Do Good & Evil exist outside of Human society?

Do Good & Evil exist

  • Yes

    Votes: 79 38.5%
  • No

    Votes: 122 59.5%
  • There is only Good

    Votes: 4 2.0%
  • There is only Evil

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    205

QuantumIguana

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 18, 2012
Messages
133
Reaction score
8
Don't be too hard on the poor beasts. For any social animal, there are ways that they need to conduct themselves, or face negative consequences. We used to think that the alpha male was an absolute dictator, but we've learned that the alpha male can't do it all on his own, that he has to make alliances and keep the other animals reasonably happy in order to remain in power.
 

RPecha

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
87
Reaction score
1
Location
Pennsylvania
Good and Evil, Right and Wrong... whether someone or an action is one or the other all depends on point of view. Thus it is a relative abstraction. I will give the best example I can think of, and I refuse to list hitler/nazis because it is an extremely overused statement.

A tyrannical government is formed. The man who leads/formed it didn't go around saying I am going to be evil. In fact he did it in order to prepare for and make sure the nation survives a big war most people didn't believe would happen. The populaces themselves viewed the man as evil and most were to scared/unable to do a thing. They put the label onto the leader of evil. (Yes, it is ripped from fable 3 but it is a good example. The king was genuinely trying to make sure the kingdom survived a war he kept on warning about but noone would even believe him, not even the populist. So in fact he did what he must to ensure the kingdoms survival, even if it was extremely unpopular. Then the player character actually stumbles upon the truth when trying to build a resistance against the evil tyrannical leader.

It all boils down to doing an unpopular act to insure as much of the population as possible survived. He found out about the threat while on an expedition and tried to get people to come together on the issue. Noone believed him, meaning the so called "peaceful/good" solution failed. He then did what he had to do to insure the survival of his kingdom.

The same can be said of society in general. Society is too stupid to realize that if you are different, it doesn't mean you are an evil threat that must be dealt with harshly. I could go into a huge rant about sheep but I won't. I will just leave it at that.
 

Baconbits

Registered
Joined
Jan 29, 2012
Messages
20
Reaction score
1
Location
USA
Good and evil are only subjective perspectives based on that one individual's vision. There is no concrete good or evil, simply an opinion of the how a specific circumstance relates to the perception of the observer.

Let's use something simple as the example. Bank-robbery. Most people are going to put this squarely into the "bad" column. It's against the law to take something that doesn't belong to you without paying for it, or so goes the mentality of ownership. However, to the bank robber the idea of robbing said bank holds no concrete "bad" to it. Justifications as to why it is okay generally present, but the person internally must go against societal conditioning. We are taught guilt from a young age, taught to share what we have, but at the same time we are instinctively possessive of our own belongings. That is the paradox, taught to share with others, yet taking something from someone else is wrong. Level of selfishness and resentment of authority also comes into play. Then there's also the thrill seekers who steal for the fun of it, the game, the guys that are pros. Their lack of cultural moral compass is their reason.

I'm not out robbing banks, because I lack the motivation to plan it. I can honestly see where it might be thrilling, though I'd much prefer a different type of heist, rather than up front bank robbery, that runs too much of a personal survivability risk. But I don't do this. Not because I view it as bad, or that society views it as bad, but because I don't want to. It really doesn't get much simpler than that.

Let's take something even more personal: Cheating. Most people have either been in a relationship where their partner has had some sort of cheating activity, or they themselves have cheated. Some view it as bad, evil, a sin even, where as others don't care much. A while ago I read a book except that listed the 17 reasons people cheat on a relationship. But again it's all perception. A lot of people carry on affairs never to actually get caught, but then confess, making relationship uncomfortable with mistrust and anger. If the act was never found out about, things would continue on as normal, and maybe things weren't bad.

But there is such an emotional entanglement with something like that, that it is hard to classify as evil.

Things others have listed, like killing, rape, torture, those types of sadistic behavior, causing pain results in pleasure kinds of people. They aren't like normal people. It's as if their tie to the thing that makes us human is cut, and they lack that thing we call compassion.

A bank robber, while doing something dangerous and socially wrong, may still have compassion. They may be able to feel compassion towards their loved ones, and to select people, but to general humanity lack a sense of concern or compassion. But these are again, all subjective things based on the perspective of the observer.

