# The Development Of Morality.....



## mosaix (May 25, 2008)

In this week's New Scientist there's an article about what makes humans different from animals. It's surprisingly difficult to define the difference.

Morality was one of the subjects covered. There was mention of a series of experiments done with monkeys.

Some monkeys refused to take food if the action of taking it gave another monkey an electric shock. 

This is the first I've heard of this. Anyone any info on this?


----------



## TheEndIsNigh (May 25, 2008)

I find this hard to believe. 

For one how did they know the other monkey gets an electric shook unless they had some experience of it themselves, in which case we're back to Pavlov.

For two there are now reputable reports of some apes seeking out killing and eating other monkey's. That, together with the dicipline 'dished' out within a group of monkeys suggests they couldn't 'give a fig' for other monkeys well being.


----------



## j d worthington (May 25, 2008)

Not quite correct, TEIN. A) Many simian species use observation, memory, and a fairly high level of reasoning where such behaviors are concerned. B) Yes, there are reports of such behavior, but they tend to be under certain conditions: "tribes" competing for land/resources; rogue individuals; or (in some cases) a particular alpha male who kills a female's offspring to induce a state of grieving in which she turns to that male for comfort, providing him with sex. This last isn't all that common, but it has been noted now and again.

On the whole, however, simian societies have long shown a surprising degree of such structures and at least nascent ethics/morality. They are certainly more than capable of empathy, as we've seen in numerous studies as well as individual cases. (And as I can confirm from personal experience, having had a squirrel monkey for many years when I was younger.) Given their abilities at observation and putting factors together, it's not at all surprising they would recognize a danger they've witnessed before and attempt to shield another from its effects.

I've not seen anything on this particular study, but there's been a growing body of evidence that many of the primate species do have rather complex systems of ethics, a bit more complex than most other species perhaps; but all tending toward an indication that our development of ethics, as with so many of the things we think of as uniquely human, is more a matter of degree or refinement than an inherent difference _per se_.


----------



## chrispenycate (May 25, 2008)

I don't even think we need to restrict ourselves to primates, even. Any social species (wolfpack, meercat) will have situations where personal comfort is in conflict with community benefit, and, in mammals at least, the choice of behaviour follows rules learnt in infancy.
'Instinct rather than mentition' I don't quite hear you say.
Yes, but some individuals will make their decisions following different criteria, and those brought up outside the group for some reason differently from those 'socialised' from birth. These are learnt responses.
Qantitive difference, obviously. Qualitative, I'm not that sure.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (May 25, 2008)

TheEndIsNigh said:


> For two there are now reputable reports of some apes seeking out killing and eating other monkey's. That, together with the dicipline 'dished' out within a group of monkeys suggests they couldn't 'give a fig' for other monkeys well being.



Isn't this rather like saying that because humans hunt and eat other species, engage in war with their own kind, and can be quite cruel in their punishment of individuals within their own communities who deviate from accepted behaviors, that _we're_ incapable of empathy and morality?

Even among humans, an individual is more likely to view moral codes as applicable only within his own culture, or, more narrowly, his own community.  (In the case of the experimental monkeys, this would apply to the monkeys they live with, perhaps even have grown up with.)  At the same time, history tells us that "heretics" are usually punished more severely than "infidels" -- since the threat within can be seen as far more terrifying than the threat from outside.  People can be horrendously cruel even to members of their own families if they feel honor has been violated or see a threat to the larger culture.

Compared to your average pogrom, inquisition, or bride burning, a few apes bashing in the heads of monkeys and serving them up for dinner seems relatively benign.


----------



## j d worthington (May 25, 2008)

No, Chris, I'd agree we don't have to restrict it to primates. I simply made the comment that, from the studies I've seen and what I've heard from those involved in studying such questions, the level of complexity with such things is a bit higher with primates than with many other species. But, again, that goes toward what I was saying: that the _bases_ of such systems is something shared with nearly all social types of life; it's the complexity and refinement that tends to differ.

Or, as Lovecraft once put it: "Morality is the adjustment of matter to its environment"....


----------



## HardScienceFan (May 25, 2008)

Didn't Frans de Waal publish something on this,Mo,J.D.?
the Dutch primatologist?


----------



## j d worthington (May 25, 2008)

HardScienceFan said:


> Didn't Frans de Waal publish something on this,Mo,J.D.?
> the Dutch primatologist?


 
I don't know on that one, Ben.

Ah... just looked up links, and it certainly looks as if he has:

The Believer - Interview with Frans de Waal

(see especially "II. The Real Darwinian Position")

Scientist Finds the Beginnings of Morality in Primate Behavior

Great Scholars at Emory

http://www.tannerlectures.utah.edu/lectures/documents/volume25/deWaal_2005.pdf

and his book *Primates and Philosophers: How Morality Evolved* (which I've not read, but there are some links to this as well).

It's interesting the tact emphasized of evolutionary biology to emphasize the "nastier" sides of what we inherit from our simian (and other) ancestors, as Dawkins himself has made it very clear long since that he sees at least some forms of altruism as being a very important and wonderful part of that evolutionary link we share.


----------



## HardScienceFan (May 25, 2008)

call me an idiot,but i think morality makes sense from an evolutionary perspective.
i think "morality' is a side effect of cerebral complexity.
And societal/cultural complexity as well.
Past a certain point,morality is inescapable.


----------



## j d worthington (May 25, 2008)

From what I'm seeing, that's a growing trend with no few scientists in the field of evolutionary biology: that morality, ethics, altruism, empathy, etc., all play a large role adaptation and survival of any complex species (for instance, above the level of insects and possibly, in some ways at least, even there).


