Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sy Borg]

It seems to me that bullying specifically occurs in Modern human interaction where there are social norms around the concepts of fairness, etiquette and civility. Bullying breaks these norms. But the norms don't exist on the savannah, dark alleys and the battlefield. Thus why the use of bullying as a descriptor of animal behavior, for example doesn't capture the essence of the term.

Bullying does happen in other social species, and quite sadistic too. Dolphins and chimps come immediately to mind.

Also note the grey area between bullying and competition.

[Pattern-chaser]

What you describe is just one type of bullying with one of the various motivations behind this behaviour. It is ultimately about dominance, competition and control. Humiliation is an optional extra. Cowardice too.

I thought humiliation was a core characteristic of bullying. Isn't a bully just someone indulging their own schadenfreude to an extreme degree, by *causing* the misfortunes that entertain them so much?

Bullying does happen in other social species, and quite sadistic too. Dolphins and chimps come immediately to mind.

An owl hunts, kills and eats mice, but I can't see that that's bullying. It's just hungry, and needs food to eat. No humiliation or cowardice, and not much that I can recognise as "dominance, competition and control" either. I'm not sure about apes or cetaceans.

Also note the grey area between bullying and competition.

Yes. LuckyR thinks competition is quite separate, but I agree with you, that competition is a 'shade' or 'flavour' of bullying, or is heading in that direction...

[Sy Borg]

What you describe is just one type of bullying with one of the various motivations behind this behaviour. It is ultimately about dominance, competition and control. Humiliation is an optional extra. Cowardice too.

I thought humiliation was a core characteristic of bullying. Isn't a bully just someone indulging their own schadenfreude to an extreme degree, by *causing* the misfortunes that entertain them so much?

Humiliation can be an aspect of bullying but does not need to be. or instance, I had a number of clients who were bullied out of their jobs because the boss wanted to employ a friend in their job.

Bullying does happen in other social species, and quite sadistic too. Dolphins and chimps come immediately to mind.

An owl hunts, kills and eats mice, but I can't see that that's bullying. It's just hungry, and needs food to eat. No humiliation or cowardice, and not much that I can recognise as "dominance, competition and control" either. I'm not sure about apes or cetaceans. 🤔

An owl is not a social species. Bullying is a social phenomenon. Chimps and dolphins definitely engage in bullying.

Also note the grey area between bullying and competition.

Yes. LuckyR thinks competition is quite separate, but I agree with you, that competition is a 'shade' or 'flavour' of bullying, or is heading in that direction...

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

[LuckyR]

It seems to me that bullying specifically occurs in Modern human interaction where there are social norms around the concepts of fairness, etiquette and civility. Bullying breaks these norms. But the norms don't exist on the savannah, dark alleys and the battlefield. Thus why the use of bullying as a descriptor of animal behavior, for example doesn't capture the essence of the term.

Bullying does happen in other social species, and quite sadistic too. Dolphins and chimps come immediately to mind.

Also note the grey area between bullying and competition.

I apologize for being lazy in my description. I meant interspecies animal behavior, but I agree that intraspecies interaction where there are social norms, bullying is common. Though your example supports my original comment.

[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.

[Sy Borg]

It seems to me that bullying specifically occurs in Modern human interaction where there are social norms around the concepts of fairness, etiquette and civility. Bullying breaks these norms. But the norms don't exist on the savannah, dark alleys and the battlefield. Thus why the use of bullying as a descriptor of animal behavior, for example doesn't capture the essence of the term.

Bullying does happen in other social species, and quite sadistic too. Dolphins and chimps come immediately to mind.

Also note the grey area between bullying and competition.

I apologize for being lazy in my description. I meant interspecies animal behavior, but I agree that intraspecies interaction where there are social norms, bullying is common. Though your example supports my original comment.

Assuming that you are referring to the bullying of farming, then no, my example does not support your argument at all. 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.

[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.

Of course bullying is a strategy in competition. It is a means of intimidation, or forcing compliance or submission. You see this dynamic in sports all the time. However, it's not ubiquitous. Players might get the better of opposition without needing to bully at all, using skill, tactics and speed.

War too has elements of bullying. For instance, consider China's harassment of Filipino and Viet fishing boats.

Bullying does not always involve expectations of cooperative behaviour, but it often does in everyday examples such as in schools, universities and workplaces.