It takes a human perspective to observe action and determine it's place on a moral scale. Outside of human perception there is no good or evil, there just is the nature of the universe.
 

QuantumIguana

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 18, 2012
Messages
133
Reaction score
8
In any case, evil doesn't have explanatory power. If you have a character who does evil acts just because he or she is evil, then you're into Snidely Whiplash territory.

Greed, selfishness, wrath, these are some possible motives for someone to do or be inclined to do evil acts.
 

kborsden

Has a few recurring issues
Kind Benefactor
Poetry Book Collaborator
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
5,973
Reaction score
1,312
Location
Where opinions have a distinct aroma.
True Evil, the evil that deserves a capital letter, absolute Evil does indeed not have any explanatory power--that's what makes it so evil, the fact that it happens and is done, carried out or executed without reason or purpose, evil for the sake of it; for the enjoyment of it.

Goodness on the other hand always has a reason. We do good things to be good people, to get into heaven, to benefit others, or even because we feel it must be done in order to improve our standard of life--this is because we strive for goodness to escape evil, the evil around us, the evil within us.

So, to reiterate an earlier post, yes; evil exists outside of human society and any sense or notion of philosophy or society in any form, but 'good' is a human notion designed to assist us in feeling better about what we do within the restriction of societal rule and to enable us to distance ourselves (arrogantly) from the beasts.
 

Lhipenwhe

Moving with my soul, step by step
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 3, 2012
Messages
745
Reaction score
94
Location
Saint Paul
Good and evil exist in the minds of men, and as a viewpoint are inherently subjective from person to person. For me, it has no existence besides what we give it and/or assign. I give it the same weight as I give in other intangibles, such as 'justice' and God; it's only as useful/productive if people put thought and effort into it.

Of course, I'm against murder, rape, theft, and other crimes, partially due to my upbringing and partially due to not wanting to commit said crimes. I consider myself fortunate that I live in a society that's against the same things.
 

Lucas

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 17, 2012
Messages
244
Reaction score
8
The interesting thing is that you could do a good action for the case of being good, and then you would negate the meaning of that action.

While you could commit an act of conscious evil, and it would be even more evil because you do it for the evulz.

An example.

An aspiring politician saves a boy from drowning, not because of the boy, but because the boy is a mean to getting elected because there are people with cameras at the beach.

Another example.

A little kitten is approaching an old bitter hag. The hag lures the kitty with sweets and then takes a pair of scissors to cut off its tail, so it would slowly bleed to death in terrible agonies before her, and she is doing that for no other reason than that she gets pleasure from watching the kitten scream and die slowly before her.

To return to the topic, I do believe that good and evil do exist (even though I didn't a few years ago). Very few actions are purely evil or purely good.

A purely good action would be akin to doing something for someone else and not gaining anything on it or even losing on it on a personal basis.

A purely evil action is not to do something bad towards anyone because you win something on it, but because the pleasure of seeing someone else suffer is the reward in itself.
 

QuantumIguana

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 18, 2012
Messages
133
Reaction score
8
Whether good or evil exist is a different question than whether actions can legitimately be described as good and evil. Running does not exist apart from runners. If every person stopped running at the same time, running would no longer exist. It would exist again once someone ran again. We would still have the idea of running in our minds, but the idea of running is not running.

I believe it is the same thing with good and evil. There are things that are harmful, and we call them evil, and there are beneficial things, and we call those good. But good and evil are properly adjectives, not nouns. We can use them as nouns, but that is a figure of speech.

Evil out of pure malice is frightening because it is lacks reason, we can't predict it. We can lock our door, and that will keep out a person doing rational evil: a person wanting to rob our homes will see that it is not worth the trouble. But an irrationally evil person may not be dissuaded by any lock, and not think about possible consequences to himself or herself.

But still, there can be worse evils than pure malice. Malice can have limitations, but evil done out of greed or ambition is boundless.
 

robjvargas

Rob J. Vargas
Banned
Joined
Dec 9, 2011
Messages
6,543
Reaction score
511
I believe that good and evil do exist as opposite ends of a spectrum. Those ends are never fully reached, but they are still there.

I disagree with Lucas that the suffering is the point of enjoyment in an evil act. I'll use a non-human example.

