree of abuse. I don’t know if anyone can prove that. My feeling is, still, that humans have the potential for evil, it doesn’t need to be introduced to them from outside.

Edit: for me you would need to find evidence that all people who murder have been damaged in some way.

In some individuals the prefrontal cortex doesn’t override the impulsions of the limbic system no matter how much they try. Their emotions are in effect uncontrollable. — Noah Te Stroete

Well I think that contributes towards my feelings about natural tendencies. And it’s the damage done to people by childhood abuse that makes it difficult to control those existing tendencies. And it’s clear to most that our fight to preserve our life is not taught but instinctive. So these tendencies are inherent in us.

Of course not all people who have been through such childhood experiences are unable to manage their impulses, or they at least manage it to the degree it’s not destructive.

That’s interesting. I guess we can acquiesce to what happens or try to have an effect.

I guessing that half the wars have been about defence.

The amount of energy spent in the way of living our mundane lives is absurd. — Nils Loc

Very interesting point. Looking back on things I’m shocked with what it’s taken to get where I am.

What is the process by which one overrides our tendencies? How do you which are your tendencies? — TheMadFool

Free will. We don’t have to be angry. We can chose to manage it, or not. We can take something lying around that’s not ours or we can leave it. We can lie or chose not to. We can chose to fight or not to. The tendencies, like I said, swing between good and the absence of good, which is evil. Your problem, it seems to me, with this is that the three cannot exist in one person: evil, good and free will.

That’s where we’ll never agree.
— Brett

You don't think chimpanzees have a culture? — Isaac

Maybe you’re being amusing. But in any case I mean we’ll never agree over the whole nature/nurture thing.

But all creatures like us are embedded in a culture, so how would you know that angry behaviour isn't also the product of culture, learned during childhood? — Isaac

That’s where we’ll never agree.

:up:

I think that’s just relativist thinking, it doesn’t help me at all.

I don’t think we select behaviour. It rises up according to conditions. I think we chose when and how to let it assert itself through our free will. We can be good or bad.

Social civility (I don’t know how that got in there) is a set of cultural actions; chimpanzee or human. Those are actions of free will, maybe imbedded in culture over time but not inherent in us, they’re learned. You can break those civilities any time you want.

Let’s say that evil is the absence of good. Those are the two primary tendencies we swing between. These are inherent in us, not culturally acquired.

Straighten us out then.

Why would we call something which we exhibit least often a natural tendency? — Isaac

What else could it be? Unless you want to say it’s cultural. Hence my reference to primates that also behave this way. It wasn’t our culture that influenced their actions of aggression.

You can’t just cherry pick human tendencies.

I'm not sure I understand the point you're making there though. — Isaac

So if evil is in our nature and we have "tendencies" then doesn't that mean, since "tendencies" sounds like we have no or little control in the matter, we lack free will? — TheMadFool

I was making the point that just because we have “tendencies” doesn’t mean we are owned by them or that we lack free will.

No. We get angry at particular things. It’s a response.

Are you saying most people are angry most of the time? That seems a stretch. Most people I meet aren't angry most of the time. — Isaac

Why would you think that? I’m talking about a tendency and obviously of varying degrees.

And it was in relation to free will.

So if evil is in our nature and we have "tendencies" then doesn't that mean, since "tendencies" sounds like we have no or little control in the matter, we lack free will? — TheMadFool

I don’t think it means that. We have the tendency to be angry but we can chose to override it.

The issue is whether the killing was within their moral norms,(and not ours). — Coben

From what I’ve read actions like this are not within their norms. There has even been the theory that it’s the imposition of humans on their environment and consequently behaviour that has caused this behaviour. That now seems to be in doubt, but not, I imagine, total. So I don’t believe it is within their normal behaviour. By that I mean the destruction of the tyrant chimp by such vicious aggression is not the same as displays of aggression or some physical contact to drive off opponents.

So this action is extreme and unusual, but still something they were capable of. It’s not as if they were taught how to kill on these grounds, anymore than we were, which is my point. Where did they get the idea of going from displays of aggression to brutal killing like this? It’s something they may have always done but we never knew it. But they obviously can do it.

International Journal of Primatology
April 1992, Volume 13, Issue 2, pp 209–212 | Cite as
Understanding behavior. What primate studies tell us about human behavior
Edited by James D. Loy and Calvin B. Peters. Oxford University Press, New York and Oxford, 1991,ix+264 pp., $49.95 (hardcover)

This is not such a big stretch.

That one cannot get one's work taken seriously by the gatekeepers of the establishment unless one has a good line of bullshit. And this is the problem, not what the artist says but that they cannot make art that will be exhibited without saying something 'conceptual'. — unenlightened

Oh no! You mean the artists are being forced to write statements?

Perfect.

But of all of this you had not an inkling, not a thought: it never occurred to you. So you cannot be bothered. Don't waste our time! — tim wood

Sorry, I meant I can’t be bothered with you. You’re like a mosquito, you spend your whole life looking for ankles to bite.

What on earth is wrong with you?

No. I can’t be bothered.

Considering some of the OPs moved to the lounge I don’t understand why this is still here.

Edit: but I think I understand. If it’s not seen here others will start a new one. Still what’s the point?

Actually, just looking at that photo makes me think of murder. I don’t need any intellectual definition.

As the definition of murder goes, murder is an unlawful killing of another person, just as Hanover remarked already. — ssu

Laws against killing were introduced after, or as a result of, the killings. They were a response. So in some ways the law doesn’t really define murder that well. How would it be defined without the help of the law?

Murder is defined as "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another." — Hanover

Do you think there might have been premeditated feeling of hatred in those chimps that attacked the tyrant chimp? Hatred is a lot different than acts of aggression to defining territory or other ideas of ownership. Hatred isn’t necessary to kill for food. I can’t claim they were full of hatred but something led to this collective action.

Do you really need to have a definition for murder?
— Brett
Yes, if I'm to understand what you're talking about. — tim wood

You know what murder is.

But you seem to think it's ridiculously simple and easy — tim wood

No I don’t think that at all.
I don’t think chimpanzee behaviour is human. I’m trying to find commonalities in primates.

Well, murder is criteriological. First, the standard. — tim wood

Do you really need to have a definition for murder? Is it such an unusual thing for you to think about?

Now, if you define it that way, then end of discussion, but the question arises as to what is gained by the definition? — tim wood

This OP is related to the OP about free will and evil, whether humans have evil tendencies. If chimps commit evil acts, a tough call I admit, then it suggests evil is inherent in humans as well and not introduced by ignorance or culture.

Tyrant is a human title, something we have in our societies. The alpha male of chimps IS a tyrant. Thats how their society works. Since they acted outside that rule and killed him, it constitutes murder. Its as close to unlawful as the chimps have. — DingoJones

It amounts to a revolutionary act that does go against their social structure. Right or wrong they decided to get rid of him. Though it’s hard to know if they decided on this. Maybe it just got out of hand. Then it might be regarded as manslaughter.

But he was a tyrant according to the title. He was not considered fit. Basically a criminal leader. — Coben

Even if the act is directed at a tyrant it’s still murder, isn’t it? It might be justified but it’s still murder.

I don’t think “killed” works. Animals kill for food, so do we. The tyrant chimp was killed to remove his presence. His life was taken to rid the world of him because of what/who he was.

Why don't you bother to tell us what you mean by "murder. — tim wood

I put this up because I had raised it on another OP and deciding if it was murder seemed to me to require its own OP. Why didn’t I tell you what I mean by murder? because in these circumstances with the chimps I wasn’t absolutely sure. So asking for the opinions seemed like a good idea.