What comes to you as you contemplate this truth and its relation to the nature of evil as you shared in your podcast?

Hi Jim! Thanks for the question.

Hm. "A dog is loyal and will hump your boss's wife's leg at the dinner table"

As an owner of a few dogs that's not far from the truth. But I have found that a dog's loyalty is a strange thing. It's not exactly uncondititional, in fact, it's quite conditional on our ability to provide food. A dog is loyal insomuch that we can provide for the pack. Now, I've always kept big dogs more connected to their wolven ancestors, and have no doubt that my assertion as Alpha is precarious at best. But to your point, there is an unspoken understanding among dogs and humans that seems to perservere, and as many have said before me, who domesticated who is certainly up for debate.

But to the point of your question. One can certainly not fault the dog for being a dog. In fact, the hardest part of being a dog owner for me is having to assert my human boundaries over them so they don't kill the neighbor's chickens or instigate fights with other dogs, or dig up all of our vegetables to catch a squirrel. They are still of the wild. Something we humans have come a long way from (mostly to our detriment.)

Is the dog evil for killing another dog? Or chicken. Of course not. It is part of their nature. To change their nature is to mold them into our own, which has the very flavor of evil we're speaking of. The strange thing about dogs, and children, is we are responsible for them, not just socially but legally. Which brings up a good question about the tendency in ourselves to want to change others and it's link to evil (as Carse would put it.) What happens when we are responsible for other's behavior and thus must shape it to our will?

The paradox perserveres.