The Science Of Morality?

[Eclipse]

Scientist Finds the Beginnings of Morality in Primate Behavior

Some animals are surprisingly sensitive to the plight of others. Chimpanzees, who cannot swim, have drowned in zoo moats trying to save others. Given the chance to get food by pulling a chain that would also deliver an electric shock to a companion, rhesus monkeys will starve themselves for several days. Biologists argue that these and other social behaviors are the precursors of human morality. They further believe that if morality grew out of behavioral rules shaped by evolution, it is for biologists, not philosophers or theologians, to say what these rules are.

Last year Marc Hauser, an evolutionary biologist at Harvard, proposed in his book “Moral Minds” that the brain has a genetically shaped mechanism for acquiring moral rules, a universal moral grammar similar to the neural machinery for learning language. In another recent book, “Primates and Philosophers,” the primatologist Frans de Waal defends against philosopher critics his view that the roots of morality can be seen in the social behavior of monkeys and apes. Dr. de Waal, who is director of the Living Links Center at Emory University, argues that all social animals have had to constrain or alter their behavior in various ways for group living to be worthwhile. These constraints, evident in monkeys and even more so in chimpanzees, are part of human inheritance, too, and in his view form the set of behaviors from which human morality has been shaped. Many philosophers find it hard to think of animals as moral beings, and indeed Dr. de Waal does not contend that even chimpanzees possess morality. But he argues that human morality would be impossible without certain emotional building blocks that are clearly at work in chimp and monkey societies.

He found that consolation was universal among the great apes but generally absent from monkeys — among macaques, mothers will not even reassure an injured infant. To console another, Dr. de Waal argues, requires empathy and a level of self-awareness that only apes and humans seem to possess. And consideration of empathy quickly led him to explore the conditions for morality. Though human morality may end in notions of rights and justice and fine ethical distinctions, it begins, Dr. de Waal says, in concern for others and the understanding of social rules as to how they should be treated. At this lower level, primatologists have shown, there is what they consider to be a sizable overlap between the behavior of people and other social primates. Social living requires empathy, which is especially evident in chimpanzees, as well as ways of bringing internal hostilities to an end. Every species of ape and monkey has its own protocol for reconciliation after fights, Dr. de Waal has found. If two males fail to make up, female chimpanzees will often bring the rivals together, as if sensing that discord makes their community worse off and more vulnerable to attack by neighbors. Or they will head off a fight by taking stones out of the males’ hands.

These four kinds of behavior — empathy, the ability to learn and follow social rules, reciprocity and peacemaking — are the basis of sociality. Dr. de Waal sees human morality as having grown out of primate sociality, but with two extra levels of sophistication. People enforce their society’s moral codes much more rigorously with rewards, punishments and reputation building. They also apply a degree of judgment and reason, for which there are no parallels in animals. Religion can be seen as another special ingredient of human societies, though one that emerged thousands of years after morality, in Dr. de Waal’s view. There are clear precursors of morality in nonhuman primates, but no precursors of religion. So it seems reasonable to assume that as humans evolved away from chimps, morality emerged first, followed by religion. “I look at religions as recent additions,” he said. “Their function may have to do with social life, and enforcement of rules and giving a narrative to them, which is what religions really do.”

As Dr. de Waal sees it, human morality may be severely limited by having evolved as a way of banding together against adversaries, with moral restraints being observed only toward the in group, not toward outsiders. “The profound irony is that our noblest achievement — morality — has evolutionary ties to our basest behavior — warfare,” he writes. “The sense of community required by the former was provided by the latter.” Dr. de Waal has faced down many critics in evolutionary biology and psychology in developing his views. The evolutionary biologist George Williams dismissed morality as merely an accidental byproduct of evolution, and psychologists objected to attributing any emotional state to animals. Dr. de Waal convinced his colleagues over many years that the ban on inferring emotional states was an unreasonable restriction, given the expected evolutionary continuity between humans and other primates.

So, here's the new question: Is there a science to morality? If so, what questions can be asked and what questions can be answered? In a way much of our social behaviours are learned and so we have thought with topics of morality -- an unfortunate biproduct of our minds and thus subjective to all degrees, little have many of us regarded it under such a light.

There is much of the document left to read and I simply dug up the introduction to one view so there is plenty to debate.

[5010]

And elephants too...

From this source:
A dramatic example occurred in South Africa after a group of adolescent bull elephants whose family members had been gunned down during a culling operation in Kruger National Park were transported to another wildlife reserve. There they embarked on a killing spree lasting several years and leaving more than 100 dead, including 40 white rhinoceroses. The killing stopped only when older male elephants were shipped in from Kruger, establishing a new male hierarchy and keeping the adolescents in check.

