There was news about some teenagers brutally tortured a cat to death in the Czech Republic. They beat the cat, took sticks to it, threw it to the ground, shoved stones into its mouth, and stabbed it in the side with a knife. The reaction of people was as expected. They tried to surpass their brutality by verbally maiming the perpetrators. Vindictiveness at its best. Please note that I deeply despise the utterly wrong deeds of the youth involved.
This article explains the evolutionary reasons for vindictiveness, how we really treat animals, how we let atrocities in nature exist (sic!), and how deterrents don’t work. All of the paradoxes of vindictiveness.
Vindictiveness: We are programmed by prehistory
Humans evolved in tightly knit groups. Survival depended on cooperation. Cheaters, aggressors, and threats had to be dealt with decisively. Allowing wrongdoers to go unpunished would weaken the group. Vindictiveness became an adaptive trait.
Punishment served multiple purposes. It deterred others from committing similar acts, restored a sense of justice, strengthening group cohesion and ensured fairness, which was essential for trust and cooperation.
Vindictiveness often feels deeply satisfying. Evolution favored individuals who acted against wrongdoers. This ensured that harmful behaviors were discouraged. Emotional outrage became a tool for enforcing social norms.
Our sense of fairness is highly emotional. We perceive violations as personal attacks, even when we are not directly involved. Anger triggers a desire for retaliation. This reaction is immediate and intense, overriding rational thought.
Injustice provokes a primal response. We want to see the perpetrator suffer as the victim did. The need for equivalence – an eye for an eye – emerges from deep evolutionary roots. Balancing the scales felt necessary for survival.
Vindictiveness spreads socially. Witnessing others punish wrongdoers reinforces its value. Group members compete to appear morally superior. They escalate punishments to show their loyalty to the group. This builds alliances and strengthens social bonds.
The impulse to punish often ignores long-term consequences. Deterrents do not always work as intended. Harsh punishments can create resentment and rebellion. Yet, evolution prioritized immediate benefits over distant outcomes.
In modern times, vindictiveness misfires. Complex systems of justice exist to prevent chaos. Yet, our instincts remain unchanged. We feel a visceral urge to act, even when it conflicts with reason. Evolution hardwired this need into us.
How we treat animals and it is okay for the vigilantes
Animals endure unimaginable suffering at the hands of humans, often hidden behind closed doors. In factory farms, millions of animals live crammed together in conditions so cramped they can barely move. Chickens are packed into wire cages, unable to spread their wings. Pigs are confined to metal crates, unable to turn around for most of their lives. Cows are chained in place, denied even the simplest comfort of lying down freely. These animals are denied every natural behavior, their entire existence reduced to waiting for slaughter.
We mutilate animals to fit the demands of our systems. Chicks have their beaks cut off with hot blades to prevent them from pecking each other in their cramped cages. Pigs have their tails sliced off, and cows have their horns sawed off – all without pain relief. The suffering is acute, and their screams are ignored. These acts, considered routine, are inflicted daily on billions of creatures worldwide.
The air they breathe in these facilities is toxic. Ammonia from their waste burns their lungs and eyes. Injuries are common and untreated – broken legs, open wounds, infections. Animals collapse under the weight of their artificially bred bodies, designed to grow at unnatural rates. Chickens are raised so quickly that their legs snap from their weight. Cows are milked so heavily that their udders swell with painful infections. They live in constant discomfort, disease, and stress.
Killing brutal as their existence
When their short, miserable lives come to an end, the killing is as brutal as their existence. Chickens are shackled upside down and dragged through electrified water, but many remain conscious as they are boiled alive in scalding tanks. Pigs and cows are often improperly stunned, leaving them fully aware as they are dismembered. Fish suffocate slowly, gasping on decks or bleeding out after their gills are cut. The killing process is mechanical and relentless, with little regard for the terror and agony these animals experience.
