Peaceful Atheist vs. Evil Atheist

Status
Not open for further replies.

RichardGarfinkle

Nurture Phoenixes
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
11,138
Reaction score
3,082
Location
Walking the Underworld
Website
www.richardgarfinkle.com
BTW - The idea that social and moral rules could be coded into our DNA seems pretty likely.

If you look at other animals they have extremely complex social rules coded into the DNA. I don't understand how ... but it certainly isn't learned behaviour. Bower Birds have the same ritual even if they've never seen it performed before. Cuckoos have their method of interacting with other birds and egg-laying ... even though fundamentally they can not have learned it from their family.

Those social rules are incredibly complex and specific .. yet seem to be coded into their DNA.

How ? I dunno.

But it would seem absurd to believe that DNA has coded complex 'rules' of social behaviour into every species on the planet .. with the sole exception of humans!

Mac

While it's clear that many kinds of animals show social behavior. We have to be careful about how much of the particulars of this to attribute to genetics.

Just as it is a dangerous assumption to think that only humans have morals. It is a dangerous assumption to think that only humans teach behavior and morals to their young.
http://www.world-science.net/othernews/060715_meerkat.htm

This is a dangerous area to ascribe to genetics since we have no particular evidence for genetic mechanisms for this and experimentation is extremely difficult.

A lot more work needs to be done before anybody can give a coherent scientific theory on this matter.
 

veinglory

volitare nequeo
Self-Ban
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
28,750
Reaction score
2,933
Location
right here
Website
www.veinglory.com
Some behaviors like where cuckoos lay eggs pretty much have to be innate, but I think that makes them the opposite of moral. Moral behavior is expressed consciously by some individuals of a species, not reflexively by all of them.
 

Maxx

Got the hang of it, here
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
3,227
Reaction score
202
Location
Durham NC
Some behaviors like where cuckoos lay eggs pretty much have to be innate, but I think that makes them the opposite of moral. Moral behavior is expressed consciously by some individuals of a species, not reflexively by all of them.

I don't see why conscious choice has to be involved in a moral behavior. As philosophers since Hume have pointed out (and as other posters have mentioned) our reading of pain and antisocial actions in others is something we have in common with animals.

In fact, moral behavior might be defined as what a healthy person with a fully functioning brain would do if they had the resources and were not under other pressures(as the articles summarized below suggest):

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2555414/
 

veinglory

volitare nequeo
Self-Ban
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
28,750
Reaction score
2,933
Location
right here
Website
www.veinglory.com
To be moral there has to be a choice. I think that's pretty fundamental. That's why people without mens rea can't be convicted of a crime.
 

Maxx

Got the hang of it, here
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
3,227
Reaction score
202
Location
Durham NC
To be moral there has to be a choice. I think that's pretty fundamental. That's why people without mens rea can't be convicted of a crime.

Can a person without mens rea behave morally? It seems to me that to be good and kind really takes much less mental effort than to be nasty.
 

PPartisan

<><'ing for compliments
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 19, 2012
Messages
298
Reaction score
55
Location
UK
Website
werdpressed.wordpress.com
It's a bit of a stretch to assign morality to animals. A human is distinct because it is a moral agent - it can weigh up the pros and cons of a situation and act based on logic, reason, empathy etc.

An animal acts as it does out of instinct. If a wolf attacked a baby, even though it had plenty of food etc., we might have to put it to sleep as a threat, but we wouldn't call the wolf evil, would we?

Also, if we consider animals moral agents, then we really need to consier giving them a right to vote.

In addition, whilst I feel there is a genetic basis to morality (there's a genetic basis to just about everything I suppose) I don't think it can take us the whole way. Different civillisations have different ideas on what is and isn't moral, and they change faster than genetics possibly could. There's more to it.
 

Libbie

Worst song played on ugliest guitar
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
5,309
Reaction score
1,094
Location
umber and black Humberland
While it's clear that many kinds of animals show social behavior. We have to be careful about how much of the particulars of this to attribute to genetics.

Just as it is a dangerous assumption to think that only humans have morals. It is a dangerous assumption to think that only humans teach behavior and morals to their young.
http://www.world-science.net/othernews/060715_meerkat.htm

This is a dangerous area to ascribe to genetics since we have no particular evidence for genetic mechanisms for this and experimentation is extremely difficult.

A lot more work needs to be done before anybody can give a coherent scientific theory on this matter.

First, I don't think it's "dangerous" to ascribe the source of morality to genetics. I believe that is fairly hyperbolic language, unless you can elaborate on why it poses some kind of a danger to make that assertion. As for lacking evidence, others have already presented some rudimentary evidence in the form of certain birds displaying the same behaviors as their parents in spite of never having seen adult birds of their species perform these behaviors. I guess now the only question is whether what we call "morality" is a set of behaviors or whether it has some other, more nebulous definition.

Second, no one is saying that morals and behaviors are not learned behavior in whole or in part. What we were discussing is the original source of human morality -- whether its roots are in biology or whether it was conferred on humans by an outside, presumably supernatural source.
 

Libbie

Worst song played on ugliest guitar
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
5,309
Reaction score
1,094
Location
umber and black Humberland
It's a bit of a stretch to assign morality to animals.

I don't think it is. In the past I have worked as an animal trainer and as a zoo keeper. I've worked with animals more closely, and with a greater variety of animals, than most people here on AW have. In my professional opinion, it is not even remotely a stretch to assign morality to other animals.

First, as I have already pointed out, humans are animals. So even if it were to be proven somehow that Homo sapiens is the only species on that planet that has this trait called "morality," then it must also be said that animals -- at least some animals -- have morality. Yes, that's pedantic, but I'm getting all pedantic on you for a specific reason. I think you're defining morality in an unreasonably narrow manner, and maybe you need to broaden your definition more to understand what we're saying here. Let me elaborate:

A human is distinct because it is a moral agent - it can weigh up the pros and cons of a situation and act based on logic, reason, empathy etc.