[Lagayascienza]

That sounds right. It seems to me that, as we use it, the term "bullying" generally describes behavior we find reprehensible in light of concepts of fairness, etiquette and civility which, in turn, emerge from our being, at least partly, a cooperative species. If this is so, then maybe bullying can be seen as that subset of competitive/uncooperative behavior which flouts these notions of fairness, etiquette and civility in situations in which these concepts would normally be applicable.

It's interesting that most people say they don't like bullies, and yet most people, at least sometimes, engage in bullying. Maybe this is a reflection of our dual nature as both a cooperative and a competitive species.

[Sy Borg]

That sounds right. It seems to me that, as we use it, the term "bullying" generally describes behavior we find reprehensible in light of concepts of fairness, etiquette and civility which, in turn, emerge from our being, at least partly, a cooperative species. If this is so, then maybe bullying can be seen as that subset of competitive/uncooperative behavior which flouts these notions of fairness, etiquette and civility in situations in which these concepts would normally be applicable.

It's interesting that most people say they don't like bullies, and yet most people, at least sometimes, engage in bullying. Maybe this is a reflection of our dual nature as both a cooperative and a competitive species.

We can parse bullies from those who sometimes bully, just as we can parse an artist from a dabbler. A bully tends to be someone with a zero sum mentality* whose go-to method of getting ahead is to put their competition on the back foot. They elevate themselves by bringing others down rather than cooperating for mutual benefit.


* While the biosphere works as a zero sum game of eat-or-be-eaten, social interactions within civilised societies are often not zero sum games, even if the society-as-a-whole functions as a zero sum player.

[LuckyR]

It seems to me that bullying specifically occurs in Modern human interaction where there are social norms around the concepts of fairness, etiquette and civility. Bullying breaks these norms. But the norms don't exist on the savannah, dark alleys and the battlefield. Thus why the use of bullying as a descriptor of animal behavior, for example doesn't capture the essence of the term.

Bullying does happen in other social species, and quite sadistic too. Dolphins and chimps come immediately to mind.

Also note the grey area between bullying and competition.

I apologize for being lazy in my description. I meant interspecies animal behavior, but I agree that intraspecies interaction where there are social norms, bullying is common. Though your example supports my original comment.

Assuming that you are referring to the bullying of farming, then no, my example does not support your argument at all. 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.

Again sorry for being difficult to understand. No, I meant what I believe you referred to, namely dolphin on dolphin bullying. That is bullying within the same animal species (not across species), since there is an expectation of social respect eithin species.

[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.

Of course bullying is a strategy in competition. It is a means of intimidation, or forcing compliance or submission. You see this dynamic in sports all the time. However, it's not ubiquitous. Players might get the better of opposition without needing to bully at all, using skill, tactics and speed.

War too has elements of bullying. For instance, consider China's harassment of Filipino and Viet fishing boats.

Bullying does not always involve expectations of cooperative behaviour, but it often does in everyday examples such as in schools, universities and workplaces.

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.

[Sy Borg]

Bullying does happen in other social species, and quite sadistic too. Dolphins and chimps come immediately to mind.

Also note the grey area between bullying and competition.

I apologize for being lazy in my description. I meant interspecies animal behavior, but I agree that intraspecies interaction where there are social norms, bullying is common. Though your example supports my original comment.

Assuming that you are referring to the bullying of farming, then no, my example does not support your argument at all. 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.

Again sorry for being difficult to understand. No, I meant what I believe you referred to, namely dolphin on dolphin bullying. That is bullying within the same animal species (not across species), since there is an expectation of social respect eithin species.

Dolphins also bully seals and porpoises. Chimps pretty well bully anything they can. Being the smartest species means there will be a certain level of "play" with those of less intellect, regardless of species.

[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.

Of course bullying is a strategy in competition. It is a means of intimidation, or forcing compliance or submission. You see this dynamic in sports all the time. However, it's not ubiquitous. Players might get the better of opposition without needing to bully at all, using skill, tactics and speed.

War too has elements of bullying. For instance, consider China's harassment of Filipino and Viet fishing boats.

Bullying does not always involve expectations of cooperative behaviour, but it often does in everyday examples such as in schools, universities and workplaces.

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.

Psychological warfare is bullying if the two parties are not fairly equal in power. If the parties are equal in power and aggression, then there's probably not much intimidation.

[Pattern-chaser]

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.

[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.