When u saw a eagle fly towards a rabbit and eat it.Who is evil or who is good

When u saw a thief still the money of a person and was caught by a police.Who is evil who who is good


There maybe no answer for both Do u believe me

I belive you, you ask me there is no good or evil! It's just made up. Something kills something else, it doesnt mean it's good and it doesnt mean it's evil, it just did it because it felt like it

In your first example there is no evil or good. Merely the need to eat and survive. Animals don't bring morality into it. They just fulfill their role in the natural order..
In your second question, it would depend on who stole from who and for what reason. The police just do what they're paid to do upholding laws that a society deems necessary to continue. More of a neutral there to. Unless we're dealing with rogue cops. It would take a far more explicit example than that to really get into it..But everything has an answer in some form.

You can only explain this properly if you think humans have something that seperates us from the animals, whatever it may be.

What Freud says, is that humans have three parts of their minds:

Ego, super ego, and ID.

They translate into:

What a person can do.

What a person wants to do.

And what a person should do.


Animals do not have the should do. They see food, they think whether or not they want it, and then they think whether or not they can get it. If they want it, and can get it, they do. Every time.

Acceptions can be made for non-wild animals of whom humans have trained. Humans can "rub off" their morals onto trainable animals, such as teaching a dog to stay, even though you have put a steak in front of him. He doesn't know why he has been told he can't have it, but he recognizes his human athority and respects it to an extent. However, take the same dog, starve him for a month, and he will not respond to your commands regarding the steak.

Is it therefore evil to eats animals, as they eat each other? No, general society says it is fine. But is it evil to eat other humans? Yes,general society says it is. This is because humans are moral creatures. They are special. Different from animals.


Apes have a much higher social order. If on monkey starts beating on another, more often than not the dominent male will step in and intervene. The Alpha male is the one who sets the rules for conduct. When he dies, the rules change.

With humans, however, we do not always abide by the dominent human speciman's rules. We define morals for ourselves it seems. No monkey has ever been seen defecting from a troup because he disagrees with the dominent male's descisions. They are however observed being exiled by the alpha male.

Though this behavior may resemble the "should do", it only reflects the most powerful secimen's "should do"

In our society, we do not adhere to our leaders "should do". Hell, just look at the last election. People hated bush, because they didn't believe in the same "should do" that he did. And that's their choice, and their following. People who voted for bush, and people who voted for Kerry, essentially have different morals. Who is right and who is wrong could be argued for the majority, but I don't believe that either.

I believe the correct morals are the ones that allow for the best life. Best, meaning the most fufilling, least greedy, most giving, least demanding, most rewarding, most substaining, least infringing, most stable, most respectable, and the list goes on.

I believe, that is someone were to have a "perfect sense of morals", they would in effect be a perfect person. Doing to wrong. Saying no wrong. They would be an example to everyone on the ideal way to live.

Good and Evil, like sin, are purly human concepts.

A curious comment, because the only people who believe in sin also believe that the concept comes from God. (Sin, being anything that goes against the will of God)

In a way, there is no good or evil unless you believe in god. But if you don't, then it's just how you perceive it. By both standpoints, something could be good or evil. But if you are a christian, things done in one spectrum are considered evil while things done in another are considered good.
What I'm getting at is that it mainly depends on your faith/religion/morals to whether an act by someone or something is considered good or evil.

Exactly. And god/s are concepts of humans. It's thier beiliefs in them that makes them hold any sway.

It comes down to human faith and thier own concepts. To absolutely belive, is to have absolute will.

Exactly. And god/s are concepts of humans. It's thier beiliefs in them that makes them hold any sway.

Yes, "gods". All humans have a concept of a controlling force bigger than them. There are many spiritual beings which can be classifieda god, or proclaim themselves as a god. But there is only one who is bigger than all, and the source of all others. There is only one who's teachings are truth.
The original God had belief in him infused into man because man walked with him, next to him. All humans have skewed concepts of what or who God is, but this does not prevent us from seeking and finding the God above all others. Some humans worship fallen gods (fallen angels) Some humans worship other humans.