Other animals have shown the same behavior. There's a very interesting book you ought to read called Our Inner Ape, written by the primatologist Frans de Waal. It's full of amazing examples, first-hand observations by a serious and well-respected scientist, of primates, especially great apes, apparently weighing the pros and cons of situations, acting based on logic, empathy, and more. One anecdote from the book that sticks out in my mind is the story of a female bonobo chimpanzee in a zoo who witnessed a bird fly into her exhibit's window. She picked up the stunned bird, studied it for a while, then climbed to the top of her lookout and spread the bird's wings with her hands, tried to help it fly; she tossed it into the air, attempting to help it back into the sky. She nursed the bird until it either recovered or died; I don't recall how the story ended -- but the whole time she had reasoned that birds fly, that this bird was incapable of flight, that she wanted to put it back into the sky, and even reasoned out how that its spread wings were instrumental to its flight. She seemed upset by the bird's injury and wouldn't give up trying to restore it to where it belonged until the bird flew away on its own or died.

Tell me that doesn't show both reason and empathy.

An animal acts as it does out of instinct. If a wolf attacked a baby, even though it had plenty of food etc., we might have to put it to sleep as a threat, but we wouldn't call the wolf evil, would we?

How is it that you're setting humans apart from other animals when referring to instinct? If you don't define morality so narrowly, if you entertain the notion that perhaps morality is a form of instinct for social animals, then humans (again, we are animals) are not immune to acting as we do out of instinct, at least in some situations.

Wolves do indeed act out of instinct quite frequently. Wolves do not only "kill babies." Wolves also form strong family bonds wherein one male-female pair becomes the only breeding pair, and the other members of the pack all assist equally with raising the dominant pair's pups. Surely all wolves, like all living things, have a desire to reproduce. What makes a young female wolf stay with her older sister and help raise her pups, instead of following her instinct to leave the pack and have her own pups? What makes a young male wolf stay with a pack and defend those pups that aren't his and hunt to feed them, instead of leaving to father his own pups? I'm not a wolf, so I can't tell you; but speaking as somebody who has worked with wolves quite a bit, I can tell you that wolf social structure seems to me to be extremely complex, with rigid social rules and clearly defined roles for its members, and harsh consequences for breaking those rules.

Do you call "morality" only the arbitrary distinction between "good" and "evil" (whatever those words mean)? Or do define it as an individual's behavior in relation to complex and distinct social rules? Because most of us here seem to be using the latter definition, or something close to it, while you're restricting your understanding of this discussion -- and of the natural world you live in -- to a much more simplistic and hobbled definition.


Also, if we consider animals moral agents, then we really need to consier giving them a right to vote.

That's the silliest thing I've ever heard. Why do other animals give two shits about what happens in our society? They don't have any need or desire to understand our politics, and most of them can't communicate cross-species effectively enough to learn and understand it.

Come on. Be real here. The rest of us are.

In addition, whilst I feel there is a genetic basis to morality (there's a genetic basis to just about everything I suppose) I don't think it can take us the whole way. Different civillisations have different ideas on what is and isn't moral, and they change faster than genetics possibly could. There's more to it.

Yes, they certainly do. I think in addition to genetics, which is one type of heritable unit, memetics have much to do with morality as well. Memes are another kind of hereditary unit, and just as prone to evolution, and therefore to change. But that might be a discussion for another day.

I'll leave you with this basic thought so you can start to bring yourself up to speed with the rest of the conversation. The definition of "animal" is an organism made up of a variety of tissue types (rather than only a single tissue type), and which gets its energy by consuming other living things, whether plant or animal. Are you made of more than one type of tissue? Do you eat? If you answered "yes" to both questions, then congratulations, you are an animal.
 

veinglory

volitare nequeo
Self-Ban
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
28,750
Reaction score
2,933
Location
right here
Website
www.veinglory.com
I have done a lot of work with animals (behavioral research mainly) and I certainly think they have ethics.

Consider this, and adult male monkey troop leader is attacked by a male who wants to become leader. To stop the attack he holds up a baby monkey in front of him. In response the females of the troop attack and drive him from the group.

I have not trouble interpreting that the male monkey made a bad moral choice selfishly endangering the infant to protect himself, and the females saw this and punished him.
 

RichardGarfinkle

Nurture Phoenixes
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
11,138
Reaction score
3,082
Location
Walking the Underworld
Website
www.richardgarfinkle.com
First, I don't think it's "dangerous" to ascribe the source of morality to genetics. I believe that is fairly hyperbolic language, unless you can elaborate on why it poses some kind of a danger to make that assertion. As for lacking evidence, others have already presented some rudimentary evidence in the form of certain birds displaying the same behaviors as their parents in spite of never having seen adult birds of their species perform these behaviors. I guess now the only question is whether what we call "morality" is a set of behaviors or whether it has some other, more nebulous definition.

Second, no one is saying that morals and behaviors are not learned behavior in whole or in part. What we were discussing is the original source of human morality -- whether its roots are in biology or whether it was conferred on humans by an outside, presumably supernatural source.

Sorry, dangerous was hyperbolic.
And if the contrast is between biology and outside source. I'm certainly on the side of biology.

My concern is with the kind of simplistic 'having a gene for behavior x' kind of explanation which ignores both the complexity of genetics and the complexity of minds. There is a tendency for that kind of idea to pop up when this subject crops up.

I am only proposing care in the discussion, nothing more.
 

RichardGarfinkle

Nurture Phoenixes
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
11,138
Reaction score
3,082
Location
Walking the Underworld
Website
www.richardgarfinkle.com
I have done a lot of work with animals (behavioral research mainly) and I certainly think they have ethics.

Consider this, and adult male monkey troop leader is attacked by a male who wants to become leader. To stop the attack he holds up a baby monkey in front of him. In response the females of the troop attack and drive him from the group.

I have not trouble interpreting that the male monkey made a bad moral choice selfishly endangering the infant to protect himself, and the females saw this and punished him.

We might want to be a little careful about which animals we're talking about. Morality in monkeys is not too surprising. Morality in ants would be.
 

Mac H.

