Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[Pattern-chaser]

Sounds like you're equating psychological warfare with bullying and labeling it intimidation. I agree there are degrees of overlap, but to my lexicon they're not identical.

Not identical, no, but isn't it clear that these three things, and presumably others too, have a lot in common? There are clear similarities or commonalities...?

[Sy Borg]

Consider all the ways that farmers can be inconsiderate and harsh towards animals, in ways that they could not if all parties were of comparable power.

In fairness (😯), farmers are captors, or jailers. This is intrinsically "inconsiderate and harsh towards animals", as far as the animals are concerned. The *role* of the farmer is antithetic to the welfare and wellbeing of their charges. We even disable them (removing horns, or putting nose-rings into bull's faces to control them) to prevent them from harming humans, and from resisting or escaping their captivity.

Is this bullying? I suppose it could be seen as so, but I think this 👆 goes way beyond bullying, don't you? We *own* and *use* the animals in our custody, then we execute and eat them. They live their lives, from birth to death, including breeding more victims, in controlled confinement. I'm not sure what the right word for it should be. Even slavery doesn't seem to go far enough. And "bullying" doesn't cover it, IMO.

No, you are completely off track. Farmers may or may not be bullies to the animals, just as bosses may bully or not bully their workers.

BTW, the word you are groping for is "predation".

[LuckyR]

Bullying is one strategy that may be employed in competition. It can also simply be sadistic. Chimps and dolphins are also capable of sadism.

Huh? Those who compete seek to win. That's normal. It's baked into the nature of competition. As is seeking the weakest possible opponent, as it maximizes the statistical chance of winning.

Bullying isn't a strategy, it's a subset of all possible competitive endeavors. Specifically in cases where there is an expectation of social cohesion, say as between classmates or coworkers (and within animal species) which is then violated, hence bullying. No one would describe a soldier "bullying" the enemy, since there is no social expectation of cooperative behavior. No, soldiers defeat, annihilate and decimate enemies. Senior soldiers bully underlings ON THEIR OWN SIDE, but not the enemy. Because of the social expectation of cooperation between soldiers on the same side.

That's an illuminating illustration. And it also offers an indication that bullying is associated (at the least) with competition. "Bullying is a subset of all possible competitive endeavors" tells us that bullying is one (of several) tools at the disposal of the competitor. I would agree with that. Those who compete seek to win, as you observe, and they use whatever tools they need to, to achieve their aims. But it's all a bit sociopathic, isn't it? Goal attainment, indifferent to the cost to others.

Yes, bullying is sociopathic as it occurs in violation of social norms and expectations. Competition is not generally sociopathic since in the majority of cases it occurs in socially designated areas of legitimate competition.

[Sy Borg]

Bullying is one strategy that may be employed in competition. It can also simply be sadistic. Chimps and dolphins are also capable of sadism.

Huh? Those who compete seek to win. That's normal. It's baked into the nature of competition. As is seeking the weakest possible opponent, as it maximizes the statistical chance of winning.

Bullying isn't a strategy, it's a subset of all possible competitive endeavors. Specifically in cases where there is an expectation of social cohesion, say as between classmates or coworkers (and within animal species) which is then violated, hence bullying. No one would describe a soldier "bullying" the enemy, since there is no social expectation of cooperative behavior. No, soldiers defeat, annihilate and decimate enemies. Senior soldiers bully underlings ON THEIR OWN SIDE, but not the enemy. Because of the social expectation of cooperation between soldiers on the same side.

That's an illuminating illustration. 👍 And it also offers an indication that bullying is associated (at the least) with competition. "Bullying is a subset of all possible competitive endeavors" tells us that bullying is one (of several) tools at the disposal of the competitor. I would agree with that. Those who compete seek to win, as you observe, and they use whatever tools they need to, to achieve their aims. But it's all a bit sociopathic, isn't it? Goal attainment, indifferent to the cost to others. 🤔🤔

Yes, bullying is sociopathic as it occurs in violation of social norms and expectations. Competition is not generally sociopathic since in the majority of cases it occurs in socially designated areas of legitimate competition.

I would say bullying is more usually psychologically predatory than sociopathic. It isn't necessarily sadistic. Often it's a means to an end - fighting dirty to gain an unfair edge in competition. One doesn't need to be a sociopath to bully, just an immature or cynical human. It's one of many nasty possible behaviours that we humans manage to perpetrate in the argy bargy of life.

[Pattern-chaser]

Consider all the ways that farmers can be inconsiderate and harsh towards animals, in ways that they could not if all parties were of comparable power.

In fairness (), farmers are captors, or jailers. This is intrinsically "inconsiderate and harsh towards animals", as far as the animals are concerned. The *role* of the farmer is antithetic to the welfare and wellbeing of their charges. We even disable them (removing horns, or putting nose-rings into bull's faces to control them) to prevent them from harming humans, and from resisting or escaping their captivity.

