My friend told me that his chickens, all the hens and the rooster had been slaughtered by a mink. He knew the killer was a mink because a nearby hunter saw the it leaving my friend’s farm and told him. My friend told me that the murderous rodent ate only one of the birds but killed all the others. This is a problem for me. Apparently minks kill not to feed themselves but for no good reason, as a sort of sport. This contradicts my belief that animals are inherently moral, that they kill only to survive. Chickens pose no threat but minks slaughter them out of sheer brutal meanness, it seems. I thought only humans did that. I thought war was a perverse product of human will.
Looks like I am wrong to assume that morality is inherent in nature. Rodents are devoid of intellect; they act on instinct. I always thought the the source of evil was human will, that immorality was a strictly human choice, contrary to natural instinct; but a mink is capable of murderous cruelty. This challenges my belief that the universe is inherently holy, essentially beneficial, moral, supporting all life and nurturing existence, because if unthinking rodents kill innocent chickens for sport…
So morality, the primary evidence of love in the human world, our motivation to be kind, to help and not to harm one another, is a learned trait. It stands to reason. Otherwise why would sages and Saviors, scriptures and philosophers be necessary?
Nick Hilton - Reflections 