Board Visitor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 16, 2005
Messages
2,812
Reaction score
406
My concern is with the kind of simplistic 'having a gene for behavior x' kind of explanation which ignores both the complexity of genetics and the complexity of minds. There is a tendency for that kind of idea to pop up when this subject crops up.
I agree with that 110%

That doesn't change the fact, though, that animals have some clear behavioural patterns that we've proved are entirely inherited - not learned at at all. I don't know if it is coded into DNA, or inherited via some epi-genetic link that is even more poorly understood ... but the one thing we do know is that we can cross off 'learned behaviour' off the list of causes.

Yes - plenty of behaviours are learned as well .. but we've proved that some are entirely inherited ... and DNA coding is the most likely mechanism. (It wouldn't be very mysterious if it was .. wolf DNA has about 600MB of programming space which is ample room to code some pretty specific social rules - which is why it's at the top of the 'most likely cause' list)

I'm not sure I see the logic in this argument:

This is a dangerous area to ascribe to genetics since we have no particular evidence for genetic mechanisms for this and experimentation is extremely difficult.
We have proof that some very specific behaviour patterns are entirely inherited rather than learned. And experimentation isn't hard - it is extremely easy as long as the species is short lived.

One typical experiment: Get a group of identical birds and divide into two groups - one control group reared with natural materials in a communal setting and another group reared by hand .. ensuring that no bird in the 'hand reared' group ever sees other bird. Do that for a couple of generations. Then give both groups identical nesting material and observe how they build their nests. We've done that ... and the amazing thing is that it shows that many species seem to have ridiculously specific nest-building instructions that are entirely inherited!

What else could the explanation be? Are you arguing the technicality that it might be inherited via non-genetic mechanisms? (Which could be true .. but seems to be less likely given what we know of the amount of coding space available in DNA)

We've also gone the next step and actually modified the behaviour of animals .. solely by tweaking their DNA ! That's pretty powerful confirmation that it's a likely mechanism. Yeah - we've only done it on simple animals involving incredibly simple behaviours (a tendency to forage .v. loiter for fruit flies) .. but it certainly shows that it is wrong to claim that 'we have no
particular evidence for genetic mechanisms' !!! We've got plenty of evidence. (Although I think it would be ultra-cool if it turned out to be an epi-genetic mechanism instead)

Mac
(PS: Yes - I've used 'base pairs' rather than 'genes' for my 'coding space' metaphor. I know they aren't the same thing (and you could argue that genes is equivalent to 'programming space that appears to be used')... but it's a workable comparison)

(PPS: It seems that my science is out of date when I said that we've only demonstrated DNA coding of one extremely simple behaviour - it turns out we now have solid links between DNA coding and courtship dances of at least one species. That good enough?)
 
Last edited:

PPartisan

<><'ing for compliments
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 19, 2012
Messages
298
Reaction score
55
Location
UK
Website
werdpressed.wordpress.com
Edit: Libbie. I noticed you mentioned earlier that you were arguing whether or not morals are god-given. Well, they aren't, and there are far cleaner philosophical solutions to this problem that show god-given morality doesn't hold weight without needing to touch Biology.

Hmm. I figured I'd chime in here because I've considered points similar to this in deciding my position on animal rights, specifically in regards to animal testing. The "moral agent = right to vote" point isn't as facetious as you think. I acknowledge that humans are animals. I apologise if anyone has commented since, but I'm low on battery and wanted to say something immediately before my PC died :). All my responses here are at Libbie's last post.

So even if it were to be proven somehow that Homo sapiens is the only species on that planet that has this trait called "morality," then it must also be said that animals -- at least some animals -- have morality.

There's a very interesting book you ought to read called Our Inner Ape, written by the primatologist Frans de Waal. It's full of amazing examples, first-hand observations by a serious and well-respected scientist, of primates, especially great apes, apparently weighing the pros and cons of situations, acting based on logic, empathy, and more. One anecdote from the book that sticks out in my mind is the story of a female bonobo chimpanzee in a zoo who witnessed a bird fly into her exhibit's window.... She seemed upset by the bird's injury and wouldn't give up trying to restore it to where it belonged until the bird flew away on its own or died.

Tell me that doesn't show both reason and empathy.

The problem here is that, if you describe this behaviour as evidence of morals and accept that the chimp is behaving "morally", then you must also accept that this chimp (or these chimps) behaved immorally.

The thing about morals is that they arrive via a process. Morality implies that the chimp saw the bird, made an association between how the bird felt and how it would feel in the same situation and drew an inference. If it did these things, then yes, the chimp is a moral agent capable of making moral decisions.

Alternatively, the chimp was just curious that it was flying one minute and not so the next. A sign of intelligence no doubt, but morals? And again, if you say that chimps are moral, then that means they are capable of empathy and reason, which also means that the behaviour I gave in my example was "immoral." You may well be anthropomorphising this chimp's behaviour because humans are moral agents, and such behaviour is packaged with who we are.

How is it that you're setting humans apart from other animals when referring to instinct? If you don't define morality so narrowly, if you entertain the notion that perhaps morality is a form of instinct for social animals, then humans (again, we are animals) are not immune to acting as we do out of instinct, at least in some situations.

Wolves do indeed act out of instinct quite frequently. Wolves do not only "kill babies." Wolves also form strong family bonds wherein one male-female pair becomes the only breeding pair, and the other members of the pack all assist equally with raising the dominant pair's pups.

Do you call "morality" only the arbitrary distinction between "good" and "evil" (whatever those words mean)? Or do define it as an individual's behavior in relation to complex and distinct social rules? Because most of us here seem to be using the latter definition, or something close to it, while you're restricting your understanding of this discussion -- and of the natural world you live in -- to a much more simplistic and hobbled definition.

My definition of morality is narrower than yours because the arguments I've read so far have given morality a definition so broad that it's unsurprising the conclusion would be animals (or mammals at least) have morality. It's worth underlining the areas where humans differ from other animals, because if we otherwise feel that animals are capable of the same consideration of moral dilemmas as humans, then they need human rights.

There is a moral hierarchy at play here, no doubt. Some animals have higher cognitive skills than others, and show more complex social interactions than others. Near the bottom of the pile are the tapeworms and insects. Then perhaps reptiles. Then mammals. Then the great apes. Then humans.

