Biology & Philosophy

, Volume 24, Issue 1, pp 21–34 | Cite as

Naturalizing cruelty

  • G. Randolph MayesEmail author


Cruelty is widely regarded to be a uniquely human trait. This follows from a standard definition of cruelty as involving the deliberate infliction of suffering together with the empirical claim that humans are unique in their ability to attribute suffering (or any mental state) to other creatures. In this paper I argue that this definition is not optimum for the purposes of scientific inquiry. I suggest that its intuitive appeal stems from our abhorrence of cruelty, and our corresponding desire to define cruelty in such a way that it is almost always morally wrong. Scientifically speaking this is an arbitrary condition that inhibits our attempt to study cruelty as a natural phenomenon. I propose a fully naturalized definition of cruelty, one that considerably expands the range of creatures and behaviors that may be conceived as cruel.


Altruism Animals Cruelty Definition Evolution Folk psychology Intentionality Morality Naturalization Suffering 


  1. Ainslie G (2006) What good are facts? The “drug” value of money as an exemplar of all non-instrumental value. Behav Brain Sci 29:176–177Google Scholar
  2. Dallman MF (2006) Make love, not war. Behav Brain Sci 29:227–228. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X06259053 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. David W (1991) On the relationship between evolutionary and psychological definitions of altruism and egoism. Biol Philos 7:61–68Google Scholar
  4. Herzog H, Arluke A (2006) Human–animal connections: recent findings on the anthrozoology of cruelty. Behav Brain Sci 29:230–231. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X06299059 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hobbes T (2004) Leviathan. Kessinger PublishingGoogle Scholar
  6. Kekes J (1996) Cruelty and liberalism. Ethics 106:834–844. doi: 10.1086/233675 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kraemer S (2006) The cruelty of older infants and toddlers. Behav Brain Sci 29:233–234. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X06329056 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Milgram S (1974) Obedience to authority. Harper Collins, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Nell V (2006) Cruelty’s rewards: the gratifications of perpetrators and spectators. Behav Brain Sci 29:211–224Google Scholar
  10. Nietzsche F (1966) Beyond good and evil, trans. by Walter Kaufmann. Vintage Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Palmer C (1989) Rape in nonhuman animal species: definitions, evidence, and implications. J Sex Res 26:355–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Panksepp J (2006) The affective neuroeconomics of social brains: one man’s cruelty is another’s suffering. Behav Brain Sci 29:234–235. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X06349059 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Potts M (2006) Cruelty’s utility: the evolutions of same-species killing. Behav Brain Sci 29:238. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X06379058 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Schuster R (2006) Nice idea but is it science? Behav Brain Sci 29:240–241. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X06409055 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. van den Berghe PL (2006) Cruelty, age, and thanatourism. Behav Brain Sci 29:245. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X06459057 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Zimbardo P (2007) The Lucifer effect: understanding how good people turn evil. Random House, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyCalifornia State University SacramentoSacramentoUSA

Personalised recommendations