Why not worship that which is above all else?

This comes down to whether or not the truth is subjective or objective.

Consider this: There has never been any culture in which eating one's own feces is acceptable. I'm sorry for the disgusting fact, but this proves that there must be some underlying rules in all human beings.

Any resonable human is above killing his neighbor needlessly.
The only way a human can kill for legitimate reason is for defense of himself, or his family. And this defense only will come about if another human being initiates action warrenting such a defense. One of the greatest things you can do in life is die so someone else can live. One of the most evil things you can do in life is die so someone else will die.

War between countries is a little bit different, because the people who control the armies do not do the fighting. Joining the army means you will follow it's orders withouty question. In the battle field you follow your orders to stay alive. Or, you DON't follow orders to stay alive. When man is stripped of his humanity, there is no good or evil, there is only survival. Just like the animals have. And this means killing as many people as you can who want to kill you, and saving as many people as you can who want to help you.

Regardless of belief in religion, or god, or nothing, everyone can agree that holding your life above the life of another person is wrong. That we all have equal rights and needs. This a concept of good and evil that doesn't even nesessarly need a God to infuse it into humanity.

Therefore:

Selfishness = Evil

Selflessness = Good

(example of this: the third world has always existed for the comfort of the first)

(Slefishness being different from self-need or survival. wanting more than what you need, or having incorrect perceptions of what you need is selfish. Taking only what you need and leaving the rest for others needs is selfless.)


Refer to Zudo's posts on a different forum for more information on what morals are, and where they come from. he made some fascinating comments about robotic ants and whether or not they have, or could develop a sense of morality.

No see.. when I did "god/s" It's ment to be god "slash" gods I'm sticking ALL gods in this. Judeo/(slash)Christian god inclueded.

Why don't I worship him? I'm not a sheep, never will be a sheep, and I don't care for the whole concept of that religion, That and he's just as much of a concept then say Zues, or Ra, or any other major head god in a panthion...

The concept of good and evil are indeed, human related, but that does not mean that they are human "invention", thus lacking reality foundation. What makes humans differ from animals in this concept, is the presence of conscious. From conscious is where evil and good begins. Pure and simple, if you do something and afterwards you feel that you shouldn't, then it's bad.
There are animals that actually kill for fun. Sharks and chimps, to name two. But surely they don't feel any remorse for it, because they can't think "Wow, I just killed my buddy, I shouldn't have done this.."

Sharks hardly kill for fun... it's a frenzy... one of those once they get into it, it's really hard for them to stop. Nothing "fun" about it... it's instinctal.

As for chimps... they do what they observe from what they see us do. Kinda nice huh? We're teaching our closes kin how to be murdurers and rapists ;P

No, that's not accurate. Chimps living in the jungle, away from human contact (and especially for the chance of seeing humans killing each other) have instincts and habbits of their own. About 50% of male chimps are killed by other male chimps in a given territory of their habitat.

That's COMPLETELY different. once again, that's not killing for fun. That's a natural trait that's shared by a good number of pack and social animals.

In animal kingdom, killing is not for fun when
1) is for survival (e.g. predator killing in order to eat)
2) happens rather inadvertently during fights/ territorial disputes.

In chimps' "communities", killing is for fun, since it falls in none of the above mentioned categories. Male chimps (the stronger ones) do hunt down, rape in many occasions, and then kill the weakest ones.

Those that are raped, are usually in tribes that have seen that from humans.

Other then that, the alpha killing the weaker ones is still a trait in many pack and social animals. It's Not "fun" it's instinct and survival to them. If they weed out the weaker once, then there's a boost in the group's survival rate.. and insurance that the strongest genes are passed on. Those who are raped and not exposed to humans, it's still just a kick in of aggression. Not fun. It's to show thier place in the group, a sign of superiority over the weaker.

Chimps very rarely kill members of their own group...this information is tripe. Even two rival males directly competing against each other very rarely actually attack each other...they just make a lot of noice, and run about.