This throws up other problems, admittedly. Babies are not moral agents, neither are humans in comas. Typically this problem is got around by saying they have the potential to be moral agents. But no-one ever said ethics was easy ;)

I'm aware wolves don't only kill babies, but they would do under many circumstances, and not give it a second thought. Most of us wouldn't kill baby wolves however. If a human killed a wolf pup, we may call it immoral. Would we call a wolf eating a baby immoral? You're very keen to point out this moral behaviour without considering the alternative. Calling this sort of behaviour "moral" is confusing, because making a moral decision isn't always easy in life. Often we'll be in a situation where we have to take the lesser evil, and it isn't a fair comparison to say that caring for a mate is on a par with human ethics.

Yes, they certainly do. I think in addition to genetics, which is one type of heritable unit, memetics have much to do with morality as well. Memes are another kind of hereditary unit, and just as prone to evolution, and therefore to change. But that might be a discussion for another day.

Do you call "morality" only the arbitrary distinction between "good" and "evil" (whatever those words mean)? Or do define it as an individual's behavior in relation to complex and distinct social rules? Because most of us here seem to be using the latter definition

Do animals have memes, I wonder? And this arbitrary "good" and "evil" has given us the Red Cross, the RSPCA, Oxfam etc. etc. You've brushed aside the most important point here.

In closing then, I'll say this. Some animals, mammals in particular, show more complex social behaviour that other animals. However, it is not on a par with human morality, and calling this behaviour moral is incorrect.
 
Last edited:

Mac H.

Board Visitor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 16, 2005
Messages
2,812
Reaction score
406
The problem here is that, if you describe this behaviour as evidence of morals and accept that the chimp is behaving "morally", then you must also accept that the [chimp who tore a woman's face]behaved immorally.
I think there is a miscommunication here.

The argument is NOT that 'an animal acted like a moral human would is evidence of the animal having morals'. That concept is absurd. In the example given it was used as evidence of 'an animal can have empathy' - which is useful tool for socially complex behaviours.

But a social animal has a morality that is relevant to *THEIR* group - not anything that is relevant to us.

For example, wolf morals might be 'it is immoral to attempt to rut a strange bitch without sniffing her butt first'. I dunno. But it would be something that is relevant to THEIR system of interaction, not ours.

For example, the morals of one human group might be:
  • Good = 'Kill everyone in the other clan because someone of that clan offended someone of our clan.'
  • Bad = 'Eating Fish'
That might not be your morals, and isn't mine. But it is a 'morality system' ... a set of rules which their group uses to differentiates 'bad' or 'good' behaviour.

When I say that the system of morals among Mafia Dons doesn't agree with my morality - it doesn't mean that they don't have a sense of 'right' and 'wrong'. But their 'right' & 'wrong' certainly doesn't line up with mine. (And mine is the correct system - obviously)

So saying that 'If chimps have a system of morality then we must agree that 'Action X' by a chip is immoral' doesn't really make any sense.

Mac
(PS: If you don't want to call it a 'system of morals' would it be OK to call it a system of " Doggy 'Right' & 'Wrong' "? )
 
Last edited:

Once!

Still confused by shoelaces
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
2,965
Reaction score
433
Location
Godalming, England
Website
www.will-once.com
We may be arguing at cross purposes here. I think the main problem is that we have slightly different versions of the meaning of the word "morality". Does it refer to a set of social rules and/or does it involve conceps of right and wrong?

Here is my take, for what little it is worth.

Humans are animals. Complex animals, to be sure, but animals all the same.

In common with all social animals, we have developed rules and habits to help us survive. For example, we protect our young and and other family members. We tend to discourage murder. We pair-bond for life ... ish. My ex wife had a different viewpoint on that last one, but that's another story.

In having those rules we are no different to many other animals. The precise nature of those rules varies from species to species. Ants do it differently to polar bears. For that matter, ants do it differently do just about anyone. But that's ants for you.

For me, being a card-carrying atheist, that's evolution at work. A society/ species that cares for its children is more likely to survive than one that doesn't. I have absolutely no idea whether these traits are genetic or learned. I suspect it's a bit of both.

Where I have a problem is when we start calling these rules "morality" and add in the concepts of right and wrong. We have adopted rules that are or were useful to our survival as a species. They are only right or wrong because we have chosen to say that they are right or wrong.

And we change our mind over time. Slavery used to be "right". Now it isn't. Smoking is hovering somewhere between a fundamental human right and a practice which may well be banned in the next 100 years.

It would be the height of arrogance to say that our current set of moral values are "correct". History shows us that morality evolves over time. It changes and adapts according to our needs and beliefs.

That's why I can't get comfortable with the idea of an innate or natural morality. Is a lion a murderer? Were the Romans wrong to embrace slavery?

Not right or wrong. Just choosing to adopt useful rules which become ingrained over time.
 

Libbie

Worst song played on ugliest guitar
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
5,309
Reaction score
1,094
Location
umber and black Humberland
We might want to be a little careful about which animals we're talking about. Morality in monkeys is not too surprising. Morality in ants would be.

But where does the line for "surprising" end? Morality in bats? Birds? I think the monkey example was only raised because PPartisan was excluding humans from all other animals, and trying to make the point that humans are "humans" and therefore distinct from all other animals only because they have morality. My example of wolves and veinglory's of the monkey proved PPartisan's assertion about humanity's place outside of the animal world wrong.

Really, as we move away from warm-blooded vertebrates and toward cold-blooded animals, arthropods, fish, etc., brain function appears to grow less complex, based on current observations, though social structure can still be breathtakingly complex and fascinating, as in ants. Just because we don't presently see ants as "thinking animals" doesn't mean they don't think, of course. Maybe they do have a form of morality that we haven't yet learned to recognize. Or maybe they don't. However, for the sake of comparison to human behavior/morality, warm-blooded vertebrate social groups are going to make more sense to us and are therefore going to provide more useful examples of potential moralities.
 