Orcas eat seals. But every now and then a pair or more of Orcas have been observed tossing a seal body around after it's caught. They'll smack it with their tails, fling it with their teeth. And the seal doesn't always die quickly. Nor is the seal eaten when the Orcas finish. Not always.

That's a moment of evil. It's a moment of enjoyment, of entertainment, completely, possibly deliberately, ignorant of the suffering of the seal. Clearly, we don't *know* this to be the case. But as observed, I stand by that characterization. The seal's suffering may indeed be the point of the enjoyment. But even if not, there is still a case to be made for evil in the act.
 

Lucas

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 17, 2012
Messages
244
Reaction score
8
Orcas eat seals. But every now and then a pair or more of Orcas have been observed tossing a seal body around after it's caught. They'll smack it with their tails, fling it with their teeth. And the seal doesn't always die quickly. Nor is the seal eaten when the Orcas finish. Not always.

That's a moment of evil. It's a moment of enjoyment, of entertainment, completely, possibly deliberately, ignorant of the suffering of the seal. Clearly, we don't *know* this to be the case. But as observed, I stand by that characterization. The seal's suffering may indeed be the point of the enjoyment. But even if not, there is still a case to be made for evil in the act

Disagreed.

Amongst some youths, its seen as a masculine thing to kill animals. In some cultures, like Spain, there are traditional celebrations were animals are killed in painful ways to fulfil som religious function.

That is of course revolting, but it isn't done out of malice. It is rather a cultural framework that accepts that.

The same with the Orcas, though on a somewhat more basic and primitive level. The seal is not seen as a living being that could feel pain by the Orcas, but as a toy ball.

Indifference cannot really be called evil. Neither hate.

Evil is when someone gets joy because they have caused suffering for someone else, and the suffering in itself is the point of all of it.

Greed is more some kind of nauseating grey mist that kills people. It is reprehensible, but I wouldn't classify it as evil.

I prefer a caleidoscope before a dualism.
 

QuantumIguana

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 18, 2012
Messages
133
Reaction score
8
We don't call a child evil for pulling a cat's tail. We teach that child that the cat has feelings, and that they shouldn't pull the cats tail. To be evil, the child would have to understand that the cat had feelings, and pulled the cat's tail with the intent of causing pain. True evil requires empathy. The orcas just aren't thinking of the seal's feelings, they aren't capable of it.

Looking across species probably isn't the best example. Social species have rules of behavior, and if those rules are broken, there are consequences.

Greed is far more evil than some monster who does evil out of desire to harm. Far more damage can be done by the greedy person. The greedy person doesn't have anything personal against you, he just wants something, and doesn't care a bit if you have to suffer for him to have it.
 

robjvargas

Rob J. Vargas
Banned
Joined
Dec 9, 2011
Messages
6,543
Reaction score
511
We disagree on the definition of evil, then, Lucas. I remember the saying, paraphrased, that the evilest thing Satan has ever done is convincing us that he doesn't exist. Another saying along those lines is the idea that the way to Hell is paved with good intentions.

That's sort of analogous here. The act of satisfying one's self, to the exclusion of all other considerations, that's evil. It's true that we have to teach children certain acts are not to be carried out, like the pulling of a cat's tail. The child may not BE evil for it, but I submit that the act itself remains evil. If the child refuses the lesson, does the act somehow become OK because the child rejected our teachings on it?

There are actions and activities that are good, and those that are evil. People can reach in both directions without ever having the intent of it. So, too, can animals. And we don't have to *become* good or evil to do it.
 

Lucas

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 17, 2012
Messages
244
Reaction score
8
We disagree on the definition of evil, then, Lucas. I remember the saying, paraphrased, that the evilest thing Satan has ever done is convincing us that he doesn't exist. Another saying along those lines is the idea that the way to Hell is paved with good intentions.

That's sort of analogous here. The act of satisfying one's self, to the exclusion of all other considerations, that's evil. It's true that we have to teach children certain acts are not to be carried out, like the pulling of a cat's tail. The child may not BE evil for it, but I submit that the act itself remains evil. If the child refuses the lesson, does the act somehow become OK because the child rejected our teachings on it?