[Eclipse]

Yes, elephants are definitely included among the social category and are comparable in degree to ourselves and other animals of the sort. Looking at some of the more intelligent or social animals, I have yet to come across one that differs psychologically in kind that would entail a different sort of behaviour. Learned helplessness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As you can see there are many examples of similar behaviours among many animals. I've heard of social similarities within horse, wolf, dog, cat, primate, elephant communities and even rare/questionable cases with birds among several other unexpected cases.

[Gods_Mercenary]

As this applies to interspecies relationships, though, it doesn't work, since these morals are made to smooth our species interactions, not with those of other species. I'd say that, yes, some morals are instinctual, but there is no way to prove if they are actually ethical, as their worth is subjective.

[Eclipse]

Of course, my ARist/animal welfare history has followed me here although not by choice.

My concern and initial direction was focused simply on what this could mean or what could be derived from its meaning. Then again, it is a very broad discussion area.

Quote by: GM As this applies to interspecies relationships, though, it doesn't work, since these morals are made to smooth our species interactions, not with those of other species

Other species are involved in our everyday life. Our ability to empathize and see the wrong we may inflict is part of our instinct especially when alternatives can be founded (which they already are). It is not tamed to simply humans when we have the capability to identify which species are subjects to a life as identifiable individuals hence why animal welfare or a degree of animal rights is adopted.

What is your logic that would entail it as a "can not be" situation?

[Gods_Mercenary]

Morality towards other animals does not further the species' chance for survival, no predator/scavenger/herbivore can be allowed the luxury of empathy that doesn't benefit it's species or individual.

[RickSp]

Would you care to define what you mean by morality before getting lost in rhapsodies about the sensitivities of certain animals? While I may be able infer Dr. de Waal's views, it might be helpful if you define your terms.

[atheist]

I think the word you want to use here is "altruism," or the willingness to help others without strings attached.

At an evolutionary level, altruism really helps a community survive and grow. If everyone's just looking out for themselves, I don't think the survival rate would be as high for this group as for a group who did help one another out.

For example, if a baby baboon is in danger of being eaten by some predator, it would be generally beneficial if other adults (if the parent is not around) risk their lives to save that baby. It's all for the community. Altruism is a very very very benefical trait. It also promotes cooperation and strengthens loyalty ties (if someone did something generous for you, how could you not help but like them a little?)

[Eclipse]

Quote by: RickSP Would you care to define what you mean by morality before getting lost in rhapsodies about the sensitivities of certain animals? While I may be able infer Dr. de Waal's views, it might be helpful if you define your terms.

Please do go with Dr. de Waal's views. I don't want this to turn into an AR/non-AR slug-fest and I had not thrown in my own argument on the topic so much as defended something a little off-set.

The article may put a new spin on how we view our morality within philosophy or biology or it may not. It is still up in the air and worthy of debate. Here's a starter:

Philosophers have another reason biologists cannot, in their view, reach to the heart of morality, and that is that biological analyses cannot cross the gap between “is” and “ought,” between the description of some behavior and the issue of why it is right or wrong. “You can identify some value we hold, and tell an evolutionary story about why we hold it, but there is always that radically different question of whether we ought to hold it,” said Sharon Street, a moral philosopher at New York University. “That’s not to discount the importance of what biologists are doing, but it does show why centuries of moral philosophy are incredibly relevant, too.”

Biologists are allowed an even smaller piece of the action by Jesse Prinz, a philosopher at the University of North Carolina. He believes morality developed after human evolution was finished and that moral sentiments are shaped by culture, not genetics. “It would be a fallacy to assume a single true morality could be identified by what we do instinctively, rather than by what we ought to do,” he said. “One of the principles that might guide a single true morality might be recognition of equal dignity for all human beings, and that seems to be unprecedented in the animal world.” Dr. de Waal does not accept the philosophers’ view that biologists cannot step from “is” to “ought.” “I’m not sure how realistic the distinction is,” he said. “Animals do have ‘oughts.’ If a juvenile is in a fight, the mother must get up and defend her. Or in food sharing, animals do put pressure on each other, which is the first kind of ‘ought’ situation.”

Dr. de Waal’s definition of morality is more down to earth than Dr. Prinz’s. Morality, he writes, is “a sense of right and wrong that is born out of groupwide systems of conflict management based on shared values.” The building blocks of morality are not nice or good behaviors but rather mental and social capacities for constructing societies “in which shared values constrain individual behavior through a system of approval and disapproval.” By this definition chimpanzees in his view do possess some of the behavioral capacities built in our moral systems. “Morality is as firmly grounded in neurobiology as anything else we do or are,” Dr. de Waal wrote in his 1996 book “Good Natured.” Biologists ignored this possibility for many years, believing that because natural selection was cruel and pitiless it could only produce people with the same qualities. But this is a fallacy, in Dr. de Waal’s view. Natural selection favors organisms that survive and reproduce, by whatever means. And it has provided people, he writes in “Primates and Philosophers,” with “a compass for life’s choices that takes the interests of the entire community into account, which is the essence of human morality.”