----------



## HardScienceFan (May 25, 2008)

ah

a recent study seems to have shown affiliative and post-conflict reconciliatory
behaviour in canines.
hm
and also in corvid birds
well,crows are smart


----------



## HoopyFrood (May 25, 2008)

I recently read an article about a group of birds; how one would 'keep watch', as it were, over the rest of the group while they fed. They would sound the alarm if any kind of danger was nearby, putting themselves at risk but allowing the rest of the group to escape. Fascinating stuff.


----------



## j d worthington (May 25, 2008)

What of cases of birds bringing food to injured fellows; or the extreme cooperation they've shown in managing to open such things as motorcycle saddle-packs, distributing various duties (including lookout) and then parceling out the spoils?


----------



## HardScienceFan (May 25, 2008)

hm
but what is morality?
is it a purely philospohical/religious concept?
what would morality have us do if the Burmese government had persisted in its

er

shall we say..........
estranged ..............
view on foreign aid?


----------



## j d worthington (May 25, 2008)

I think that is an example of not being in adjustment with its environment; eventually it would call for some form of corrective influence, whether that result from within or without. If nothing else, it would likely cause a collapse of the existing structure, even if left entirely alone. 

Again, I'd say at base, morality is the adjustment of (in this case) living beings to their surroundings for the maximum achievable benefit to the greatest number, thereby providing a greater possibility of survival. This includes, of course, a complex level of adaptability to changing environment; hence no rigid authoritarian morality is likely to stand indefinitely. So I'd say that makes the religio-philosophical aspects of it more rationalizations or attempts to understand an underlying condition, and in no real substantive way either the _cause_ or the _fundamental_ support of either an existing or developing morality. Again, any connection between the two is more likely apparent than real.


----------



## TheEndIsNigh (May 25, 2008)

Teresa Edgerton said:


> Isn't this rather like saying that because humans hunt and eat other species, engage in war with their own kind, and can be quite cruel in their punishment of individuals within their own communities who deviate from accepted behaviors, that _we're_ incapable of empathy and morality?
> ....


 
Yet, presumably having transitioned through the apes level of development to our present stage we have no problem putting monkeys in cages and subjecting them to electric shocks just for the fun of it. It's Hitchhikers guide all over again. We don't just stick monkeys in cages and stick 20000 Volts into them and then go home. No, we stick 20000 Volts into them, go home and agonise about it with our wives. ( rough quote, apologies to Douglas)

Given 



chrispenycate said:


> I don't even think we need to restrict ourselves to primates, even. Any social species (wolfpack, meercat) will have situations where personal comfort is in conflict with community benefit, and, in mammals at least, the choice of behaviour follows rules learnt in infancy.
> 'Instinct rather than mentition' I don't quite hear you say.
> Yes, but some individuals will make their decisions following different criteria, and those brought up outside the group for some reason differently from those 'socialised' from birth. These are learnt responses.
> Qantitive difference, obviously. Qualitative, I'm not that sure.


 
Maybe the real position is that empathy and morals exists to a greater extent with the less developed species and it's a higher function to shed these limitations to further advancement.

Hence as we need to 'justify' certain repugnant practises, we shed the things that would have held us back in the past, excusing them with the 'for the greater good' argument.

As you say, since coming down from the trees, our history is littered with the debris of our new morality. Gas chambers in Germany and machetes in Rwanda being recent examples of how developed we are. Who knows we'll be injecting DNA into animal eggs next, then we can really see what makes them tick. 

And yes I think this is the start of a very very slippery slope. You may have noticed my opinion of the human being is not great. Why anybody with half a brain cell thinks a full term cymera will not be attempted is beyond me. I'm just surprised that it's not been done already.

Morality 'what' needs it, certainly not us Gods.


----------



## HardScienceFan (May 25, 2008)

you've certainly decoupled it from the religious aspect,J.D.
is morality cultural?
is it an epiphenomenon,to be defined and generated only by (an) underlying structure(s)?
communist morality ,a while ago,entailed reporting relatives to the police
so the greater good superseded kinship bonds


----------



## The Ace (May 25, 2008)

Well, I know chimpanzees _do_ make war on each other, they also hunt monkeys because the like the taste.


----------



## j d worthington (May 25, 2008)

Again, TEIN, I have to disagree with you. If you look at history, you'll find our morality has actually improved, not degraded. What used to be commonly accepted and perhaps not even seen as worthy of note has gradually become unacceptable behavior. The fact that we have developed technologies that allow us to carry out the remaining barbarisms more "efficiently" does not alter the fact that a greater percentage of the human race is less willing to accept barbarity on a day-to-day basis.

Look at the growing intolerance for some cultures' displacement of women; the fact that racist crimes do draw so much attention and concurrently censure, rather than simply being seen as part of the day-to-day; the growing intolerance of child abuse as opposed to the fact that even in Victorian England (and America of the same period) parents that caused the death of a child due to neglect, starvation, overwork, etc., would often face nothing more than ostracism; the fact that legal punishments have become increasingly more humane over the years (take a look at the Newgate Calendar, for instance, if you doubt this, where a person was often hanged for stealing thrupence or even bread on which to live)... 

The list goes on and on. The general zeitgeist (as Dawkins has pointed out) has almost consistently been toward a more humane, liberal, and compassionate interaction between human beings as a whole (however much individuals may fall short of that). Look at the statements of even liberal thinkers of a century ago on race, for example, and compare it to those widely accepted now. Those issued then by even the most liberal thinkers often sound like the white supremacists of today.

I long held a view similar to yours, and it took a bit of shaking up and getting me to actually look at facts to realize that I had things nearly inverted. Another factor is simply that we hear about such barbarous acts now more quickly and easily due to the speed and pervasiveness of communication; whereas in earlier periods you'd have to go digging through obscure records or lengthy investigations to find out about many of these incidents. (Not that they necessarily weren't recorded; a huge number of them were. Simply that they didn't receive public attention nearly so readily.) This, too, tends to color our perception of things and make us see the past as better morally, when often it was precisely the opposite case....


