While no-one who has read Demonic Males: Apes and The Origins of Human Violence can view chimpanzee society as a model of entirely good order, the research described by the Daily Telegraph below (which builds on earlier work showing pretty much the same thing) is food for thought:
“Although morality has always been viewed as a human trait that sets us apart from the animals, it now appears our closest ancestors share the same scruples. Scientists have that discovered monkeys and apes can make judgements about fairness, offer sympathy and help and remember obligations. Researchers say the findings may demonstrate morality developed through evolution, a view that is likely to antagonise the devoutly religious, who see it as God-given. Professor Frans de Waal, who led the study at Emory University in Georgia, US, said: “I am not arguing that non-human primates are moral beings but there is enough evidence for the following of social rules to agree that some of the stepping stones towards human morality can be found in other animals.”
Read the whole thing.
Come on, is there anybody here who still regards morality in anything other than naturalistic psychological terms? The idea that morality is something uniquely and religiously human (or that it has its own objective standards as distinct from how human beings perceive it) hasn’t made sense for at least a hundred and fifty years – since before our grandfathers’ grandfathers WERE BORN. Our enlightened discoveries of things that have been known for a century and a half are… hardly enlightening.
“apes can make judgements about fairness, offer sympathy and help and remember obligations”
Why is this a surprise? I’ve seen cats do all three, and some humans who barely manage one of these. Making up a word for it doesn’t make it ours.
I do see morality and emotions as a sign of intelligence, although not a prerequisite. I don’t think I’ve ever felt a few emotions I see in others. There are plenty of intellectuals out there that don’t manage a convincing empathy, and even discount the usefulness of emotion in society. Going back to a recent discussion, does the person who throws their hamburger wrapper on the ground feel guilt? Whether these evolutions are more societal or biological, I don’t know, although I imagine Hume will cringe at my terminology.
I think birds may have a few emotions we don’t. Does that make them smarter or more evolved? Can we look through recorded history and see the beginnings of any emotions or morality that didn’t previously exist? Does it come into existence when we name it, or when a critical mass of others also identify it?
The rules of society become tenuous when people don’t have guilt or empathy. People who follow the rules out of fear of personal repercussions only follow them when someone is looking (this is why God had to be made all-seeing). The same goes for intellectuals who see personal profit in doing things that they understand will harm society. It seems like morality is a shortcut that exists to fill the gap between mindless selfishness and selfless pursuit of the common good. As religion proves, teaching the rules doesn’t grant the morality. Seeing morality in animals must be a terrible blow to those who see religion as necessary in society.
Nick Wade talks about the origin of morality in his book “Before the Dawn”.
While this thread seems to have died of natural causes, I would like to add a note because I briefly tackled this topic in my book.Long ago the Harvard psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg designed a theory of moral deveolment that was used as a basis of much research. He applied this measuring tool to children in various countries to make comparisons.His scale of development went from simple, very concrete, thinking to thinking based upon principle.Before 9 children are pre-conventional and directed toward self-interest. They obey to avoid punishment or gain rewards.
Morality gradually becomes more conventional as children learn the importance of social rules and laws. Most obey these out of habit and conformity.Around age 17 teens become able to break away and think more independently, relying on abstract principles like justice to decide a course of action.Kohlberg claimed that these stages are followed in a natural way by all people but his reseach showed that only highly educated, middle-class people reach the highest stage.
Kohlberg’s theory fits rather well with Piaget’s great work. They both felt that biology underlay moral development, but their results are not perfectly consistent.Many people failed Kohlberg’s last stage, which is rather strange if it is genetically based.Apparently culture plays a very important role in moral development, as well. Kohlberg did not touch on race but modern data implies enormous moral differences between races, a finding much at odds with liberal mythology.
One more item: moral decline in America would be a challenge today for Kohlberb because obedience is seen by modern parents as a serious deficiency. Self-esteem is served up as an ultimate human value regardless of merit!! In this inverted world Kohlberg would perhaps get quite different results. We are more egalitarian yet far more vulgar, sex-obsessed, and unscrupulous. Figure……………
Our moral sense seems to derive from our history as social animals, so some rudiments of morality do exist in our nearest primate relatives.Their rudimentary ability to think at a level of what Edelman calls higher consciousness is almost certainly related to group social life.No other animals except perhaps dolphins have any higher consciousness so morality is severely limited in the animal world despite testimonials re dogs and cats showing almost human morality. Marc Hauser’s Moral Minds is a worthwhile book extending Kohlberg’s ideas via discussion of many recent studies. He provides ample evidence of an innate moral impulse in children that grows ever more complex as they learn to reason. He discusses moral dilemmas that challenge children and stimulate more complex strategies by which they attempt to resolve more difficult situations.What Hauser finds in children is a set of traits that are uniquely human: a theory of mind, moral emotions, inhibitory control, and punishment of cheaters.He relegates religion to an exercise in training that generates habits.using deontological rules-don’t kill,lie,steal, or break promises.While he is right to stress the role of intellect in moral problem solving, Iam concerned about the fact that most people will never develop sound reasoning to exploit their moral emotions.The Nazis had brilliant people with feeble or non-existent moral emotions, as did the Bolsheviks. Humans have a violent history that must make us pause at the dawn of a new age of secular humanism that may wish to diminish the role of Christian “training.” I prefer an Albert Sweitzer to a Trotsky or Stalin.We must proceed with caution. m