Is this bullying? I suppose it could be seen as so, but I think this goes way beyond bullying, don't you? We *own* and *use* the animals in our custody, then we execute and eat them. They live their lives, from birth to death, including breeding more victims, in controlled confinement. I'm not sure what the right word for it should be. Even slavery doesn't seem to go far enough. And "bullying" doesn't cover it, IMO.

No, you are completely off track. Farmers may or may not be bullies to the animals, just as bosses may bully or not bully their workers.

BTW, the word you are groping for is "predation".

This kind of slavery (?) is far more than predation. Predation is what the owl does to the mice. But it doesn't imprison and enslave the mice, it hunts, kills, and eats them.

[Pattern-chaser]

Yes, bullying is sociopathic as it occurs in violation of social norms and expectations. Competition is not generally sociopathic since in the majority of cases it occurs in socially designated areas of legitimate competition.

I would say bullying is more usually psychologically predatory than sociopathic. It isn't necessarily sadistic. Often it's a means to an end - fighting dirty to gain an unfair edge in competition. One doesn't need to be a sociopath to bully, just an immature or cynical human. It's one of many nasty possible behaviours that we humans manage to perpetrate in the argy bargy of life.

I think we are agreed that bullying is common among humans. But now we seem to be wondering about a definition of bullying. What does it include, and what is above and beyond mere 'bullying'? I am surprised to find that we are wondering if what humans do to 'food animals' is bullying.

Bullying has many definitions, and we have many interpretations of exactly what the word means. But Dictionary.com suggests this as a definition: "Bullying — the act of harassing, intimidating, or abusing others, especially habitually or from a perceived position of relative power".

That doesn't seem to extend easily to cover our treatment of other animals, particularly food animals.

[Mo_reese]

It seems there are two types of bullying being discussed. One where a stark imbalance of power is used to overpower and humiliate a weaker victim, for example when the bigger kid takes the lunch money from the small kid. This isn't competition and IMO not healthy for society. This type of bully is usually insecure and themselves victims of bullying.
Although I haven't found such a definition it seems from discussions here that strong competition for power or resources can involve bullying. Some view these actions beneficial to society. It looks to me like too much of this domineering is detrimental and what usually brings down societies that rely on such. Mussolini's Italy comes to mind.

[Sy Borg]

Bullying has many definitions, and we have many interpretations of exactly what the word means. But Dictionary.com suggests this as a definition: "Bullying — the act of harassing, intimidating, or abusing others, especially habitually or from a perceived position of relative power".

That doesn't seem to extend easily to cover our treatment of other animals, particularly food animals.

The idea that farmers have never been sadistic towards animals is as unrealistic as the idea that bosses are have never been sadistic towards staff. Of course, most farmers and bosses are not cruel or unfair to those under their power, but there is a percentage, unfortunately. These people can rightly be termed "bullies".

[Sy Borg]

Consider all the ways that farmers can be inconsiderate and harsh towards animals, in ways that they could not if all parties were of comparable power.

In fairness (😯), farmers are captors, or jailers. This is intrinsically "inconsiderate and harsh towards animals", as far as the animals are concerned. The *role* of the farmer is antithetic to the welfare and wellbeing of their charges. We even disable them (removing horns, or putting nose-rings into bull's faces to control them) to prevent them from harming humans, and from resisting or escaping their captivity.

Is this bullying? I suppose it could be seen as so, but I think this 👆 goes way beyond bullying, don't you? We *own* and *use* the animals in our custody, then we execute and eat them. They live their lives, from birth to death, including breeding more victims, in controlled confinement. I'm not sure what the right word for it should be. Even slavery doesn't seem to go far enough. And "bullying" doesn't cover it, IMO.

No, you are completely off track. Farmers may or may not be bullies to the animals, just as bosses may bully or not bully their workers.

BTW, the word you are groping for is "predation".

This kind of slavery (?) is far more than predation. Predation is what the owl does to the mice. But it doesn't imprison and enslave the mice, it hunts, kills, and eats them.

Humans simply have different methods of predation, just as they have all manner of different methods to other species. It's still predation. Bullying can be psychological predation - where the bully gains advantage (or thinks they do) by diminishing another.

[Gertie]

It seems there are two types of bullying being discussed. One where a stark imbalance of power is used to overpower and humiliate a weaker victim, for example when the bigger kid takes the lunch money from the small kid. This isn't competition and IMO not healthy for society. This type of bully is usually insecure and themselves victims of bullying.
Although I haven't found such a definition it seems from discussions here that strong competition for power or resources can involve bullying. Some view these actions beneficial to society. It looks to me like too much of this domineering is detrimental and what usually brings down societies that rely on such. Mussolini's Italy comes to mind.

Yes it's the taking advantage of a power imbalance to do harm that characterises bullying to me.

It's natural in the way we have selfish predispositions which help us survive and reproduce. But as a social species we also have a natural sense of fairness which makes bullying feel yucky.

Of course there are variations in individuals, and the role of the environment (cultural and personal experience) will contribute to that. But we've survived as a species employing both selfish and social traits
Generally speaking societies find a balance which works, until it doesn't, then the balance shifts.