----------



## HardScienceFan (May 25, 2008)

so intelligent creatures wage war,Ace?
like Celtic and Rangers supporters

soccer violence isn't rational,that's for sure


----------



## HardScienceFan (May 25, 2008)

hm
tell you what JD
"new methods of interrogation"
whatever you do, don't call it by the other word
does the end justify the means?

if the end is "the greater good"?


----------



## j d worthington (May 25, 2008)

HardScienceFan said:


> you've certainly decoupled it from the religious aspect,J.D.
> is morality cultural?
> is it an epiphenomenon,to be defined and generated only by (an) underlying structure(s)?
> communist morality ,a while ago,entailed reporting relatives to the police
> so the greater good superseded kinship bonds


 
I'm not so certain that it is, Ben. At least, not in the way I think you mean. There can be a diversion into something like this, yes, which can last for some time; but again, it didn't last all that long, in terms of recorded history (let alone biological history). I'd say such things tend to either right themselves or the culture holding them becomes extinct.

And while Ace is right that such things do happen, they aren't (from what I've been able to gather) the main course of interaction, but generally due to other circumstances (when it comes to the warfare; the eating of other species is another matter, and not much different from our eating of other anthropoids or, for that matter, other mammals).


----------



## HardScienceFan (May 25, 2008)

i just wonder: is morality an end in itself?*
is our treatment of our surroundings 'moral'?
our tremendous consumptive lifestyle?
with concomitant depletion of resources?
*i have a suspicion it is


----------



## j d worthington (May 25, 2008)

HardScienceFan said:


> hm
> tell you what JD
> "new methods of interrogation"
> whatever you do, don't call it by the other word


 
I assume you mean "facts". All right, I'll clarify: the recorded facts and trends of thought historically. Comparing these with an investigation of those today, coupled with a realization of how immediate access of the media makes what had before been obscure or (publicly) unknown, strongly points in that direction.



> does the end justify the means?
> 
> if the end is "the greater good"?


 
Now you're getting into something (currently, at least) beyond our ability to define: What is the greater good? It takes a very long-term view -- millennia if not millions of years -- to be able to truly define _that_ one, I'd say; making such a question (or at least, any absolute form of it) meaningless or without content....

As for whether or not morality is an end in itself... I suppose that depends on what you mean. If you mean without any reference to its effects or outcome, then only when it is coopted by a religion, political regime, or something of the sort. In which case it tends to become an obsolete morality because it cannot, by its very nature, adapt to changing conditions. If you mean morality as defined above, then yes; but that allows for an enormous amount of latitude in adaptability....


----------



## HardScienceFan (May 25, 2008)

the danger arises when a political structure claims to have the "proper" definition of morality.
and always acts "Morally".

our socialist parties(yes,we have several)have always struck me as 'moral'


----------



## j d worthington (May 25, 2008)

In such cases, I think, we're speaking of "Morality" with a capital M (that is, a rigid, authoritarian morality developed for a certain time and place and treated as Holy Writ), rather than "morality" in the broader, more flexible (and therefore more useful and likely survive long-term) sense. In other words, a confusion of words for meaning....


----------



## MKG (May 26, 2008)

Oh a million and one points - but can't do 'em all. To get back to the original post, one shouldn't make the mistake of interpreting a monkey's behaviour in refusing food it it "knows" another one will be punished as altruism. Distress spreads rapidly in monkey troops and any member, once it has associated general distress with an action, will avoid that action; as will a lot of other animals, be they higher primates or not. It's too easy to question the "moral" behaviour of animals on the sole ground that it "looks like" a particular kind of human behaviour - that's called anthropomorphism, and I'm sure I don't have to explain that. 

It's interesting, though, how this thread turned from an observation upon animal behaviour into a discussion upon the nature of human morals. Is that, therefore, an observation from which I can draw legitimate conclusions upon human behaviour?


----------



## TheEndIsNigh (May 26, 2008)

j. d. worthington said:


> Look at the growing intolerance for some cultures' displacement of women; the fact that racist crimes do draw so much attention and concurrently censure, rather than simply being seen as part of the day-to-day; the growing intolerance of child abuse as opposed to the fact that even in Victorian England (and America of the same period) parents that caused the death of a child due to neglect, starvation, overwork, etc., would often face nothing more than ostracism; the fact that legal punishments have become increasingly more humane over the years (take a look at the Newgate Calendar, for instance, if you doubt this, where a person was often hanged for stealing thrupence or even bread on which to live)...


 
Ok here goes.-

Displacement of women- Seems to be inate. Changes only as a result of laws and without them it would revert. I would say it's a growing phenomena worldwide not a reducing one.

Racism - Again seems to be inate changes only due to laws not. Look at South Africa now. There it's even more refined, it's tribal. In the US isn't the death row ratio something like 8 to 1.

Child abuse. There may be less intolerance to child abuse but the actual occurence of abuse is increasing, or staying the same and being reported more. Either way not much cause for celebration.

Victorian England. Everyone (well the amongst the masses anyway) was dying of starvation. However, victorian England couldn't hold a candle to our recent shining examples of humanity. Biafra, Ethiopia Darfur and even as we speak Burmah. Yes things are reported faster now but to what effect. Do we lobby or MP/Congressman President/Premier in vast numbers or do we just flip a dollar/pound into the conscience bucket and flip to the ball game on the other side. Heaven forfend we get on a boat and 'do' something about it. (obviously talking of the 'moral' majority here) (( yes I'm as guilty as the rest))

As for victorian overwork a recent BBC radio program pointed out victorian children who were 'forced to work' in the mills actually prefered to be there. It was warm abd better than dying of hyperthermia at home.

