Murder is defined as "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another."
Deleted UserFebruary 08, 2020 at 13:02#3801820 likes
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.
DingoJonesFebruary 08, 2020 at 16:30#3802150 likes
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.
Deleted UserFebruary 08, 2020 at 17:52#3802350 likes
Reply to DingoJones But he was a tyrant according to the title. He was not considered fit. Basically a criminal leader.
DingoJonesFebruary 08, 2020 at 18:12#3802430 likes
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.
Deleted UserFebruary 08, 2020 at 18:28#3802470 likes
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.
Deleted UserFebruary 08, 2020 at 19:28#3802670 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Why don't you bother to tell us what you mean by "murder.
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.
Deleted UserFebruary 08, 2020 at 23:23#3803800 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Murder is defined as "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another."
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.
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?
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.
Deleted UserFebruary 09, 2020 at 05:21#3804730 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Deleted UserFebruary 09, 2020 at 07:10#3804880 likes
Reply to Brett Most societies have justifiable homicide. We'd have to interview that apes. The issue is whether the killing was within their moral norms,(and not ours). Do they think that certain kinds of leadership excess deserve the death penalty.
The issue is whether the killing was within their moral norms,(and not ours).
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.
Deleted UserFebruary 09, 2020 at 10:03#3805490 likes
rom what I’ve read actions like this are not within their norms.
It was rare, but then perhaps the leader ape's behavior had been rare. Justifiable homicide is fairly rare also, but it still falls inside moral norms. I suppose even the leader's behavior might have been at an extreme end of norms. IOW I think, in general, humans can murder, but not animals. Unless they have been clearly part of devastated societies and they have societies. LIke the elephants that have been raping even Rhinos, but they've come from devastated packs and had no parenting, this due to humans. I think humans, with their ability to coldly calculate long term gains and so on can decide to go outside the norms of the group and murder. I think it can make sense to speak that way about us. Animals - and I give animals more credit than most humans do for being capable of things we are - I don't think have criminals in the same sense we do.
How would it be defined without the help of the law?
Laws are about social organization. Otherwise, without laws it simply would be that people wouldn't like one killing another. I don't like that and you don't like that. I guess many would oppose that. You don't have to have a law for that. But with a law, you have the constructs of an society with formal institutions. Killing and murder are two different definitions.
Many see in animal group behavior some kind of proto-society from where our society has developed. That may be, but how much the behavior of other primates can say about us is not so simple. We differ a lot from animals, thanks to our advanced language skill and advanced co-operation.
Comments (36)
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.
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.
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.
Quoting 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.
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.
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.
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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.
Quoting tim wood
You know what murder is.
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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.
No. I can’t be bothered.
What on earth is wrong with you?
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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.
It was rare, but then perhaps the leader ape's behavior had been rare. Justifiable homicide is fairly rare also, but it still falls inside moral norms. I suppose even the leader's behavior might have been at an extreme end of norms. IOW I think, in general, humans can murder, but not animals. Unless they have been clearly part of devastated societies and they have societies. LIke the elephants that have been raping even Rhinos, but they've come from devastated packs and had no parenting, this due to humans. I think humans, with their ability to coldly calculate long term gains and so on can decide to go outside the norms of the group and murder. I think it can make sense to speak that way about us. Animals - and I give animals more credit than most humans do for being capable of things we are - I don't think have criminals in the same sense we do.
Laws are about social organization. Otherwise, without laws it simply would be that people wouldn't like one killing another. I don't like that and you don't like that. I guess many would oppose that. You don't have to have a law for that. But with a law, you have the constructs of an society with formal institutions. Killing and murder are two different definitions.
Many see in animal group behavior some kind of proto-society from where our society has developed. That may be, but how much the behavior of other primates can say about us is not so simple. We differ a lot from animals, thanks to our advanced language skill and advanced co-operation.
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.