The New Differences Between the Brutality of Man and Animals Thread

[Duco Ndona]

The incident with the Guernsey male wasnt that evil. It was just ruthless pragmatism. The Mbiris broke Guernseys back so he no longer was a threat. They were hungry so they needed to eat and with the disabled lion there, the Mbiris choose to eat him. However, its still dangerous to put an lion out of its missery the same way they would to a prey animal, so they started eating him at the back. The dragging of the corpse is also perfectly normal behavoir as lions move their kill all the time.
There was no intention of cruelity, just survival. Who knows how many warnings they gave and it can just as easily be argued that they spared him the ordeal of slowly starving to death for a few weeks before being eaten alive by hyenas etc anyway.

The pride would have looked at the incident as a relieve becouse a threat to their cubs was elliminated. Had it been one of their own that was killed, they would have looked at it with horror, and vowed not to let the same thing happen again. 

As for humans. We arent the enlightend beings that we pretent to be. Just animals running on instinct that put all of our stat points into social behavoir. 
But ultimately, we are still animals defending our territories and prides from perceived threats from rival outsiders. Its just that our territories became nations and rival nations and our prides became whatever ideology we identify with it and see as rivals. The only difference our so called superiour intelect makes is that we can now craft weapons to fight eachother easier, and invented more reasons to fight over. Some good, like freedom and protecting others. Others wrong, like racism, political extremism.
However, our morbid curiousity, another survival instinct, makes us broadcast these events from all over the world, into our living room. If a lion were to learn of all the lion violence that occurs world wide as it happen, he would be disturbed of his own kind too. In reality however, war and violence are far more rare for us than they are for animals.

But even with our perceived violence, this is nothing unknown in animals. Social animals that live in groups wage wars with eachother all the time. We know crows gather around their death with morbid curiousity and primates take great delight in torturing. Ducks engage in necrophilia and theft is pretty much universal.

However, I think its rather onesided to only look at the bad. If we want to discuss morality, we also need to look at the good.
Humans obviously do a lot of that. We have relieve operations for hunger, illness, war and pretty much every inconvinience imaginable. We also make peace with our neighbours and welcome them as our own and learn from our opposing ideologies in an attempt to understand and improve our own loves. Child rapists are universally hated and forgiveness universally praised. 

Even in animals we see this. Most animals are naturally pacifists, seeking violence only when no other option exists. We see animals running to eachothers resque at great risk of their own. Solitary animals striking friendships. Groups adopting the young of rival groups or sharing food with former enemies. Lions playing with impalas. Cows adopting leopards. Tigers enacting revenge on hunters. Dogs in general. The list goes on.. 

Offcource ultimately there is also the issue that we are comparing the outliers of one species we know a lot about with another species we still know nothing about. 
So while it is easy to find information on the most deranged serial killers humanity produced, we have no idea what a Dahmer style serial killer would even look like as a lion.
Nor can we tell the difference between a fight between two prides over food or mutual hatred. Circumstance also often forces these animals to be ruthless. So only in the rare times of prospherity and safety, we can see their kinder side. Reply