John Tierney documents further blows to human exceptionalism:
moping coyotes, rueful monkeys, tigers that cover their eyes in remorse, chimpanzees that second-guess their choices.
I suppose that such signs of proto-moral reactions in animals are neutral regarding our alleged origins in a sovereign god: God could have been trying out variants of a moral sense before conferring it on his masterpiece. They are also neutral regarding the alleged need for religion to at least shore up our moral sense, if not bestow it altogether (as I’ve written before, however, I would like to think that the admirable and salutary institution of the sermon and other affirmations of a common morality could be replicated without reference to an imaginary deity).
Still, I am inclined to see these fascinating findings as not really helping out the cause of a deocentric worldview.
From the John Tierney article, it seems that some animals are capable of feeling shame, but not guilt. They can regret a decision because it led to a bad result, but not because it violated someone’s rights. Basically, animals can understand that they are in trouble and can feel bad about it, but I am too much of a deontologist to call this morality. In my opinion, morality is what you do when either nobody’s looking or nobody has the power to stop you.
I do agree with Mac Donald that at least this is a start. Heck, some humans never get past this point.
His masterpiece? You should meet some of my relatives. And anyone responsible for their creation should certainly feel shame.
The lede was tongue in cheek right? Shakespeare, Lincoln and Copernicus break the animal mold somewhat.
The biologisation of morality is a utopian project for non-believers. You’ve read ‘The Abolition of Man’? The idea that ‘there is no such thing as right and wrong, but I must condition in you biological reflexes that must be seen as right or wrong for the sake of communal solidarity, which itself is neither right or wrong but must be seen as such . . .’ is a stupid moral and cultural project. No wonder young people rebel from such farcical authority. The honest thing for a person do in that situation is say “Oh yeah? Who says?” and they are doing that in unprecedented numbers.
Biology provides the apparatus with which to apprehend the moral law, (which is as independent of us as physical laws like gravity) and free will provides the ability to choose or reject. Good choices habituate us into a settled character from which virtue flows naturally. This understanding is the good fruit of our philosophical tradition with its roots in Plato and Aristotle.
Christianity adds to pagan virtue in ways that simply cannot have secular analogues. It provides:
the sanction – what happens to you if you don’t do the good: (ultimate judgment)
the inspiration – why do the good? (love, beatitude, salvation)
the content – what is the good? Jesus in word and deed
Heather it is time to turn back to the God who loves you. There is plenty enough evidence for you reason to be satisfied. You shouldn’t have to be convinced against your will. Is it a corrupt will you are shackled with? Put your guns down and talk with Him. Most people don’t even bother to get that far they are so arrogant.