Legal punishments - *HUMANE Capital punishment*. The UK would vote for public hanging and worse tomorrow. When people say hangings too good for him they really mean it. They would be happy for the old punishments to brought back. A recent case in the UK where two youngsters, yes youngsters, were found to have killed a toddler had people screeming at the ploice van for them to be dragged out so they could be 'dealt with'. And that's just the UK. Other countries are getting worse.

Hanged for thrupence (lovely word). How does that compare with the 'shoot an intruder mentality' the US has (and it's comming to the UK so I'm not just having a go at the US) a recent case here had people supporting a guy who used a shotgun on an intruder. 

So I'm affraid I still have the same low opinion of us humans and would welcome your reconversion to the sunny side of the street


----------



## Delvo (May 26, 2008)

TheEndIsNigh said:


> For one how did they know the other monkey gets an electric shook unless they had some experience of it themselves, in which case we're back to Pavlov.


They'd know it hurt by seeing the other one react. And if they had prior experience with being shocked, that doesn't need to have anything to do with Pavlov either, unless you assume they got shocked as a result of their own action instead of as a result of another monkey's, which isn't indicated.



TheEndIsNigh said:


> there are now reputable reports of some apes seeking out killing and eating other monkey's.


"Monkeys". A non-possessive plural has no apostrophe. What you've written is a possessive singular.

And "other monkeys" would still have been wrong because apes aren't monkeys.

And that wouldn't be relevant anyway because getting nutrients from eating members of other species is not generally treated as a moral issue one way or another.



TheEndIsNigh said:


> That... suggests they couldn't 'give a fig' for other monkeys well being.


So members of one species don't care about members of another? That's pretty standard, normal stuff, but it doesn't have anything to do with how they treat other members of their own species, which is the normal realm of morality.



TheEndIsNigh said:


> ...together with the dicipline 'dished' out within a group of monkeys...


OK, so now we're talking about how individuals of the same species treat each other? That's different. But it's evidence FOR morality being biologically built in, not against it. Punishment is part of how morality is taught, maintained, and enforced/defended. If there were no right and wrong, there'd be nothing to punish. That's why non-social animals don't use discipline.



TheEndIsNigh said:


> Displacement of women- Seems to be inate.


No, what's innate is division of labor: men do some tasks and women do others. Only in certain cultures, which are not the hunter-gatherer type that we're designed for, can this become a matter of restricting women and letting men have freedom, simply because the new options for what to do with one's life that come with post-hunter-gatherer development happen to accumulate on the non-domestic side of that basic innate division.



TheEndIsNigh said:


> Changes only as a result of laws and without them it would revert.


Not true, but even if it were, so what? Laws aren't some outside force imposed on us contrary to our true nature; they get passed by people making choices and thus reflect aspects of human nature.



TheEndIsNigh said:


> I would say it's a growing phenomena worldwide not a reducing one.


That would simply contradict the facts. You could just as well say "I would say the sky is yellow with green stripes", but that wouldn't mean the sky was yellow with green stripes.



TheEndIsNigh said:


> Racism - Again seems to be inate changes only due to laws not.


I can't tell what this is supposed to mean, but racism isn't innate either. The tendency to separate others in one's mind as "us" and "them" is innate, but how the line is drawn could be by race or by something else instead.



TheEndIsNigh said:


> In the US isn't the death row ratio something like 8 to 1.


So? You put this in the paragraph with "racism" but didn't give any reason to think it has anything to do with racism.



TheEndIsNigh said:


> Victorian England. Everyone (well the amongst the masses anyway) was dying of starvation.


Again, you seem to want us to assume this must just have been because of people being mean to each other, but that requires pretending there aren't other factors in such things (such as economics and weather).



TheEndIsNigh said:


> Child abuse... Biafra, Ethiopia Darfur and even as we speak Burmah...


OK, so you an list cases of people actually doing bad stuff to each other. But how does this add up to a general point of any kind? If your point is that we don't really have morality or compassion, this wouldn't help your case. It might be able to prove something else (I don't know what), but not that.



TheEndIsNigh said:


> Heaven forfend we get on a boat and 'do' something about it.


Like what? Failure to implement a solution means nothing if there is no solution to implement.



TheEndIsNigh said:


> As for victorian overwork a recent BBC radio program pointed out victorian children who were 'forced to work' in the mills actually prefered to be there. It was warm abd better than dying of hyperthermia at home.


So now you're contradicting your own pattern: that that wasn't about people mistreating each other, but just a matter of people making the best choice for the circumstances.



TheEndIsNigh said:


> Legal punishments - *HUMANE Capital punishment*. The UK would vote for public hanging and worse tomorrow. When people say hangings too good for him they really mean it. They would be happy for the old punishments to brought back... How does that compare with the 'shoot an intruder mentality' the US has (and it's comming to the UK so I'm not just having a go at the US) a recent case here had people supporting a guy who used a shotgun on an intruder.


And this contradicts morality how? Punishment of people who have committed crimes is part of how morality is maintained in a society, and individuals' right to defend themselves and their families and properties when attacked is a moral principle.



TheEndIsNigh said:


> So I'm affraid I still have the same low opinion of us humans and would welcome your reconversion to the sunny side of the street


If the "sunny side" part means you're challenging someone to tell you that your list of bad behaviors is all inaccurate and we really don't ever behave badly, then you know it's impossible. But a list of bad signs proves nothing anyway, and the way to counter it, or even to get a full and honest picture of the situation at all instead of cherry-picking the evidence that favors the desired predetermined conclusion, is not by arguing over whether the bad signs exist at all or how common they are, but by including the good signs as well.

