>>24700426
>Chimps and dogs want justice so the inclination is not a product of arbitrary human whims but an adaptation / reflection of something external.
Chimps being so biologically close to humans they're practically the same object from any broad stroke perspective, and dogs being wholly psychologically shaped by humans would indicate a great deal of interference here that you aren't accounting for.
This revelation entails more investigation. You might be able to extend some notion of this to any mammal which has a social system (however tenuous, even herd animals apply), but observably it does not extend to non-social mammals like cats, non-mammal animals (even social ones) like cockroaches, non-animal life like plants, non-life animate objects like rivers, and inanimate objects like rocks.
So then, because it's observably limited to an extremely tight neighborhood of objects, we can infer it's a product of one or more traits shared by that neighborhood, meaning it must be constructed out of internal facets.
Of course, it's a faulty position to begin with, since it's trivially demonstrable that different humans have different notions of justice. Among them, many do not consider malignant action and retaliation to be just. Thus the example given is wholly inappropriate to make this argument, making this whole exercise a non-sequitur, and in good faith must be dismissed even before we get to the rest of the myriad of holes within its construction.