There are actions and activities that are good, and those that are evil. People can reach in both directions without ever having the intent of it. So, too, can animals. And we don't have to *become* good or evil to do it.

I separate between evil actions and actions which have evil consequences.

For example, if we say that I am an Italian prince in the 16th century, and I am assassinating a political opponent, I might do it for "the best of my family" (which isn't overally evil), but the effects are still heartbreaking for the family of the political opponent.

I never used a kid dragging a cat in the tail. Remember that I stated that even an audience watching animal torture as a part of a tradition aren't per definition evil.

What is in itself evil is if an adult human being, with the knowledge what physical and mental pain animal cruelty is causing, is willfully engaging in an act of animal torture because the pain and anguish it leads to.

Intelligent people often assume that when other people commit actions that are morally or socially unacceptable, the reason must be either ignorance or some kind of mental problem.

While I agree that most acts of everyday evil we all experience or see in our everyday lives (someone spreading rumours, a kid beating another kid, a group of girls freezing out a new girl with unfashionable clothes) are based around ignorance or stupidity, there do exist rare specimens of psychopaths who are doing such actions with the calculated understanding of the pain that it causes.

I don't believe that there are evil people in the Christian sense, just people that commit good or evil actions. Some people, however, choose to commit so many evil actions that it almost becomes a part of their being.

The most evil character in the fantasy world I have created is not evil because he doesn't understand good as a concept. He understands it, and rejects it. He desires power not for the sake of power, but because he wants to satisfy his sadistical sexual desires without any consequence whatsoever.
 

robjvargas

Rob J. Vargas
Banned
Joined
Dec 9, 2011
Messages
6,543
Reaction score
511
I separate between evil actions and actions which have evil consequences.

So do I, but that lead me back to the question posed in the thread title. Which is the context of my point.

Can it exist outside the human context?

And I say yes. Whether we speak of an animal being evil, or just that evil acts can exist, yes.
 

Lucas

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 17, 2012
Messages
244
Reaction score
8
So do I, but that lead me back to the question posed in the thread title. Which is the context of my point.

Can it exist outside the human context?

And I say yes. Whether we speak of an animal being evil, or just that evil acts can exist, yes.

Probably.

Our culture is originally built on the idea that humans somehow are especially connected with an external deity which has provided us with morality.
 

DamnStraight

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2012
Messages
65
Reaction score
1
A human's perception concludes good or evil. No human, no perception, then no good or evil.
 

robjvargas

Rob J. Vargas
Banned
Joined
Dec 9, 2011
Messages
6,543
Reaction score
511
Probably.

Our culture is originally built on the idea that humans somehow are especially connected with an external deity which has provided us with morality.

Oh no. Monotheism is a relatively modern philosophy. At least relative to polytheism.

In fact, some of the earliest cave paintings are hypothesized to have been drawn to gather in the spirit or energy of animals.

Even if we are unique in our ability to perceive good and evil, its origins derive from nature, the world, the universe.
 

Lucas

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 17, 2012
Messages
244
Reaction score
8
A human's perception concludes good or evil. No human, no perception, then no good or evil.

That assumes that animals don't have perception, which is really a specieistic variation of solipsism.
 

DamnStraight

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2012
Messages
65
Reaction score
1
That assumes that animals don't have perception, which is really a specieistic variation of solipsism.

I believe animals do have a perception. I believe their minds exist outside of humans, but animals don't have the faculties to understand good or evil. I have yet heard of an animal doing acts that could be considered good or evil.
 

robjvargas

Rob J. Vargas
Banned
Joined
Dec 9, 2011
Messages
6,543
Reaction score
511
I believe animals do have a perception. I believe their minds exist outside of humans, but animals don't have the faculties to understand good or evil. I have yet heard of an animal doing acts that could be considered good or evil.

Hmm...

Does an act require the animal's perception of the act as good or evil in order for the act itself to be good or evil?

I don't think so.

And there are acts where a perspective shift can alter the character of the act. Like a mountain lion repeatedly letting a rabbit or a fawn go, then catch it all over again, all the while progressively crippling the prey...

Until we see the lion cub, and how the mother is trying to teach the cub to hunt. And to kill. After all, nature doesn't provide dry-run simulations.
 