While it's true that dominant chimps will beat the living crap out of chimps ranked lower in the social order of their group, very rarely do they actually kill each other (they might kill a member of another group who wanders into their territory...but that's competition/survival, not "fun")

Jane Goodall was watching chimps for ten years...not once did she see one chimp kill another. Nor, for that matter, did she ever see a chimp rape another (in fact, she draws very specific attention to this point in her book). Chimps might get frustrated if a female didn't respond, they might kick howl and scream, and throw stuff around...but they never physically forced a female into compliance.

Where does this "rape" garbage come from? I'd be interesting in seeing what source is claiming it to have occured...

Well, the animal kingdom is not supposed to have morals, they just live on instict for survival. They are not held responsible for any morals, there is no morality among animals, things just are, which is why some eat thier young, it's why animals will mate with whatever female is nearby even their own sister, animals are lower than humans. Humans are the ones who are supposed to have morals because we are of a higher level than an animal. We are supposed to be anyway! LOL!

Why don't animals read and write and get educated?

Ditto!

Hmmm... I think there are universal concepts of good and evil outside of religion, I mean most people will agree that murder is wrong, killing babies is wrong, molesting little children is wrong, I mean is there any circumstance when molesting children is okay?? LOL! Starving someone inside your own home when you have food to feed them I would think is wrong to anyone no matter who you are or what your beliefs are. Some things are just wrong period in all circumstances.

Very good post! I totally agree!

How can animals commit rape when they mate by instinct and mating season and the femal just goes along with it, they just do what comes natural. I never saw a dog ask another female dog for sex or whatever, he just goes behind her and starts at it. I don't think animals are capable of rape because it's not like they go on dates and court the female before going at it. LOL!

Guy brought up the rape thing. As something Chimps do for "fun" My reasoning was that chimps often copy what they see humans do. So if there are any of these chimp rapes that this guy says there are... it's more then likely what they saw humans do. If it's done in a group that has not seen a human tribe... then either they picked it up from chimps that have, or it's used as a dominant reinforcment.

Personaly, I think chimps raping eachother is bupkiss.

I have heard of orangutan mating to be so violent that, for all intents, it is refered to as rape, but then orangutans so rarely come across each other in the wild that, out of sheer necessity for survival, any chance to mate has to be taken, so I do not think that, in this case, rape as a moral event can be claimed; rather, it is a primitive instinctual practice. I haven't heard of chimps raping others, and I do not believe that they do (even though I have to say that the idea of chimps learning to rape from watching humans is ludicrous, to say the least).

That being said, I have personally seen accounts where animals acted in unnecesarily cruel and violent fashion. In Africa, a giant cat broke into three henhouses at a local village and slaughtered the entire stock. Not a single chicken was missing; they had simply all been torn apart. Perhaps if this had happened in a single henhouse, I could have written it off as a feeding frenzy, but not when it involved going to three seperate locations and not a single bird being eaten. Elsewhere in the world, I have heard accounts and seen videos of killer whales flipping living seals on their tails; literally hurling them through the air fifty feet or more, then dashing over and once again slapping them into flight. It is, for all intents and purposes, a game to them. They sometimes don't even bother to eat the broken animal. Heck, even at home I've seen cats toy with mice. They aren't acting out some primitive hunting instinct; they are playing around with them as they do with their little catnip balls.

All animals, including humans, do things that are unnecessarily cruel. If we are judging good and even by that standards, then it is pretty clear-cut that it does indeed exist.

Incidentally, the concept of murder relies heavily on the culture. What one society refers to as murder, another refers to as self-defence. Trying to judge good and evil by social standards is almost impossible. Even childhood is a relatively new concept to society. Back in the days, twelve year olds would regularly be married off to older men, for whatever reasons (not the least of which was the average 30 year lifespan). And yes, societies did exist, and some still do, that judge certain children not to be worthy of raising, and thus remove them from the equation.

I recommend, in the search for good and evil, to stick to the absolutes that can be observed from all animals in general, not from specific societies, particularly human ones. Trying to judge good and evil from the way a culture acts leads to hijacking airplanes and flying them into buildings.