Even outside factory farms, the suffering continues. Animals in laboratories are subjected to painful experiments, restrained, injected, burned, and poisoned. In the wild, our activities destroy their habitats, leaving them to starve or be hunted. Circus animals are beaten into submission for entertainment. Companion animals are abandoned or abused by the very people meant to care for them. No corner of their lives is free from human-caused harm. For many animals, their existence is defined entirely by the suffering we impose.
Also, Halal and kosher slaughter involves slicing the throat of a fully conscious animal, leaving it thrashing in panic and agony as blood gushes out, its life draining slowly while it suffocates and struggles to escape the pain.
We also poison rodents with substances like anticoagulants that cause slow, agonizing deaths through internal bleeding, leading to organ failure, suffocation, and prolonged suffering over hours or even days.
While exact global figures are challenging to ascertain, it’s estimated that billions of these animals are killed annually through various methods, including poisoning. Common rodenticides, such as anticoagulants, induce internal bleeding, leading to prolonged and painful deaths that can last several days. This widespread practice raises significant ethical concerns regarding animal welfare and the humaneness of pest control methods.
Where are the vigilantes trying to get revenge for the cat?
The unbelievably cruel nature we let be
Animals in nature often inflict suffering on each other. Predators hunt and kill their prey, typically consuming them while they are still alive. Lions, for instance, clamp their jaws on the throats of antelope, suffocating them slowly. Crocodiles drag animals into water, thrashing them violently until they drown. These deaths are neither quick nor painless.
Parasitism is another source of cruelty in the animal kingdom. Parasites exploit their hosts, often leading to debilitating pain or death. For example, wasps lay their eggs inside caterpillars, which are then eaten alive by the larvae. Botflies burrow into mammals, creating festering wounds. Infected animals endure days or weeks of agony before succumbing.
Some species exhibit extreme violence within their own groups. Male lions kill cubs to bring females back into heat, ensuring their own offspring will dominate. Hyenas fight viciously over food, biting and clawing at rivals. In some bird species, siblings push weaker chicks out of the nest to ensure their own survival. Cannibalism is common in spiders, fish, and amphibians, where the stronger eat the weaker, even among their own kind.
Social animals can be brutal in maintaining hierarchy. In wolf packs, alpha members dominate subordinates through force, biting and injuring them to assert control. Monkeys and apes frequently engage in violent conflicts over mates or resources, leaving rivals with severe wounds. Elephants sometimes bully weaker herd members, denying them food or water.
Nature is rife with suffering that results from competition, survival, and reproduction. While humans often justify cruelty as natural, the animal world shows that suffering is not unique to us. However, unlike animals, humans have the capacity to understand and reduce harm. In nature, cruelty is instinctive; in humanity, it is often a choice.
We should get rid of it: negative utilitarianism and abolitionism in bioethics
Negative utilitarianism prioritizes the reduction or elimination of suffering over other moral goals, such as maximizing happiness. When applied to nature, proponents argue that the immense suffering caused by predation, disease, and environmental hardship in the wild justifies drastic interventions, including the destruction of ecosystems or natural processes.
Abolitionism in bioethics – some thinkers, like David Pearce, argue that humanity should aim to minimize suffering for all sentient beings, including wild animals. Pearce’s “Hedonistic Imperative” suggests using technology to phase out suffering in nature, even if it means altering or eliminating natural systems.
People live in abundance without even realizing it. Endless food options, warm homes, clean water, and medical care we take for granted. Meanwhile, animals struggle every day. Many live in harsh conditions, fighting for survival. Wild animals face starvation, predators, and climate change. Most people never stop to think about it. They don’t see the pain, the fear, the constant fight to live. We are shielded from the reality of their suffering, yet we benefit from it. This imbalance is staggering. It shows how disconnected we are from the natural world.
I cannot help it – without congitive biases, fallacies and formal fallacies and with moral compass which says what is right or wrong we should destroy nature.
Some of my readers may know I am a total utilitarianism supporter so I want to maximalize happiness. But it also means lessening unbelievable suffering.