Libbie

Worst song played on ugliest guitar
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
5,309
Reaction score
1,094
Location
umber and black Humberland
The problem here is that, if you describe this behaviour as evidence of morals and accept that the chimp is behaving "morally", then you must also accept that this chimp (or these chimps) behaved immorally.

You are making the mistake of equating the word "moral" with positive behavior traits and "immoral" with negative behavior traits. All along, I have tried to be clear that I am discussing the concept of morality as a set of socially reinforced behaviors particular to a given group. Not a judgment of "good vs. bad."

In terms of the chimps referenced above, who are we to say that they did not behave morally in the context of chimpanzee social structure? At least in the case of the chimp who attacked the unfortunte woman who was visiting her friend who stupidly kept a chimp as a pet, perhaps the chimp saw the friend as a threat to a member of his group, and to defend his group was the moral thing for him to do. Not so moral in a human context, but neither you nor I are quite chimps (though we're close), so we can't really say.

The example I gave of the bonobo who tried to help the injured bird was an example of a non-human animal showing empathy and logic/rational thought, which was a specific thing you pointed to as being lacking in the non-human animal world. I gave that example to correct you, not to assert that the bonobo was being "moral." I did assert that she was being both empathetic and rational, however.

The thing about morals is that they arrive via a process. Morality implies that the chimp saw the bird, made an association between how the bird felt and how it would feel in the same situation and drew an inference. If it did these things, then yes, the chimp is a moral agent capable of making moral decisions.

Again, since I wasn't using the bonobo example to point to morality, I can't comment there. And I disagree with you that "the thing" about morals is that they arrive via a process. I think it depends on how you define the word in a given context. I think in certain contexts morality can rightly be defined that way. In others, it can rightly be defined as I have been doing in this thread: response to social pressures.

Alternatively, the chimp was just curious that it was flying one minute and not so the next. A sign of intelligence no doubt, but morals? And again, if you say that chimps are moral, then that means they are capable of empathy and reason, which also means that the behaviour I gave in my example was "immoral." You may well be anthropomorphising this chimp's behaviour because humans are moral agents, and such behaviour is packaged with who we are.

So if we are less than two percent different, genetically speaking, from the bonobo who fiddled with the injured bird, then are you asserting that the primary difference between bonobos and humans is that "packaging" of morality?

If you are asserting this, please cite your sources. "I just think that's the way it is" doesn't count.


My definition of morality is narrower than yours because the arguments I've read so far have given morality a definition so broad that it's unsurprising the conclusion would be animals (or mammals at least) have morality. It's worth underlining the areas where humans differ from other animals, because if we otherwise feel that animals are capable of the same consideration of moral dilemmas as humans, then they need human rights.

No. Again, human rights make sense in the context of human society. Wolves do not need human rights any more than humans need wolf rights. We are different species. We live differently. We approach the world differently. Humans are not better, more vaunted, or specially endowed with "that certain something" (morality, pre-packaged into who we are, in your view) that makes us better-than. We are not better-than. We are simply different.

Other animals would have no use for "human rights." I do not have a use for whale rights or condor rights (although I did know a condor who treated me as his mate and was very considerate and kind to me. ;) )

If you've restricted your reading on the issue of non-human behavior just so you can maintain your current view on the use of animals in medical testing, maybe you need to chill out a little bit about the implications of testing. And/or educate yourself about it more. I've worked in zoos before and I recently looked into starting a career in hubandry for medical science, and I can honestly tell you that animals used in medical science are often treated far more humanely than animals in many zoos (though to be sure, that may not be saying much, depending on which zoos you are sampling.) I encourage you to read more on the subject, because honestly, some of your positions on why or how humans are different from other animals seem irrational. Don't be afraid of knowledge. I am pretty well-versed on animal behavior -- well-versed enough to feel certain that most warm-blooded social vertebrates have what can rationally be called "morality" -- and I don't have a problem with animals in science.

There is a moral hierarchy at play here, no doubt. Some animals have higher cognitive skills than others, and show more complex social interactions than others. Near the bottom of the pile are the tapeworms and insects. Then perhaps reptiles. Then mammals. Then the great apes. Then humans.

Your understanding of the complexities and richness of animal life is so impoverished. I'm not saying that to insult you, and I hope I haven't, truly. I really feel a bit sad for you, that your desire to set Homo sapiens somehow "above" other animals, and thereby to justify in your head animals in science, has kept you from a full appreciation of the animal world -- the world you are a part of! My goodness, animal life is so much more diverse and incredible than your apparent perception of it, and so full of fascinating behaviors -- even cultures, one might say. You really ought to read about it more. It's amazing.

Again, let me clearly state that I'm not anti-testing. I think it's honorable (and sadly rare) to care enough about the issue that you've even put this kind of thought into it. But you've let your worries over it blind you to its realities, and to the realities of non-human animals. Push your comfort boundaries a little more and the world will become even more awesome to you.

I really do recommend you start with Our Inner Ape by Frans de Waal. You'll love it.

This throws up other problems, admittedly. Babies are not moral agents, neither are humans in comas. Typically this problem is got around by saying they have the potential to be moral agents. But no-one ever said ethics was easy ;)

No, indeed, it is not easy. But it's not made any easier by hyperbolic statements like "If we admit that non-human animals have morality, then we must give them the right to vote."


I'm aware wolves don't only kill babies, but they would do under many circumstances, and not give it a second thought. Most of us wouldn't kill baby wolves however. If a human killed a wolf pup, we may call it immoral. Would we call a wolf eating a baby immoral? You're very keen to point out this moral behaviour without considering the alternative. Calling this sort of behaviour "moral" is confusing, because making a moral decision isn't always easy in life. Often we'll be in a situation where we have to take the lesser evil, and it isn't a fair comparison to say that caring for a mate is on a par with human ethics.

Again, you're misunderstanding the definition in use here of "morality."

Do animals have memes, I wonder?

They do. Bird song is a meme. Methods of catching prey among domestic cats appear to be memetic.

And this arbitrary "good" and "evil" has given us the Red Cross, the RSPCA, Oxfam etc. etc. You've brushed aside the most important point here.