Can science define our morality? Is there a compelling, behind-the-scenes voice built into us that says "ought" or defines what "is" right and wrong in certain circumstacnes?

[Zhavric]

Richard Dawkins talks about the concept of moral zeitgeist which is the idea morality changes over time. He points to the example of Donald Rumsfeld defending the actions of the US military's involvment in a handful of civilians. Dawkins points out that by 1940's standards, Rumsfeld (who we consider a die hard war hawk) would be a bleeding heart liberal. Fire bombing in WWII was specifically engineered to eliminate huge numbers of civilians such as the Dresden bombing & Hiroshima.

Our morality, like all higher mammals, comes from interpretations of social instincts. On an evolutionary level, our society has gone from simple cave dwellings to being massively sophisticated in the blink of an eye. We're trying to fit the square peg of our cave-man brains into the round hole of the society we've created for ourselves. Is it any wonder we have so many issues?

--------------------------
Source:

Printer Friendly Version - Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science

[RickSp]

My viewpoint is best represented by Jesse Prinz. De Waal's views may be useful as metaphor but could, and from the few short samples posted here, slip easily into romanticism. I do not disagree with de Waal's suggestion that "all social animals have had to constrain or alter their behavior in various ways for group living to be worthwhile." I just question whether or not it is particularly useful to define these behaviors as "morality" in the same sense as applied to humans. I note that even de Waal doesn't make that claim.

It is also fine to suggest empathy among primates but one should not focus solely on examples of nurturing. Chimpanzees are predators, noted for hunting colobus monkeys as well as 35 types of other vertebrate animals that are commonly eaten by chimpanzees. Cannibalism and even the killing and eating of human children by chimps has been documented on rare occasions.

Hunting chimps may change view of human evolution

I see no reason necessarily to disagree with de Waal's suggestion that group dynamics may be the "building blocks of morality" but that seems to me to be just a reshaping of the suggestion that chimp groups may contain the the "building blocks of social culture." Chimps are tool makers. Chimps have been seen using spears to hunt bush babies in the wild. It seem doesn't unreasonable to suggest that chimp communities have aspects of social organization which might suggest the "building blocks of morality". That is not the same as suggesting as de Waal does, that morality is "firmly grounded in neurobiology ", which seems to me to be a significant unsupported leap.

[pam699]

hey dean has proven that morality science and philosophy end in meaninglesness
the more you discuss this thread the more you will just discover all the inconsistenices around morality
if you want to read more go here and download the books for free
Gamahucher Press Catalogue

[Zhavric]

Nevermind. Delete.

[RickSp]

Quote by: pam699 hey dean has proven that morality science and philosophy end in meaninglesness the more you discuss this thread the more you will just discover all the inconsistenices around morality if you want to read more go here and download the books for free Gamahucher Press Catalogue

Still spamming for Dean, I see. Another post as meaningless as Dean's silly ramblings.

[Alive]

Moral philosophy should be distinguished from sociobiology; the first tries to tell us what is moral while the latter tells us why people act moral (or at least altruistically). This is a difference between science and philosophy.

[pam699]

hey but dean has shown both science and philosophy end in meaninglessness

[ZNFYRH]

Hey but you keep repeating yourself and it's getting to the point of trolling and spamming. They ban someone after 3 posts, yet you seem to be slipping under the radar?

[shunyadragon]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary As this applies to interspecies relationships, though, it doesn't work, since these morals are made to smooth our species interactions, not with those of other species. I'd say that, yes, some morals are instinctual, but there is no way to prove if they are actually ethical, as their worth is subjective.

Again the common misuse of 'prove'. It is demonstrated in many of the more intelligent species that morals and ethics show judgement and selective application of their 'morals and ethics to different situations.

[shunyadragon]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Morality towards other animals does not further the species' chance for survival, no predator/scavenger/herbivore can be allowed the luxury of empathy that doesn't benefit it's species or individual.

The more intelligent social animals that have long gestation periods and prolonged infancy growth periods to adulthood do show behavior similar to humans with morals, ethics and hierarchies that have definite survival value for the defence against preditors, nurturing the young to adulthood and increase the cohesive orderly nature of the families and communities.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: shunyadragon The more intelligent social animals that have long gestation periods and prolonged infancy growth periods to adulthood do show behavior similar to humans with morals, ethics and hierarchies that have definite survival value for the defence against preditors, nurturing the young to adulthood and increase the cohesive orderly nature of the families and communities.

I'm talking about interspecies morality.