> Isn't the entire idea of "being mean" an abstract and intellectual idea?
Not really, it boils down to harm prevention.
I believe that, as humans, we greatly overestimate our own reliance or abstract ideas.
If we notice someone is harming another, and we intervene, we simply act.
The explanation for our behaviour (someone was being mean) comes later as post-hoc rationalisation.
Ironically, we then further rationalise and extrapolate from this incorrect idea that human behaviour comes from a fount of abstract values and ideas, and use it to devalue animals and their behaviour (assuming they have no complex cognition, and so must be dumb).
I've lived with dogs and birds and seen dogs intervene when other dogs fight, birds intervene when other birds fight and dogs intervene when birds fight.
I don't think stopping aggressive acts in one's vicinity requires more reasoning ability than plotting to long term ruin the outlooks for other specific species X, species Y is cute or some thoughts about the moral act of hunting. Most animals have some experience with others acting aggressively and would like that reduced. We don't think about who is involved either when we see a fight break out between humans or animals.
I just happened to come across a magpie that was fighting a mouse outdoors today, and the mouse got pinned in a hole in a tree where the magpie kept pecking. I don't know why but I walked over so that the magpie went up in a nearby tree and the mouse ran away. That same magpie then attacked some nearby other magpies before calming down.
Physiologically it probably involves mirror neurones and what you describe shouldn't be all that surprising or require an internal philosophical discourse as parent might have suggested.
I'm not sure I understand the down votes. I posed the question in a flippant manner, but I ask the question in earnest.
The grandparent pointed out that the concept of 'being mean' can't easily be applied to animals. The parent asserted without argument (or even definition) that it comes down to 'harm reduction', and went on to pontificate about humans overestimating their exceptionalism. So are the humpback whales harming the orcas by depriving them of a food source? Are the orcas harming the seal by eating him? Are the humpback whales harming the smaller fish who the seal will eat?
Not really, it boils down to harm prevention.
I believe that, as humans, we greatly overestimate our own reliance or abstract ideas.
If we notice someone is harming another, and we intervene, we simply act.
The explanation for our behaviour (someone was being mean) comes later as post-hoc rationalisation.
Ironically, we then further rationalise and extrapolate from this incorrect idea that human behaviour comes from a fount of abstract values and ideas, and use it to devalue animals and their behaviour (assuming they have no complex cognition, and so must be dumb).