Which is...what, exactly? I'm not following you. I don't understand how the existence of altruistic organizations proves or disproves that humans are the only animals that can be said to have morality. Is there some obscure definition of the word I'm not aware of, which specifies that only societies which create organizations with acronyms can be said to care about their social health? I'm sure if the vampire bats had a written language they'd call their system of monitoring who gets the night's rations of regurgitated blood something clever, maybe the Bats' Alliance Regurgitation Fund. BARF.

In closing then, I'll say this. Some animals, mammals in particular, show more complex social behaviour that other animals. However, it is not on a par with human morality, and calling this behaviour moral is incorrect.

Prove that it is not on par with human morality. Animal morality is exactly as "moral" (in the context of that animal group) as it needs to be to facilitate survival. AS IS THE CASE WITH HUMAN MORALITY. You're just asserting that it's not living up to your totally arbitrary standard without backing up your assertion, so I'm totally justified in dismissing it, on account of my years of work with socially aware animals, and all.

Don't be afraid to read more on this subject. It won't make you a bad person.
 

PPartisan

<><'ing for compliments
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 19, 2012
Messages
298
Reaction score
55
Location
UK
Website
werdpressed.wordpress.com
I think there is a miscommunication here.

The argument is NOT that 'an animal acted like a moral human would is evidence of the animal having morals'. That concept is absurd. In the example given it was used as evidence of 'an animal can have empathy' - which is useful tool for socially complex behaviours.

Hi Mac,

Yes, I thought someone might say that, but some of these "good" behaviours have seemed defined in suspiciously human terms. For instance, I can't see how helping an injured bird fly would be an example of a "good" behaviour in a chimpanzee. Morality also involves contact with species outside of our own. It does in both our examples. As I said before, it's immoral for me to kick a wolf pup, but for the wolf pup to bite a baby isn't.

So was the chimpanzee eating the woman's face moral or immoral? Or was it simply amoral, because the chimp cannot behave in a way defined as moral? And why is it that Libbie's example is taken as an animal behaving with empathy, whereas mine isn't an example of an animal behaving without. It would be better to come up with an explanation that covers both occurrences.

So saying that 'If chimps have a system of morality then we must agree that 'Action X' by a chip is immoral' doesn't really make any sense.

We can actually, and at least one person has given examples of social animals ganging up someone they feel doesn't fit with their moral code. How can you have a moral code that's impossible to break?

Mac
(PS: If you don't want to call it a 'system of morals' would it be OK to call it a system of " Doggy 'Right' & 'Wrong' "? )

Everyone seems to be act rudely when they answer me on this topic.

What you're explaining is complex behaviour in social animals. Morality is confusing, because morality assumes a conscious reflection/internal dialogue on the correct course of action prior to its execution. Had the chimp in my example restrained its behaviour then it wouldn't have been killed, and could have lived happily. My example isn't the only one either, not by a long way. Do the chimpanzees that kill other chimpanzees in the bush reflect on the suffering of those they kill? We talk about the human traits in the animals without a discussion on what it is that actually sets them apart.
 

RichardGarfinkle

Nurture Phoenixes
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
11,138
Reaction score
3,082
Location
Walking the Underworld
Website
www.richardgarfinkle.com
But where does the line for "surprising" end? Morality in bats? Birds? I think the monkey example was only raised because PPartisan was excluding humans from all other animals, and trying to make the point that humans are "humans" and therefore distinct from all other animals only because they have morality. My example of wolves and veinglory's of the monkey proved PPartisan's assertion about humanity's place outside of the animal world wrong.

Really, as we move away from warm-blooded vertebrates and toward cold-blooded animals, arthropods, fish, etc., brain function appears to grow less complex, based on current observations, though social structure can still be breathtakingly complex and fascinating, as in ants. Just because we don't presently see ants as "thinking animals" doesn't mean they don't think, of course. Maybe they do have a form of morality that we haven't yet learned to recognize. Or maybe they don't. However, for the sake of comparison to human behavior/morality, warm-blooded vertebrate social groups are going to make more sense to us and are therefore going to provide more useful examples of potential moralities.

This is one of those cases where a concept (morality) grays out the farther away one gets from where it was defined (in this case with humans). If we go too far we end up with no distinction between moral choice and stimulus-response.

If I might reframe the concept.
A pure stimulus-response structure cannot be considered a matter of morality because the creature has no choice of action. We may consider the response dangerous but that doesn't make it immoral.

A stimulus-think up diversity of responses-choose among diversity of responses-response structure can be considered a matter of morality because of the ability to choose.

By the way,I think that the primary evolutionary benefit of intelligence is the ability to generate possibiites and choose among them. A creature with this capability can rather than dying by doing something dangerous kill the idea of doing the dangerous thing (I.e. learning not to do it). An intelligent creature can evolve its thoughts rather than always being in the teeth of evolution.
 

Mac H.

Board Visitor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 16, 2005
Messages
2,812
Reaction score
406
For instance, I can't see how helping an injured bird fly would be an example of a "good" behaviour in a chimpanzee.
I read that as a discussion of an animal showing a reaction that wasn't a simple 'eat or be eaten' reaction .. something that would seem to be a starting point in a discussion on morality.

Morality is confusing, because morality assumes a conscious reflection/internal dialogue on the correct course of action prior to its execution.
We are definitely talking at cross-purposes then.

Why does morality assume an internal dialogue?

Morality is having a system for categorising things as 'right' or 'wrong'. When a dog perceives that it is 'wrong' to eat before the alpha dog that doesn't mean that it has had internal dialogue on the correct course of action.

In fact - come to think of it - most of human morality doesn't involve an internal dialog. For example - most people would think that it is wrong for a man to have sex with his daughter. And they would have that moral view without having a concious reflection/internal dialogue on the pros & cons .. it is a moral view.

For example:
Moral View for Christopher Columbus:
Right = Sell people into Slavery for the Glory of God (A quote from his log)
Wrong = Do something against the Spanish Queen

Do either of those view points show particular insights of empathy into the view of other peoples?

Remember we are talking about morality - the SYSTEM or LIST of what is classed as 'good' or 'bad'.