Maladaptiveness of vindictiveness now
Vindictiveness, once an adaptive trait for ensuring group cohesion and deterring harmful behaviors, has become maladaptive in modern society. In ancestral environments, retaliatory actions reinforced social norms and discouraged transgressions, promoting group survival. However, in contemporary settings, such behaviors often lead to prolonged conflicts, increased stress, and hindered social harmony, ultimately causing more harm than benefit.
This shift is evident in the criminal justice system, particularly concerning the effectiveness of harsh prison conditions as a deterrent. Research indicates that the severity of punishment has minimal impact on deterring crime. A study by the National Institute of Justice found that the certainty of being caught is a vastly more effective deterrent than the severity of punishment.
Furthermore, evidence suggests that harsher prison conditions do not reduce recidivism rates. A study published in the American Law and Economics Review examined the effects of harsher prison conditions on recidivism and found no significant reduction in reoffending rates among inmates subjected to more severe conditions.
These findings highlight the need to reevaluate punitive approaches that may have been adaptive in the past but are now counterproductive. Focusing on rehabilitation and addressing the root causes of criminal behavior may prove more effective in reducing crime and promoting societal well-being.
Deterrents don’t work
Russia gave an opportunity to free a murderer if he became a soldier. He fulfilled his duties and got back killing 3 people.
But he must know that not only he will get a sentence. But he will be tortured in Russian jails.
One Czech (during communism) correction officer befriended a prisoner. The prisoner got out and then killed the CO. The prisoner must have known he would get killed back in prison.
In Russian prisons, some inmates rebel against the brutal “hierarchy” of prison gangs, knowing they will be severely beaten, tortured, or killed by gang leaders. Their defiance is often an act of reclaiming dignity or protecting others, despite the guaranteed consequences.
Albert DeSalvo, believed to be the “Boston Strangler,” escaped from a mental hospital under heavy security. He knew he would likely be caught and face harsher punishment, but the overwhelming urge to gain temporary freedom drove his risky decision.
Prisoners who served as “kapos” (prisoner-guards) in concentration camps were tasked with enforcing camp rules. They knew their collaboration would earn the hatred of other prisoners and that they were disposable to their captors, often executed once their usefulness ended. Yet, some took the role to avoid immediate death or secure better living conditions.
Vindictiveness: Great reformer John Howard and ideas proved right by studies
John Howard lived from 1726 to 1790. He visited prisons in England and Europe. He saw filthy and brutal conditions, documented them in his book The State of the Prisons. John Howard argued that harsh treatment did not stop crime. He promoted reforms. This freethinker also believed in better hygiene, work programs, and education for prisoners. He thought rehabilitation was more effective than cruelty.
Studies confirm his ideas. Harsh prisons fail to deter crime. A study by Nagin and colleagues showed this in 2009. Longer sentences had little impact on crime rates. Another study by Drago et al. in 2009 found similar results. Harsh punishment often leads to reoffending. It increases bitterness and alienation. Rehabilitation works better.
The Stanford Prison Experiment also supports this. It showed how harsh conditions harm both guards and prisoners. Abuse in prisons escalates violence. Instead of deterring crime, it often makes offenders worse. Many experts call for humane reforms. These include education, therapy, and skill-building programs. They are more effective at reducing crime than harsh penalties.
People like torture
My hometown lies 2 kilometers from Valdice, a small town with a very long tradition of brutalizing people. You get there just by walking along the basswood alley built by then the most powerful man in Europe Albrecht von Wallenstein.
There is one of the two worst prisons in the Czech Republic. The worst of the worst are there.
And here comes the vindictiveness. People swear to the prisoners, but torture conducted by the correction officers had been profound. And they don’t mind it. They only blame the prisoners.
Surviving communist torture
Spartakiáda was a grand communist sports feast. And once upon a time, a lot of rape murders happened. They didn’t have any suspects.
But they later found out the culprit was a 16-year-old Jiří Straka, a sociopath, sadist, and man with an IQ of 125.
His parents wished him to be granted the death penalty. But not because of their abandonment of him. They just knew Bolsheviks were best at torturing people. They gave him a long sentence instead.
