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

I suppose I think it is better to call it 'killed'. The group would decide its own morals. And it seemed they decided he was a bad chimp. Harsh democracy in action, potentially.

Even if it's lovable to humanize animals (notice the avatars of Coben and mine!) and it is also honest to admit that we are animals too, yet animal "society" isn't like human society. Societies have norms, like killing other humans is murder. As the definition of murder goes, murder is an unlawful killing of another person, just as Hanover remarked already.

Ill take a crack at devils advocate here...

So the monkeys do have a social structure, they do have rules they live by similar to the laws humans live by. The alpha chimp is the king, he gets his choice of females, the other males are beta and subservient and thats the way their primitive society works. Ganging up and killing the alpha chimp is going against the order they implicitly agreed to live by. This qualifies as murder, as murder has been defined here.
So yes, it was murder.

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

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.

murder is a human title. And leaders can go too far.

Is it murder? Why don't you bother to tell us what you mean by "murder." Wrestle with that for even a moment or two and I think your question will dissolve in the effort of actually making clear what you - the OPer - mean.

True, murder is a human title but we have a working definition in the thread and I think according to that the chimps committed murder.
And yes, leaders can go to far...and then they might get murdered.

True, murder is a human title but we have a working definition in the thread — DingoJones

So the monkeys do have a social structure.... Ganging up and killing the alpha chimp is going against the order they implicitly agreed to live by. This qualifies as murder, as murder has been defined here. — DingoJones

The issue I have here is with the definition. I'm unaware of any "implicit agreement" between chimps. That's inferred by you. And that opens the question of murder in whose eyes? Now, if you define it that way, then end of discussion, but the question arises as to what is gained by the definition? Do we indict, arrest, prosecute, and on conviction punish the chimps? In such proceedings there's the legal standard of mens rea. How do you prove that in a chimp?

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.

So asking for the opinions seemed like a good idea. — Brett

Well, murder is criteriological. First, the standard.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

I think I agree.

Do you really need to have a definition for murder? — Brett

Yes, if I'm to understand what you're talking about. But you seem to think it's ridiculously simple and easy. Ok, shouldn't take you more than a few words and moments to put the together: what do you mean by "murder." Btw, I reckon animals can do things that look murderous, but pretty clearly that's in the eye of the beholder. How does your "eye" become an indictment of chimpanzee behaviour? Or how do you make chimpanzee behaviour human?

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.

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.

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?

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

I’m trying to find commonalities in primates. — Brett

What does that even mean? If I pick up a fork and a chimp picks up a fork, what's the commonality? That we both picked up a fork? You're ankle deep in nonsense and headed deeper. Can you establish some solid ground here?

No. I can’t be bothered.

Sorry if I offended you by asking you to think or be thoughtful. Just for the record: If I pick up a fork, saying that I picked up a fork is defensibly accurate. Saying that a chimpanzee did is not. After all, we're pretty sure that a chimpanzee does not have the concept "fork." And what in me might be called "picking up" may not be for a chimpanzee "picking up" at all. But you cannot be bothered.

As to murder, in the US murder is a crime defined by each state severally. There is no federal crime of murder in the US. No doubt the state laws have much in common, and no doubt much variation. And of course there's murder in the 1st, 2d, 3rd degrees, and aggravated murder, and murder in the commission of a felony, and on and on. Unlawful taking of life? Sure. But where, when, according to whom and what law and in what country.

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!

What on earth is wrong with you?

What on earth is wrong with you? — Brett

At the moment, you are. But my tea is heating and in another few moments i won't give you another thought, except to remind myself that when you're up, it's a T-ball game.

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.

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.