To use the most blunt example:

1. In most human cultures it is considered immoral to have sex with your daughter.
2. In most chimp cultures it is considered immoral to have sex with your daughter.

In at least case 1 it appears that the immorality is not the result of having an internal dialogue. When you ask someone why it is morally wrong when both are above the age of consent and birth control is used most people don't have an answer - but will still agree that it is wrong. That demonstrates that even humans have morals that aren't a result of internal dialog.

So - why do you think that the same 'moral' view is shared by both humans and chimps? Why do you feel that they have different explanations and should have different names?

Mac
(That isn't to say that we don't have different views of right & wrong on many other topics. But clearly we both have systems. Why give our concept a different name to theirs?)
 

PPartisan

<><'ing for compliments
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 19, 2012
Messages
298
Reaction score
55
Location
UK
Website
werdpressed.wordpress.com
Apologies Libbie: I'll reply to your post when I can, I just saw this one pop up first. By the way, earlier on you said I asserted that humans are distinct from animals. I never said that, you implied it somewhere and I set you straight on it at the first available chance. Humans are animals, and share plenty of common ground, but I'm arguing that this is one field where there are substantial differences.

I read that as a discussion of an animal showing a reaction that wasn't a simple 'eat or be eaten' reaction .. something that would seem to be a starting point in a discussion on morality.

I don't understand. First I'm told that this isn't an example of morality. At least, not a human morality. Instead, it is an example of empathy:

The argument is NOT that 'an animal acted like a moral human would is evidence of the animal having morals'. That concept is absurd. In the example given it was used as evidence of 'an animal can have empathy' - which is useful tool for socially complex behaviours.

But a social animal has a morality that is relevant to *THEIR* group - not anything that is relevant to us.

Alright then, so Chimps have empathy. Empathy is a trait of human morality, but apparently it is now present in Chimp morality as well. I say apparently for two reasons. Firstly, the amount of animals caught in this morality net is now large and includes animals that couldn't possibly possess empathy. Such as ants. This makes me wonder why empathy is the starting point for a discussion on morality for some animals, and not others. Secondly, as empathy is a trait of human morality, we spot it in this Chimp from a human perspective. However, we quickly come to understand that empathy isn't in fact integral to Chimp morality:

In terms of the chimps referenced above, who are we to say that they did not behave morally in the context of chimpanzee social structure? At least in the case of the chimp who attacked the unfortunte woman who was visiting her friend who stupidly kept a chimp as a pet, perhaps the chimp saw the friend as a threat to a member of his group, and to defend his group was the moral thing for him to do. Not so moral in a human context, but neither you nor I are quite chimps (though we're close), so we can't really say.

So the Chimp that attacked the woman may have been behaving morally from a Chimp perspective. As we spotted the first case of empathy from a human perspective (the chimp nursing the bird), we can now only spot this second case from a human perspective too. There is a lack of empathy. But, the door is wide open for it to still be "moral" (whatever this word now means).

So as it turns out, empathy really isn't important in understanding Chimp morality as it is has been defined so far. We have apparently empathic behaviour and apparently apathetic behaviour. Both of them could show possible instances of Chimp morality, no-one really knows, so all we can say so far is that Chimp morality is empathy-independent.

This Chimp morality is starting to look like a series of loose observations. It needs some defining or we're in danger of losing it completely.

Why does morality assume an internal dialogue?

Because that is one defintion of morality that makes it solely human. The kind of reflective questions such as "I'm angry, do I kill this person? I could maybe get away with it. However, if everyone thought as I did, then I could be killed too. This may be an irrational decision and I probably shouldn't act on my impulse." Humans reflect on the reasons for their actions. They get their initial gut reaction, as all animals are inclined to do, but can then take a step back and reflect on whether or not their instinctive response is something they should act upon.

The reasons human morality is able to change so readily is due to reflections like this.

Edit: There's more on this in my answer to Libbie below.
 
Last edited:

Maxx

Got the hang of it, here
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
3,227
Reaction score
202
Location
Durham NC
Being ethical involves choosing to be one or the other. No choice=no ethics.


Situations involve choices that may be unconscious and yet quite moral in terms of aiding others rather than pushing one's own (theoretical/potential) agenda.
 

PPartisan

<><'ing for compliments
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 19, 2012
Messages
298
Reaction score
55
Location
UK
Website
werdpressed.wordpress.com
You are making the mistake of equating the word "moral" with positive behavior traits and "immoral" with negative behavior traits. All along, I have tried to be clear that I am discussing the concept of morality as a set of socially reinforced behaviors particular to a given group. Not a judgment of "good vs. bad."

In terms of the chimps referenced above, who are we to say that they did not behave morally in the context of chimpanzee social structure? At least in the case of the chimp who attacked the unfortunte woman who was visiting her friend who stupidly kept a chimp as a pet, perhaps the chimp saw the friend as a threat to a member of his group, and to defend his group was the moral thing for him to do. Not so moral in a human context, but neither you nor I are quite chimps (though we're close), so we can't really say.

The example I gave of the bonobo who tried to help the injured bird was an example of a non-human animal showing empathy and logic/rational thought, which was a specific thing you pointed to as being lacking in the non-human animal world. I gave that example to correct you, not to assert that the bonobo was being "moral." I did assert that she was being both empathetic and rational, however.

I've largely answered this in my response to Mac, so if you'd be so kind you can find my thoughts there. Suffice to say, at some point you're going to have to define this morality. Is it based on empathy, or isn't it. Is it possible to break this moral code, or are you just listing chimpanzee behaviours and calling them a moral system. It's difficult to argue against, or indeed agree with, something that has become so protean.

I disagree with you that "the thing" about morals is that they arrive via a process. I think it depends on how you define the word in a given context. I think in certain contexts morality can rightly be defined that way. In others, it can rightly be defined as I have been doing in this thread: response to social pressures.

If you define morality as nothing more than behaviour in response to social pressures, then we can leave it here and go our separate ways. However, as I initially said, the notion of human morality being on a par with other animal morality isn't true. I don't have a chip on my shoulder about it, I wouldn't mind if it was true. I accept all kinds baggage we've picked up from our evolutionary history. I'm arguing this however because I don't think it is correct.

