We cannot tell how the animals integrate in their lives the general interest of their particular species for self-preservation. Are the individuals apart of it or they are subdue to it?
It is safer to disregard both of these possibilities; because they suggest that the goal which can be delimited only by the human mind can be approached in the same way by the animals themselves.
However, we must admit that in the self care of any animal subsists something which is different from the activities that are beneficial to its own life.
And the difference comes into play when one animal meets another one. The individual’s link with the other members of its species for a common interest reveals itself in their interaction. But this fact does not necessarily involve that their interaction must be peaceful or that they should conscientiously agree with each other about some common purpose.
Even if they meet for fighting, their meeting is good for the species. And any kind of meeting bears the mark of a conflicting state, since it is damaged the way of existing only for oneself.
Human beings hide this fact establishing that the common good is the matter of a conscious agreement. Moreover, they are reluctant to admit that any interaction has a conflicting element. The ideal of love or friendship is falsely conceived as a state of overall peace.
If we apply the same measure as that used for other animals, we should affirm that there is a common good to which we contribute unconsciously. And the ancestral belief in the common life we share with the dead members of our families is a proof. Secondly, we should recognize the beneficial aspect of any conflicting state as it is testified by the lonely people. They can survive as long as they feel that are in a conflicting state with the rest of the world or at least with a part of it.