And on that side, we'd have to include not just the fact that people often are helpful and charitable and self-sacrificing, but also just the fact that we'd call those other behaviors you mentioned "bad" at all in the first place. Bears and crocodiles and scorpions and butterflies wouldn't. They wouldn't care. They're non-social and truly lack morality and compassion. But in a species that considers some behavior bad, that species must possess other behavior that it considers good, or there'd be nothing to describe as bad or good, and thus no bad/good descriptions at all. Such things can't be imposed from the outside; the only way they can work is if they're a built-in part of the nature of the species.

To some extent, we even know biologically how this works. Look up "mirror neurons". They're parts of your brain that take other people's, or sometimes even animals', experiences and make them yours. You mentioned monkeys not caring about other monkeys, but, because there's a part of the brain that's built in for no purpose other than to empathize, it's essentially biologically impossible not to, unless there's a rare deformity or injury causing malfunction/death/absence of the mirror neurons.

And here's another biological connection for you. All mammals start out relatively social at birth because they must, at a bare minimum, live with their litter-mates and mother for a while, even if they'll grow up to be solitary later. So, when we breed mammals for docile, cooperative, friendly behavior, we're essentially breeding them to remain juvenile for longer by retaining traits that they would otherwise outgrow. And when that happens, some physical traits of juvenility come along too, resulting in a pattern in physical changes that happen in any domesticated species compared to its wild relatives: a taller, rounder, less elongated, a diminished muzzle/snout (the nose, jaws, and teeth), bigger eyes (at least relative to the mouth & nose), and more general roundness of features instead of angular-looking. And there are more physical signs of juvenilization that are specific to certain kinds of animals, such as many adults dogs' floppy ears, curled tails, and barking, all of which are outgrown by adulthood in wolves. And in human evolution, not only has there been a lot of juvenilization before, but it's still continuing now; we show slightly stronger signs of it than even the skeletons of even fairly recent civilized human populations. Yes, these are physical traits, not behavioral, but the only known way to get them is to breed for niceness, friendliness, and cooperativeness.


----------



## TheEndIsNigh (May 27, 2008)

Crikey Delvo That was some _repost._



Delvo said:


> They'd know it hurt by seeing the other one react. And if they had prior experience with being shocked, that doesn't need to have anything to do with Pavlov either, unless you assume they got shocked as a result of their own action instead of as a result of another monkey's, which isn't indicated.


 
If I press a button and you jump in the air there is no reason to assume it's anything but coincidence or even that pain is involved, unless I have direct experienced of it myself. Back to Pavlov was not meant as an absolute reference. I was merely pointing out that we are in the area of causal behaviour and that there may be no other correlation. 



Delvo said:


> "Monkeys". A non-possessive plural has no apostrophe. What you've written is a possessive singular.
> And "other monkeys" would still have been wrong because apes aren't monkeys.


 
This wasn't put up for critique - well not that type anyway.



Delvo said:


> And that wouldn't be relevant anyway because getting nutrients from eating members of other species is not generally treated as a moral issue one way or another.


Fair point. However, having just delved into the web it seems that chimps are not above the infanticide and subsequent cannibalism of another chimp's offspring in the same group. My point was if I'm prepared to kill and eat you I'm hardly going to be overcome with guilt if I give you an electric shock. Yes they probably do it to ensure their own offspring survive. However aren't we back to I’ll do anything to protect me and mine. So when I get hungry enough, tough on you if that means you getting an electric shock in order that I get fed.



Delvo said:


> So members of one species don't care about members of another? That's pretty standard, normal stuff, but it doesn't have anything to do with how they treat other members of their own species, which is the normal realm of morality.


see above


Delvo said:


> OK, so now we're talking about how individuals of the same species treat each other? That's different. But it's evidence FOR morality being biologically built in, not against it. Punishment is part of how morality is taught, maintained, and enforced/defended. If there were no right and wrong, there'd be nothing to punish. That's why non-social animals don't use discipline.


I admit I may be on dodgy ground here. However, all the information I've seen on animal social groups, discipline is imposed to maintain the social structure to the benefit of those at the top. Hence apes are quite happy to exclude, kill and punish those in the same group, regardless of the outcome to the punished. Just so long as the social fabric is maintained. There is no right or wrong in animal social groups other than the survival of the Alpha line which is hardly moral behaviour as we understand it. Well not me anyway.


Delvo said:


> No, what's innate is division of labour: men do some tasks and women do others. Only in certain cultures, which are not the hunter-gatherer type that we're designed for, can this become a matter of restricting women and letting men have freedom, simply because the new options for what to do with one's life that come with post-hunter-gatherer development happen to accumulate on the non-domestic side of that basic innate division.


Nonsense. So a group of women would be incapable of supporting themselves in the absence of men. They couldn't decide the allocation of tasks based on ability. I certainly don't believe that men were designed for any particular role. All they are is stronger, probably as a result of the different chemistry and a better diet. I'm quite prepared to accept that women are better in the hunting gathering roles than men when the need arises. Men adapt to the role of hunting as a control mechanism which they are happy to back up with violence (chemistry again). This is classic male animal behaviour and the morality of it is non-existent.



Delvo said:


> Not true, but even if it were, so what? Laws aren't some outside force imposed on us contrary to our true nature; they get passed by people making choices and thus reflect aspects of human nature.


Laws get passed by a small minority imposing there will on the majority in order to maintain the system where that minority can make laws. Our true nature is that of the chimp. Laws curb instincts and true nature. Well the belief that a punishment will actually happen does anyway.


Delvo said:


> -with relation to subjugating women-
> That would simply contradict the facts. You could just as well say "I would say the sky is yellow with green stripes", but that wouldn't mean the sky was yellow with green stripes.


