This lion only appears to be engaging in goal-directed behavior. It is only acting 'as if' it wants something.
Organisms are purposive ("teleological") beings. Nothing could be more obvious. The fact of the matter is so indisputable that even those who don't believe it really do believe it. Philosopher of biology Robert Arp speaks for biology as a whole when he writes,"Thinkers cannot seem to get around [evolutionary biologist Robert] Trivers' claim that "even the humblest creature, say, a virus, appears organized to do something; it acts as if it is trying to achieve some purpose", or [political philosopher Larry] Arnhart's observation that . . . "Reproduction, growth, feeding, healing, courtship, parental care for the young - these and many other activities of organisms are goal-directed".1"And yet, despite his acknowledgment that we "cannot get around" this truth, Arp again speaks for almost the entire discipline of biology when he tries, with some delicacy, to take it all back: "with respect to organisms, it is useful to think as if these entities have traits and processes that function in goal-directed ways" (his emphasis). This as if is a long-running cliché, designed to warn us that the organism's purposive behavior is somehow deceptive - not quite what it seems. The goal-directedness is, in the conventional terminology, merely apparent or illusory. Certainly it must not be seen as having any relation at all to human purposive activity - an odd insistence given how eager so many biologists are to make sure we never forget that the human being is "just another animal".
Others have commented on this strange reluctance to acknowledge fully the purposiveness that is there for all to see. The philosopher of science, Karl Popper, said that "The fear of using teleological terms reminds me of the Victorian fear of speaking about sex".2 Popper may have had in mind a famous remark by his friend and twentieth-century British evolutionary theorist, J. B. S. Haldane, who once quipped that "Teleology is like a mistress to a biologist; he cannot live without her but he's unwilling to be seen with her in public". More.Funny that normal language should be poorly adapted after all this time.
When people are at great pains to try to alter their language so as to pretend that something isn't true that really is, what should we call that? Should we cater to it?
R.C.
P.s., Not only do 'great minds' think alike; but, more specifically, likewise do 'open minds' - i.e., those not hidebound by 'untouchable past factual conclusions" - who if they merely question or critique in order to better understant same, will be promptly labed an academic "untouchable heretic." Such 'modern-martyred heretics can be found questioning:
1) The 9/11/2001 'official' story, e.g., Prof. Steven Jones;
2) Darwinism, vs. recent findings inexplicable if that (D-ism) alone remains untouchable; and,
3) the even MORE untouchable - nay! most untouchable of all subjects - the 'HolyCo$t"'; et al.)
For a more specific example, consider the case where a logical ornithologist and a logical botanist, in analyzing the role of a particular species of bird and of plant, respectively, (from their relatively diverse knowledge and differing methodologies) will often come to the exact same conclusion,* while each remain unaware of the other.**
Such concurrence will most often be found when such researchers/scientists, each and both:
A) Have well informed, and most importantly, OPEN minds; and
B) Use logic, knowledge, and common sense, and
C) (Nowadays - a requirement) Do their damnedest to not let P.C. constrictions affect their conclusions.
*C.f., In the Neotropies, numerous nectar‑ and fruit‑eating birds engage in loose mutualisms with plants that provide them with food (Feinsinger, 1983, 1987; Snow, 1981). While feeding on the fruit pulp or flower nectar, the birds act as seed dispersers or pollinators. These relationships contribute significantly to species diversity in many tropical forests (Gentry, 1982; Stiles, 1985). [Link]
** Of course, such concurrent findings from such varying perspectives make their independent, yet concurring, conclusion(s) far more likely correct - by at least a magnitude.
RC