That's the Is of human nature. How we Ought to behave is a different, moral, question. Humans are smart too - we're primarily driven by our passions as Hume would say, but we can also conceptualise about Right and Wrong, and change our behaviour accordingly. Somewhat.

Then again we can use our smarts to rationalise pretty much anything, often without even realising.

[Sy Borg]

Yes it's the taking advantage of a power imbalance to do harm that characterises bullying to me.

Yes.

One can take advantage of a power imbalance, but it's not bullying as such until there is intent to do harm above and beyond simply exploiting a competitive advantage.

[Pattern-chaser]

Bullying has many definitions, and we have many interpretations of exactly what the word means. But Dictionary.com suggests this as a definition: "Bullying — the act of harassing, intimidating, or abusing others, especially habitually or from a perceived position of relative power".

That doesn't seem to extend easily to cover our treatment of other animals, particularly food animals.

The idea that farmers have never been sadistic towards animals is as unrealistic as the idea that bosses are have never been sadistic towards staff.

Is this just a semantic misunderstanding? I think "bullying" and "sadism" are similar, but different things, nevertheless?

Humans simply have different methods of predation, just as they have all manner of different methods to other species. It's still predation. Bullying can be psychological predation - where the bully gains advantage (or thinks they do) by diminishing another.

The same with "predation", which isn't "bullying" either?

[Pattern-chaser]

It seems there are two types of bullying being discussed. One where a stark imbalance of power is used to overpower and humiliate a weaker victim, for example when the bigger kid takes the lunch money from the small kid. This isn't competition and IMO not healthy for society. This type of bully is usually insecure and themselves victims of bullying.
Although I haven't found such a definition it seems from discussions here that strong competition for power or resources can involve bullying. Some view these actions beneficial to society. It looks to me like too much of this domineering is detrimental and what usually brings down societies that rely on such. Mussolini's Italy comes to mind.

Yes it's the taking advantage of a power imbalance to do harm that characterises bullying to me.

It's natural in the way we have selfish predispositions which help us survive and reproduce. But as a social species we also have a natural sense of fairness which makes bullying feel yucky.

Of course there are variations in individuals, and the role of the environment (cultural and personal experience) will contribute to that. But we've survived as a species employing both selfish and social traits
Generally speaking societies find a balance which works, until it doesn't, then the balance shifts.

That's the Is of human nature. How we Ought to behave is a different, moral, question. Humans are smart too - we're primarily driven by our passions as Hume would say, but we can also conceptualise about Right and Wrong, and change our behaviour accordingly. Somewhat.

Then again we can use our smarts to rationalise pretty much anything, often without even realising.

Beautifully summarised.

— Yes, we are, in part, disagreeing over our personal understandings of "bullying", and other related terms.
— Yes, humans have employed selfish behaviour and co-operative behaviour since we came down from the trees.

So does that mean bullying will never stop, never go away? Are we all doomed to be aggressors (the bullies) or victims (the bullied), with no third option?

[Mo_reese]

So does that mean bullying will never stop, never go away? Are we all doomed to be aggressors (the bullies) or victims (the bullied), with no third option?

Bullying is overlooked by too many people and even encouraged by some as something that will make the victims stronger. The opposite is usually true. In adolescents it can lead to suicides.

[Sy Borg]

Bullying has many definitions, and we have many interpretations of exactly what the word means. But Dictionary.com suggests this as a definition: "Bullying — the act of harassing, intimidating, or abusing others, especially habitually or from a perceived position of relative power".

That doesn't seem to extend easily to cover our treatment of other animals, particularly food animals.

The idea that farmers have never been sadistic towards animals is as unrealistic as the idea that bosses are have never been sadistic towards staff.

Is this just a semantic misunderstanding? I think "bullying" and "sadism" are similar, but different things, nevertheless?

Humans simply have different methods of predation, just as they have all manner of different methods to other species. It's still predation. Bullying can be psychological predation - where the bully gains advantage (or thinks they do) by diminishing another.

The same with "predation", which isn't "bullying" either?

You did not understand what I was saying.

I know more about bullying than anyone here by a long chalk. I am not expert in many things, but I am expert in this area. I was almost driven to suicide by extreme bullying throughout high school, and later was bullied at various jobs.

I spent years working in OH&S, and I was the go-to person when workers called, complaining of bullying in the workplace. I later created a website - the first website in my state to address bullying in a professional manner - providing information on how the behaviour interacted (or, more usually, didn't interact) with legislation, regulations and industry standards. I developed and provided anti-bullying resources used by various schools, universities and workplaces all around the world - Australia, US, Europe, South Africa, south and Central America, and the Middle East.

Obviously bullying and sadism are different, but my point was that some bosses and farmers are actively sadistic, and that leads to bullying. Bullying does not need to be sadistic - there are competitive and practical rationalisations for it - but sadism plus power plus a lack of self-restraint will equal bullying.

As for psychological predation. That is the aggressive undermining of another's psyche to boost your own.