Ok I'd agree this was badly put. It seems to me that it's the western/northern Judaeo-Christian populations that are gradually adopting woman tolerant societies (though it's a slow business). As a result of technology and improvements those populations are diminishing. Whereas in the rest of the world where the population growth is far higher the subjugation of women is endemic (perhaps not the right word but...) When the call for china to become a free democracy bears fruit I dread to think what will happen to women's rights given the inevitable population explosion. Hence my reasoning that it is a growing phenomenon.


Delvo said:


> I can't tell what this is supposed to mean, but racism isn't innate either. The tendency to separate others in one's mind as "us" and "them" is innate, but how the line is drawn could be by race or by something else instead.


Race is easier. refinements can come later (defects abnormalities etc). You're different, so outside the group. Though I agree it could be based on something else. 


Delvo said:


> So? You put this in the paragraph with "racism" but didn't give any reason to think it has anything to do with racism.


Merely as an example. If you think that in the US the chances of being acquitted are based purely on the merits of the case think again type thing. I'm pretty sure there are some sad people/jurors that as soon as the defendant is seen to be of a different race, immediately thinks, guilty.


Delvo said:


> with ref to Victorian England-
> Again, you seem to want us to assume this must just have been because of people being mean to each other, but that requires pretending there aren't other factors in such things (such as economics and weather).
> OK, so you an list cases of people actually doing bad stuff to each other. But how does this add up to a general point of any kind? If your point is that we don't really have morality or compassion, this wouldn't help your case. It might be able to prove something else (I don't know what), but not that.


 
No it was meant to illustrate that in those times people were all in the same boat compared to today when certain parts of the world are a long way from the same boat. The examples were to illustrate that the deaths in the 1800s didn't compare to the number of deaths in our lifetime when we have no excuses. We know and we do nothing (of significance, We do keep pets though - that was just a dig at the morality of breeding useless animals to sit on our laps so we can comfort ourselves while we watch the tragic events on the TV).


Delvo said:


> Like what? Failure to implement a solution means nothing if there is no solution to implement.


Failure to seek a solution is ok though?


Delvo said:


> So now you're contradicting your own pattern: that that wasn't about people mistreating each other, but just a matter of people making the best choice for the circumstances.


I admit this was badly put. It was meant to illustrate that despite the supposed depravation things might have been better for the Victorians than the present day victims.


Delvo said:


> And this contradicts morality how? Punishment of people who have committed crimes is part of how morality is maintained in a society, and individuals' right to defend themselves and their families and properties when attacked is a moral principle.


Fine but where does the right to defend end (or begin) and still stay moral. Don't get me wrong the system of morality starts with What's mine stays mine and anything that gets in the way of it, past, present or future had better defend itself is a perfectly workable system. Not very moral though.


Delvo said:


> If the "sunny side" part means you're challenging someone to tell you that your list of bad behaviors is all inaccurate and we really don't ever behave badly, then you know it's impossible. But a list of bad signs proves nothing anyway, and the way to counter it, or even to get a full and honest picture of the situation at all instead of cherry-picking the evidence that favors the desired predetermined conclusion, is not by arguing over whether the bad signs exist at all or how common they are, but by including the good signs as well.


Nope. It was an attempt at a comedic round off. Ok I can't do comedy though I still have a low opinion of humanity. 


Delvo said:


> And on that side, we'd have to include not just the fact that people often are helpful and charitable and self-sacrificing, but also just the fact that we'd call those other behaviors you mentioned "bad" at all in the first place. Bears and crocodiles and scorpions and butterflies wouldn't. They wouldn't care. They're non-social and truly lack morality and compassion. But in a species that considers some behavior bad, that species must possess other behavior that it considers good, or there'd be nothing to describe as bad or good, and thus no bad/good descriptions at all. Such things can't be imposed from the outside; the only way they can work is if they're a built-in part of the nature of the species.
> To some extent, we even know biologically how this works. Look up "mirror neurons". They're parts of your brain that take other people's, or sometimes even animals', experiences and make them yours. You mentioned monkeys not caring about other monkeys, but, because there's a part of the brain that's built in for no purpose other than to empathize, it's essentially biologically impossible not to, unless there's a rare deformity or injury causing malfunction/death/absence of the mirror neurons.
> And here's another biological connection for you. All mammals start out relatively social at birth because they must, at a bare minimum, live with their litter-mates and mother for a while, even if they'll grow up to be solitary later. So, when we breed mammals for docile, cooperative, friendly behavior, we're essentially breeding them to remain juvenile for longer by retaining traits that they would otherwise outgrow. And when that happens, some physical traits of juvenility come along too, resulting in a pattern in physical changes that happen in any domesticated species compared to its wild relatives: a taller, rounder, less elongated, a diminished muzzle/snout (the nose, jaws, and teeth), bigger eyes (at least relative to the mouth & nose), and more general roundness of features instead of angular-looking. And there are more physical signs of juvenilization that are specific to certain kinds of animals, such as many adults dogs' floppy ears, curled tails, and barking, all of which are outgrown by adulthood in wolves. And in human evolution, not only has there been a lot of juvenilization before, but it's still continuing now; we show slightly stronger signs of it than even the skeletons of even fairly recent civilized human populations. Yes, these are physical traits, not behavioral, but the only known way to get them is to breed for niceness, friendliness, and cooperativeness.


Ok, so as you say, everything starts out with the potential to be nice social animals. Take a cat and dog and allow them to mature with each other in most cases they get along (with other cats and dogs too sometimes) Somewhere along the way we learn to act differently. We are products of our experiences, and in the human case our predecessor’s experiences. So where does it all go wrong. Why does the majority of the human race do what it does to other humans, other species and the planet either deliberately or by default.
If we are the ultimate in ethical and moral behaviour why should we expect to find anything better in 'lower' species?


