Blogs

Science and Cruelty

How brains, beliefs, and being human give rise to the horrors of human cruelty.

by Kathleen Taylor

Kathleen Taylor is a freelance science writer and researcher affiliated with Oxford University. See full bio

April 28, 2009, Law and Crime

Comments on "Of mice and men? Not quite"

Of mice and men? Not quite

By Kathleen Taylor on April 28, 2009 in Science and Cruelty

"Cruelty's something other people do, isn't it?" I can't maintain that comfortable fiction any longer. Read More

Makes sense

Submitted by Cindy on April 28, 2009 - 3:15pm.

I feel that there are 2 reasons we are cruel to rats: 1)they disgust us and, 2) we feel that they are lesser beings. The same probably applies to situations in which we are cruel to people, sad but true.

Reasons to be nasty, Part 3

Submitted by Kathleen Taylor on April 29, 2009 - 7:54am.

Cindy, hi. I'd add a third reason: fear. Rats move fast and so seem hard to control.

Re disgust, yes, there's a lot of work on the historical literature suggesting disgust language is used by leaders who want to instigate violence against certain groups (including work by me!).

Also, yes, it seems the more aware people are of other creatures' similarity to us (i.e. the less we think of them as 'lesser beings'), the more inhibited aggressive behaviour becomes -- up to a point. But if the empathy is too painful, that can actually stimulate hostility or aggression.

You are SO not a Buddhist

Submitted by Wallaby on April 29, 2009 - 7:01am.

I'd find this more compelling if you were actually doing something cruel TO the rats, like making them listen to Vogon poetry. Just poisoning them is rather mundane. Hurt their feelings! Can't you step it up by making fun of them or something?

I'm not a Buddhist

Submitted by Kathleen Taylor on April 30, 2009 - 2:02am.

I tried everything from sarcasm to abuse. Astoundingly, they took absolutely no notice.

Life is cruel at times

Submitted by Becky on April 29, 2009 - 11:53am.

If we were never cruel we would never survive. Rats are disease carrying creatures. I have no desire to harm them, I'm not even grossed out by them ( they are kind of cute) but if rats are running around my family's food supply threatening to make those I love ill, a decision has to be made. Heirarchies exist as a protection. We must value our own species above all in order to continue as a species. That doesn't mean we can't love dogs with all our hearts but if they maul our children we better be prepared to get rid of them. I'm pretty sure the rats wouldn't have your best interest in mind when they defend thier own young. Needless cruelty is another issue. People who kick dogs because they want them to suffer are sick. Cruelty for the sake of cruelty, I will never understand and this gives me comfort as to my own sanity.

Good, conscientious, moral,

Submitted by b on April 29, 2009 - 8:51pm.

Good, conscientious, moral, empathic people would hurt other people's children rather than their own if circumstance necessitated the cruel choice. Would they be considered cruel by normal societal moral standards?

Morality

Submitted by Kathleen Taylor on April 30, 2009 - 1:48am.

A deep question. What's a normal society? Us, now? Even in our society there's plenty of disagreement about, for instance, how to treat animals. You can see it in Oxford: some people doing invasive animal research, others protesting in favour of animal rights.

Incidentally, Peter Singer's book The Life You Can Save (http://www.thelifeyoucansave.com/) has some interesting remarks on the ethics of treating other people's children -- or other species -- differently.

Ethics and Attitude

Submitted by Kathleen Taylor on April 30, 2009 - 1:58am.

"I'm pretty sure the rats wouldn't have your best interest in mind when they defend thier own young."

I guess. But should that change our ethics? After all, people look after others who can or will not reciprocate; the teenage "I hate you!" reaction springs to mind.