Anthropomorphism and Animal Violence Human Essay

'There's no question he had a remarkable repertoire with bears and had a remarkable ability for them to tolerate him ... (but) just so people don't get the wrong idea, Tim definitely knew there were bears out there that were bad medicine.'" (Manning, p. 1)

The phrase 'bad medicine' here implies a certain moral proposition in the bear's behavior, attributing a distinctly human way of perceiving the act of killing to its actions. However, as the article shows, this anthropomorphic phrasing may be misplaced, particularly given Treadwell's dangerous intrusion into the territory of his study subjects. This denotes that it may not be entirely rational to project the notion of 'murder' to the killing but that human beings will tend to do so. The notion of a 'bad' bear indicates that there is some moral action which has occurred, a perception which is a departure from the decidedly objective selectivity of nature.

That line between nature's objectivity and the emotional qualities that drive human moral behavior becomes even more difficult to draw as the core traits of certain animals come more to resemble human beings. This is quite well illustrated in the disturbing case of Andrew Oberle, the chimp sanctuary employee who was mauled to a devastating extent by two male chimpanzees. Here, the animals can actually be evaluated according to their emotional disposition, but one must be careful not to conflate this with an act of 'evil' or 'cruelty.' According to the report, "[the chimps] have no anger,' Cussons told Good Morning America. 'This is why we come to the conclusion, as far as our expertise goes, that it was a territorial defense. They directed the violence towards Andrew whom they feel was infringing on their territory.'" (Daily Mail Reporter, p. 1) This denotes that under the circumstances, the animals were acting in accordance with the rules of their society. As these differ so considerably from those of humanity, we can see the danger in anthropomorphizing the implications of violence.

Conclusion:

This is the essential principle in play both in Gould's discussion on the Ichneumon family of parasites and in the examples provided here. Animals are capable of instinctual acts of violence and carnage that carry none of the ethical or sociological implications that we hold important. This is why the act of humanizing animal behavior can lead to the deadly confrontations that are described above.

Works Cited:

Daily Mail Reporter. (2012). Lost fingers and toes and arms exposed to the bone: Chimp-attack student is so badly mauled his parents left traumatized. Dailymail.co.uk.

Gould, S.J. (1982). Nonmoral Nature. www.stephenjaygould.org.

Manning, E. (2003). Treadwell: 'Get out here. I'm Getting Killed.' Anchorage Daily News (ADN).

Marquez, M. (2003). Roy of Siegfried and Roy Critical After Mauling. CNN.com......