----------



## Pyan (May 27, 2008)

This is  developing into an interesting _discussion_...and it would be a shame to have to step in because it was veering into anything else, folken...


----------



## JDP (May 27, 2008)

> If I press a button and you jump in the air there is no reason to assume it's anything but coincidence or even that pain is involved, unless I have direct experienced of it myself. Back to Pavlov was not meant as an absolute reference. I was merely pointing out that we are in the area of causal behaviour and that there may be no other correlation.


 
I'm not a primatologist, but I would think that chimpanzees possess suffient communication to understand a cry of pain/distress from another of their troop when they hear it. As I say, though, I'm no expert; I don't even know any chimpanzees.

The chimpanzee does not have to understand the technicalities of an electric shock, nor have experienced one itself to understand a causal link between taking some food and the distress of a companion. The point of the experiment is that the chimp appeared to make a conscious choice to stop taking the food once it had deduced that doing so causes the other chimp pain.

Fair enough, perhaps the chimp just filled his belly and stopped taking any more food, but I'd guess that those conducting the experiment might have factored this in.



> However, having just delved into the web it seems that chimps are not above the infanticide and subsequent cannibalism of another chimp's offspring in the same group.


 
I don't think whether chimps _always_ act in a 'Moral' way was really the point of the experiement but rather whether they will sometimes choose to do so.



> There is no right or wrong in animal social groups other than the survival of the Alpha line which is hardly moral behaviour as we understand it.


 
As I understand it, this is exactly the point that's in question: whether Morality (specifically altruism) is really an abstract 'human' construct or simply an evolutionary tool for the propagation of the species.

In terms of cross-species Morality, it's (in my opinion) totally immoral to subject a chimp (or anyone else for that matter) to electric shocks without their express permission.


----------



## mosaix (May 27, 2008)

j. d. worthington said:


> I don't know on that one, Ben.
> 
> Ah... just looked up links, and it certainly looks as if he has:
> 
> ...



I've been away for a day or two and this thread has certainly developed.

Thanks for the links J.D. 

I have, inadvertantly, lost the the issue if New Scientist so I can't provide further detail but I'm not sure there was much more anyway.

I intend to follow this up more closely and wouldn't mind getting back to the original research. 

I might even contact the author of the New Scientist article. I'll post anything interesting that I come across.


----------



## mosaix (May 27, 2008)

MKG said:


> Distress spreads rapidly in monkey troops and any member, once it has associated general distress with an action, will avoid that action;



I wonder if there is any research proving that this isn't how morality works in humans?


----------



## Delvo (May 28, 2008)

TheEndIsNigh said:


> Crikey Delvo That was some _repost._


OK, I could respond to this one point-for-point, but I'll skip it this time and go right for the "big general theme" thing at the bottom. (I'd be blathering about how every point you made along the way, especially the stuff about animal social behavior being all about serving the "alphas", either was wrong or was easily countered/balanced/neutralized by something else or was irrelevant to either of our real points here... which could just seem argumentative anyway... so, on to the "big picture" of your real point...)



TheEndIsNigh said:


> Ok, so as you say, everything starts out with the potential to be nice social animals... Somewhere along the way we learn to act differently... So where does it all go wrong. Why does the majority of the human race do what it does to other humans, other species and the planet either deliberately or by default.


Because the potential for both kinds of behavior is there. *The presence of one is not exclusive to the presence of the other.* That's why a list of bad things people do proves nothing but the attitude of the person who's making the list; it just ignores the good stuff people also do. It's also why moral rules and laws exist: to influence individuals' decisions when they're choosing which way to go. It's even arguably why social critters evolve such high intelligence in the first place: because having two different kinds of instincts that can sometimes contradict each other requires the ability to choose which one to follow at any given time.

And this shock experiment is not the first time we've seen such things in action, including the time taken to make a choice. For example, partially isolate one chimpanzee from the others and present him/her with a big bowl of various fruits, and you can see that in some cases (s)he immediately either drags the bowl back over to the group or calls the others over to it, in some cases (s)he starts chowing down immediately or even move it to hide it even more, and in some cases (s)he sits and ponders what to do for a while before doing anything, often including looking around to see whether or not any others can see first.



TheEndIsNigh said:


> If we are the ultimate in ethical and moral behaviour why should we expect to find anything better in 'lower' species?


Those would indeed be quite contradictory ideas, but I know of nobody who's asserted either one. Nobody mentioned expecting to find other species behaving better; it was just one of many tests that have found that they have some behavioral tendencies in common with us. And that thing with the word "ultimate" is just another case of absolutizing the issue, as if it had to be all of one thing and none of the other, instead of a bit of both, which is not only just plain wrong but also not what anyone's said here.


----------



## TheEndIsNigh (May 29, 2008)

Delvo:

I suspect (there are clues in this thread if we look hard enough) that what we have here is completely opposite views of human/animal behaior.

My view is that man is a product of his darwinian development whereby to attain his exhalted position on the planet the spiecies became the most ruthless, viscious, self centred nastiest thing that ever existed. There hasn't been enough time for these traits to be diluted enough for us to ever claim a morality - (other than self preservation - yes not really a morality I know) 

As part of our self serving self rightiousness we perform certain experiments (why shouldn't we -see above) which seek to prove that other animals exhibit the same traits so we can feel good about... Well I don't know what. All they seem to prove to me is in certain situations some individuals react one way and some the other. There isn't even a gaurantee that one individual will act the same way in all situations. This dosn't apply to humans so why expect it in any other animal. 

