I thought we would come to that. Humans have instinct to an extent, but it's usually overrun by morals and standards these days. People can say natural selection still exists, but society standards have overrun that also. A super skinny, constipated supermodel by no means is suitable to breed with in regards to health.
I'm arguing that we have no reason to believe that our reactions
are any less instinctual than those of other animals. As to the
supermodel example, it's merely sexual selection gone awry - peacocks
are pretty much fucked by those long tails, as an example.
Well, what are your examples of animals being cruel then?
Nothing which can't be dismissed as 'instinct'. But, wolves, as an example,
end up ostracized when healthy enough to be useful to the pack.
I know that some ape behavior is ugly as hell.
See, we can't really make a judgment as to our own
differences, because we are not impartial. We KNOW that
we think. And we catch ourselves feeling ashamed, either
of our own actions, or those of our fellow men. But, I've
seen something that looks like shame, in dogs (anthropomorphizing? -
but, I'm arguing that we may not do enough of this
)
What it comes down to is all we have are external signs which
appear similar to our own external signs. IF we were completely
outside the picture, yet thought as we do, we'd probably equate
them mostly, without committing to congruence. We can't know
what communications are passed in the language of dogs, for example.
I'd guess that it's somewhere in between. The fundamentals are the same,
but there are differences in the application. But, I highly doubt that animals
are all the pure 'noble savages' any more than indigenous people ever were.
Semicolon, where are you? We miss you!