And they were correct in every single word. He was brutalized by fellow inmates but notably by correction officers. But even some other inmates felt pity for him. Forced to drink his own urine and blood, he was mock-executed, starved, left in a cold cell, brutally beaten almost to death, poured on with boiling water, and then finally one of the COs proclaimed: “You are alive but you’re not gonna have intercourse anymore!” His testicles were kicked with such power that he underwent castration.
The saddest part is that the majority of people in my country are pro-torture. Gladly, the elite rules (lawmakers, judges, attorneys, government, and so on) and they do have a different moral compass, so torture likely still occurs in prisons but not on such a scale.
There is the moral imperative of the global prison system. The US invokes human rights but fails miserably to make third-world countries get rid of torture because of business interests.
Vindictiveness vice versa. If animals could be vindictive to us
Given what we do to animals, imagine they would be vindictive as well. If animals had the power and chose to be vindictive, humanity would face a reckoning like no other. Imagine a world where animals took revenge for the centuries of suffering inflicted upon them.
Factory-farmed animals – cows, pigs, and chickens – could turn the tables. Humans might be herded into cramped cages, unable to move, stripped of dignity. They would be force-fed unnatural diets, pumped with hormones, and bred relentlessly. Infants could be torn away from mothers, their cries ignored, just as calves are separated from dairy cows. The slaughterhouses would become execution chambers for humans, with the same cold efficiency.
Wild animals would reclaim their dominion over the Earth. Lions, wolves, and bears might stalk humans, hunting them for sport, exacting their vengeance for the habitats destroyed and family members killed. Birds of prey could dive down, snatching people as easily as they once snatched fish. Poisonous snakes and spiders might invade human homes, ensuring no place is safe.
Elephants, intelligent and deeply emotional creatures, could destroy cities with the same indifference that bulldozers destroy their forests. Herds of elephants might trample down skyscrapers as humans have trampled their herds. They could break roads and dams, flooding human settlements, mirroring the environmental destruction caused by human greed.
Cruelty and vindictiveness we don’t want
Marine animals, like sharks and whales, could drag humans into the depths of the ocean. Fish and coral might poison the waters humans drink, turning the tables on pollution and overfishing. Jellyfish, once powerless against nets, could blanket beaches, ensuring humans could no longer enjoy the seas they exploited.
Insects, so often killed en masse with pesticides, might swarm cities, making every breath and step unbearable. Bees, wasps, and ants could form deadly armies, avenging their colonies destroyed by human chemicals. Even the tiniest of creatures, once deemed insignificant, could become harbingers of pain.
Laboratory animals, subjected to endless experiments, could imprison humans in cages, injecting them with untested chemicals, watching as their health deteriorates. Primates, in particular, could exact horrific revenge, using their intelligence to mimic and amplify the torture they endured.
Even domestic animals, often loved but equally often abused, might rise against their owners. Dogs, cats, and horses could refuse loyalty, turning against the humans who neglected, abandoned, or mistreated them. Pets once confined to small apartments might chain their owners, making them live in the same suffocating isolation.
This world would be a reflection of humanity’s darkest actions. Animals could weaponize every cruelty we have inflicted – turning captivity, slaughter, pollution, and torture back onto us. It would be a cycle of vengeance, a brutal mirror of what they’ve endured.
Yet animals do not have this power, nor do they have the nature for such vindictiveness. But imagining such a reversal forces us to confront the scale of our actions. If we wouldn’t want to live in such a world, why should they?
Conclusion
Vindictiveness is inhumane, goes against human rights, and is a truly maladaptive trait. Schools should teach how to be humane, not to succumb to the lowest of the low prehistoric instincts.
Deterrents don’t work (harsh jail). We should look at ourselves in the mirror; we are abusing nature by maiming animals in large-scale herding and letting nature itself continue with unbelievable cruelty.
Imagine if the sides changed and animals ruled us with all the vindictiveness…
Leave a Reply