Now things may change. Man may develop into a really splendid species living in a utopian world where everything is wonderful. Where no animals are shocked, hunted or killed. Where they are free to develop and join us as equal inhabitants of the universe.
You know, the place where pigs might fly.


----------



## The Procrastinator (May 30, 2008)

TEIN - don't you think that's a little black and white? 

Morality is a way of dealing with social realities/interactions in a social species and its as much a part of our evolution as flight/fight. If we really were the most vicious, nastiest etc we wouldn't be here, we'd have killed eachother long since. Some of us are like that but there is a balance provided not only by others who are not like that, but by conflicting urges within an individual - a person can be capable of appalling acts and also loving ones, because we are complicated.

I suppose its good that we (in the more general sense) are finally coming to realise that other animals are also complicated - and while they may not be as smart as us, they are also capable of emotion, choice, self sacrifice, and selfishness. We call our "lower behaviour" bestial - why is it such a stretch to think that we share some of our "higher behaviour" with our animal cousins too? The difference between us and them is one of degree, not of kind. We are mammals. We are part of life on this planet.

Some of us "touchy-feely" types are born knowing there's a connection and that interspecies understanding is possible/desirable to a degree. (Our precursors enabled the domestication/exploitation mentioned above, I'm sure.) Others are lacking in this area, and others are ignorant of it or not interested. I'm sure the same kinds of thinking apply to the animal world too - some animals are curious and want to interact and some are not and do not. They are as much of a mixed bag as we are.

The more knowledge about this sort of thing thats out there (rather than just intuition) the more solid the grounds for requiring responsible behaviour on our part - thats a good thing.


----------



## TheEndIsNigh (May 30, 2008)

The Procrastinator said:


> TEIN - don't you think that's a little black and white? ....


 
Now not withstanding my premise that Man isn't the best example of a planetary guardian I personnally place myself in the touchy-feely camp.

I personally wouldn't stick a cattle prod into a monkey (or even a cow for that matter) nor would I allow an animal to suffer if it was in pain or distressed (though of course this might mean having to dispatch it, which is not on my list of things to do before the end)

However, these things happen, I know they happen. They happen in my name. I eat the cow which by necessity has been cattle prodded. I read about the monkey that has been 'experimented' on. I do nothing. Am I any better than my ancesters or those that do these things. I don't think so. I feel morally superior to lots of people who carry out barbarous acts. However, in not actively preventing them or dying in the attempt I really haven't any justification for the feeling of superiority. It's worse than that, if I'm being hypercritical of myself. Realising that the attempt is futile I sit at a computer terminal criticising other's who may be more active in preventing these acts. People like yourself perhaps.

Now of course all of the above is rubbish if something attacks me and mine. In that case, look out lions, bears, monkeys, cows or even men, because then there would be a man on the loose and something is going to have even less time than the rest of us.


----------



## Delvo (May 31, 2008)

TheEndIsNigh said:


> I suspect (there are clues in this thread if we look hard enough) that what we have here is completely opposite views of human/animal behaior.


Attitude is one thing and factual accuracy is another. I won't try to change the former, but some of what you say just doesn't match the facts:



TheEndIsNigh said:


> My view is that man... became the most ruthless, viscious, self centred nastiest thing that ever existed.


There are, by far, more species out there that would never hesitate or feel squeamish or have any later regrets about doing equally mean things to other animals, and in fact do so quite routinely, in many cases much more frequently than us. This is almost always true outside the species and often true within the same species. Relatively peaceful coexistence is much more common in humans than in most other animal species, and the idea that we can and should do more of that, and that "nasty" behavior is actually a bad thing to be avoided, is an exclusively human, moralistic thought.

That doesn't mean I'm claiming anything about human perfection. It just means I'm doing a reality check on the comparison to every other animal out there, from scorpions to crocodiles to squid; everything you don't like about humans is a far drastic and defining trait for many non-human species, which means we can't be the worst about it of them all and must in FACT be closer to the opposite end of the spectrum just by ever having a second thought about such things at all.


----------



## TheEndIsNigh (May 31, 2008)

Ah yes, we have second thoughts (sometimes) we weigh the harm, the damage, the impact our actions will have on the specific animal (human or no) and on it's imediate social circle and then do it anyway. 

In most cases the animals do it for instictive reasons as you say without a second thought. They'll kill for food or protection or even to preserve the alpha line (lions and other cats for instance or even lions and another male's cubs) However, it's for perfectly "rational" reasons (well we can rationalise it though of course we could be wrong)

However us humans, we kill for other reasons - 

Pleasure, it's always pleasing to see an animal writhing in horrific agony as it dies. Although if we do it at a distance then it doesn't matter. At least there was the pleasure of seeing the bullet burst though the creatures body in the telescopic lens. The pleasure of seeing the bird's futile attemps as it slams into the ground. The joy of the chicken held upside down as the blades approach. I could list the various other ways in which animals take a hit as a result of humans having second thoughts, the list is as you say is extensive.

to quote Douglas Adams - well nearly

We don't just kill you and then go home. No we kill you, and then go home and agonise about it with our wives.

What he missed out was -

then having rationalised it, we come back and look for someone else to kill.


----------



## Delvo (May 31, 2008)

...except that most of us DON'T do that (kill just for fun), and plenty of other animals DO do exactly that (including the detail of the killing not being necessary for anything but fun) quite routinely. This is especially the case with predators, even the domesticated ones we keep as pets.


----------



## The Procrastinator (Jun 3, 2008)

Anyone who's seen what can happen when the fox gets into the chook pen knows that we are not alone in revelling in death. I suspect predators who kill exclusively for food are predators who don't have much choice. Had they the leisure to choose - plentiful food available for not much effort - what would they do?


----------