Helen Taft

Registered
Joined
Feb 15, 2012
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
Location
England
Grace, charity and kindness are good as they require a deliberate act of self-denial, forgiveness or some sort of self-sacrifice (especially for the first two).

Animals do not murder, they kill to eat or defend themselves or their territory. Natural disasters/accidents do not murder as they are not deliberate.

Torture for the sake of giving pain (and getting a thrill for doing so) is not known in nature. I imagine there are some animals/fish/insects that inflict pain on a prey because they require live food, but again the intent is to eat and so survive. The motive is still not evil.

In nature a sex act is instinctive and NOT twisted into desire for kids/old people/dead bodies/pain etc

I definitely believe good and evil exist.
 

robjvargas

Rob J. Vargas
Banned
Joined
Dec 9, 2011
Messages
6,543
Reaction score
511
I don't accept that a natural element must *intend* to inflict pain for it to be evil. Again, I point to the saying that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. There is truth in that saying. It would not surprise me to learn that some of history's worst tyrants began their reigns with beneficence.

So I accept your statement with torture for the sake of giving pain is not known in nature ("in nature..." I don't accept that term, either. Man has choice, but man, too, is nature, though that's a point for another time). I just don't accept the condition you place in that statement as being the only means of carrying out evil acts.

Does the seal in this video really care about the orca's intent? Does it ever get an opportunity to examine the moral implications of being flipped through the air?

No, I don't think orcas are evil as a species, or even as beings. But that does not exclude them, or other species, from carrying out evil acts. And if an act can be evil, then evil does, in fact, exist "outside of human society."
 

Helen Taft

Registered
Joined
Feb 15, 2012
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
Location
England
Hi, you raise interesting points but I think we many end up agreeing to disagree.

I don't accept that a natural element must *intend* to inflict pain for it to be evil.
I do believe and am fully convinced evil is a conscious decision to undertake an act knowing it is wrong, and that pain or suffering is being inflicted. A seal suffers while it is hunted for food, yes. Unfortunately for the seal it has a natural predator that wants to eat! The motive however is purely to eat, not to cause suffering. The motive is not evil.

Can you really equate the hunting of seals by natural pedators to the holocaust? Or a serial killer or a paedophile, or a serial rapist who attacks not even through a real desire but purely to cause pain, bring about dominance and to cause terror and humiliation in his victims? Evil IMO is the sole property of human beings because it goes to MOTIVE. We conciously act against our knowledge of right and wrong and justify it according to our own wishes or needs regardless of the pain and suffering of others. This IMO is evil.

Again, I point to the saying that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. There is truth in that saying. It would not surprise me to learn that some of history's worst tyrants began their reigns with beneficence.

And as their intentions morph to the point of knowingly causing suffering and pain then they are encroaching onto the territory of knowingly doing an evil act.

So I accept your statement with torture for the sake of giving pain is not known in nature ("in nature..." I don't accept that term, either. Man has choice, but man, too, is nature, though that's a point for another time). I just don't accept the condition you place in that statement as being the only means of carrying out evil acts.

I may be misundertanding you here. My belief is that an evil act is one undertaken when in full knowledge and acceptance of bringing about suffering to others (as in my second paragraph regarding serial killers and extermination camps etc.)

Animals prey on others for food, attack when territory is invaded, but the point is not to cause pain or suffering, but to survive and defend itself. Not evil just hard, brutal nature. Tragic for the seal, but not evil.

Human beings are capable of evil because we know right and wrong and act over and above the need to eat and survive.

No, I don't think orcas are evil as a species, or even as beings. But that does not exclude them, or other species, from carrying out evil acts. And if an act can be evil, then evil does, in fact, exist "outside of human society."

I disgree with you for the above reasons. IMO the root of evil is about motive and not the result. The seal is dead because the orca needed to eat. The young mum is dead because the murderer didn't like the way she was talking to the store clerk and decided to punish her to salve his pride! etc
 
Last edited:

Ziljon

Tortilla di Patate
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
1,316
Reaction score
417
Location
In the midst of 1000 Oaks
Website
www.daviddepalo.com
What is . . . is.

Hi, Ziljon here.

It's been a while since I chimed in. So much has happened. I've changed quite a bit since I started this thread, and so has my perception of reality.

I'm in a place now where I see that neither good nor evil exist, everything just is and only our perception changes.