So if we are less than two percent different, genetically speaking, from the bonobo who fiddled with the injured bird, then are you asserting that the primary difference between bonobos and humans is that "packaging" of morality?

If you are asserting this, please cite your sources. "I just think that's the way it is" doesn't count.

I follow Kantian ethics in regard to this point. I define the difference between moral agent (human) morality and other animal morality as (a) moral agents are able to propose rational, moral goals and (b) they are able to transcend their impulses and act in accordance with the moral laws of others or that they have proposed themselves. So, I suppose that The Metaphysical Groundwork of Morals, Immanuel Kant is my main source. My argument is philosophical. There are my own thoughts too of course;) I've also used a couple of other sources because, like I said, I've considered the question of animal rights before, and they're already on my favourites list. Bonnie Steinbock, the medical ethicist, and Peter Singer, head of bioethics at Princeton.

No. Again, human rights make sense in the context of human society. Wolves do not need human rights any more than humans need wolf rights. We are different species. We live differently. We approach the world differently. Humans are not better, more vaunted, or specially endowed with "that certain something" (morality, pre-packaged into who we are, in your view) that makes us better-than. We are not better-than. We are simply different.

Other animals would have no use for "human rights." I do not have a use for whale rights or condor rights (although I did know a condor who treated me as his mate and was very considerate and kind to me. ;) )

Well, so says you, but if it turns out that wolves and chimpanzees are capable of rational thought and don't simply respond to the world around them, but can turn their reflections inward to pose moral solutions and suppress their baser nature. Well, you have a rational, autonomous being. The game changes. And if you don't? Then you have a creature whose reactions are based solely on the world around it, and its main source of interests are those ascribed to it by other moral agents. Namely ourselves when we decide on animal rights.

There's no such thing as wolf rights, because wolves are incapable of this level of reflection. There are only wolf rights as ascribed by humans.

Those two points I raised earlier are key to understanding the moral differences between humans and other animals.

If you've restricted your reading on the issue of non-human behavior just so you can maintain your current view on the use of animals in medical testing, maybe you need to chill out a little bit about the implications of testing. And/or educate yourself about it more. I've worked in zoos before and I recently looked into starting a career in hubandry for medical science, and I can honestly tell you that animals used in medical science are often treated far more humanely than animals in many zoos (though to be sure, that may not be saying much, depending on which zoos you are sampling.) I encourage you to read more on the subject, because honestly, some of your positions on why or how humans are different from other animals seem irrational. Don't be afraid of knowledge. I am pretty well-versed on animal behavior -- well-versed enough to feel certain that most warm-blooded social vertebrates have what can rationally be called "morality" -- and I don't have a problem with animals in science.

Unfair and untrue, I didn't go into my research with any kind of bias. As it turns out, through that same research into animal rights I actually changed my mind on abortion. There was much to be unsure of when it came to animal testing, I actually think it's a more difficult topic than this one, but eventually I had to accept that the BBSRC guidelines were sufficiently stringent, despite some thought provoking research from Colpaert et al. (1980,1982).

Your understanding of the complexities and richness of animal life is so impoverished. I'm not saying that to insult you, and I hope I haven't, truly. I really feel a bit sad for you, that your desire to set Homo sapiens somehow "above" other animals, and thereby to justify in your head animals in science, has kept you from a full appreciation of the animal world -- the world you are a part of! My goodness, animal life is so much more diverse and incredible than your apparent perception of it, and so full of fascinating behaviors -- even cultures, one might say. You really ought to read about it more. It's amazing.

Again, let me clearly state that I'm not anti-testing. I think it's honorable (and sadly rare) to care enough about the issue that you've even put this kind of thought into it. But you've let your worries over it blind you to its realities, and to the realities of non-human animals. Push your comfort boundaries a little more and the world will become even more awesome to you.

I don't feel humans are above other animals My conclusions don't change a thing - I have pets, I care about animal welfare...but to say that our sense of morality and ethics are at all comparable to animals is just incorrect. Humans have a much more sophisticated and developed morality, distinct from other animals. It's no more strange than a giraffe having a longer neck.

No, indeed, it is not easy. But it's not made any easier by hyperbolic statements like "If we admit that non-human animals have morality, then we must give them the right to vote."

The impact of discussions like this are far reaching, and if animals were found to have the capacity to form their morals on a par with a human's then the consequences would be enormous. As I said before, the right to vote isn't so far fetched.


They do. Bird song is a meme. Methods of catching prey among domestic cats appear to be memetic.

Fair enough.

Prove that it is not on par with human morality. Animal morality is exactly as "moral" (in the context of that animal group) as it needs to be to facilitate survival. AS IS THE CASE WITH HUMAN MORALITY. You're just asserting that it's not living up to your totally arbitrary standard without backing up your assertion, so I'm totally justified in dismissing it, on account of my years of work with socially aware animals, and all.

Hopefully I have. My standard isn't arbitrary, it's actually quite rigorous and clear. I've found your standards to be more amorphous than mine.

Don't be afraid to read more on this subject. It won't make you a bad person.

A bit cheeky, but whatever ;)
 
Last edited:

Maxx

Got the hang of it, here
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
3,227
Reaction score
202
Location
Durham NC
There's no such thing as wolf rights, because wolves are incapable of this level of reflection. There are only wolf rights as ascribed by humans.

Your assessment of animals as agents looks a bit circular.
After all, if humans are the only accepted acribers of rights (and that ascription is not undertaken by all people all the time), then it just goes to show that people are not necessarily particularly rational or consistant in ascribing rights.

Also of course, people are not necessarily assiduous about ascribing rights even to other people. For thousands of years it was considered perfectly obvious that slaves had only the rights ascribed to them by the non-enslaved. Reasons for this (such as enslaved people not being as capable of rational thought as non-enslaved people) were made up retroactively. So it seems circular to suggest that because only people acribe rights that these rights are invariably ascribed morally and appropriately and signify a completely correct assessment of those who get particular rights or not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.