As Shakespeare wrote in Hamlet, "There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so."
 

robjvargas

Rob J. Vargas
Banned
Joined
Dec 9, 2011
Messages
6,543
Reaction score
511
Hi, you raise interesting points but I think we many end up agreeing to disagree.

Maybe. And fair 'nuff.

I do believe and am fully convinced evil is a conscious decision to undertake an act knowing it is wrong, and that pain or suffering is being inflicted. A seal suffers while it is hunted for food, yes. Unfortunately for the seal it has a natural predator that wants to eat! The motive however is purely to eat, not to cause suffering. The motive is not evil.

Except that the seal isn't always eaten. As I've said before, I think I just define evil outside the norm. I won't argue the correctness of that. But that's how I see it.

Others hear John Lennon say, "Imagine all the people living for today." And they sigh wistfully,thinking of a perceived better way. I see the LA riots after the Rodney King verdict.

So for me, evil is a state of self absorption, of an abrogation of consequence. Either or both of those can be present either in an act or in a being.

Can you really equate the hunting of seals by natural pedators to the holocaust? Or a serial killer or a paedophile, or a serial rapist who attacks not even through a real desire but purely to cause pain, bring about dominance and to cause terror and humiliation in his victims?

No, I can't. But I don't have to. For me, evil isn't *just* a binary condition. It has nuances and degrees. There *can* be a "more" and a "less" evil, while both items are still evil.

And as I point out, there are documented cases where the whales hunted for something other than eating. If someone were to find another source for that act than the self-absorption I admit to presuming, then the context changes. Until then...

To put it simply, perhaps *too* simply, there are misdemeanor evils and there are felony evils. More, I'm sure, but that's sufficient for this discussion.

Evil IMO is the sole property of human beings because it goes to MOTIVE. We conciously act against our knowledge of right and wrong and justify it according to our own wishes or needs regardless of the pain and suffering of others. This IMO is evil.
I don't disagree that this is evil. I just think my view of it goes beyond. Motive, for me, can be involved, but doesn't have to be.

I'll use a human example: Over the past few years, there have been a few well-publicized cases of mothers killing children because of post-partum depression. In at least one case, the mother believed that she was helping the children. Under your definition, neither the mother nor the act are evil because that motive of right and wrong cannot apply. Under mine, the mother can be understood for the illness she suffers, while the act is still an evil act.

I derived this attitude from observing an acquaintance who sank into schizophrenia. That never got to the fatal stage. Still, I couldn't condemn the acquaintance, but neither could I excuse the act. So I rethought my ideology on evil. The seal/orca example, when I later learned of it, seems analogous.

And as their intentions morph to the point of knowingly causing suffering and pain then they are encroaching onto the territory of knowingly doing an evil act.

Here's the core of our disagreement, I think. Not that your description above is wrong. I agree with it. It just seems to me that you cannot divorce the act from the actor. But what if Hitler (or Stalin, or Pol Pot, or Noriega, pick a name) truly thought he was saving his country with his acts? Are those men, or their actions, now less evil because they didn't have the intent of evil?

I may be misundertanding you here. My belief is that an evil act is one undertaken when in full knowledge and acceptance of bringing about suffering to others (as in my second paragraph regarding serial killers and extermination camps etc.)

So far, not. We agree this far.

Animals prey on others for food, attack when territory is invaded, but the point is not to cause pain or suffering, but to survive and defend itself. Not evil just hard, brutal nature. Tragic for the seal, but not evil.

Ah, but the seal isn't encroaching, and it isn't always eaten. Sometimes, so far as we know, orcas beat and kill a seal as a form of play. It's still the way of nature. But I submit that such an act is evil still.

Human beings are capable of evil because we know right and wrong and act over and above the need to eat and survive.

Dogs (cats,even monkeys, and other animals, I believe) act to alert to fires, or to a human's impending seizure. It's tough to bring up any particular example, because it's possible in any particular case that it was more we people recognizing an animal's response than that the animal was actually alerting us. Still, I believe that those are acts of good. And, to paraphrase from the original Oh, God! movie, I can't imagine a coin with just one side.

So maybe you're right that we cannot divorce intent from action. I just don't agree with it based on what I see in this world on BOTH sides of that coin.