BF2S Forums Monkeys have a sense of morality, say scientists

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

xBlackPantherx wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Did a monkey tell the scientists what the monkey's morals were?  I am skeptic that an obvious ability to reason when making decisions could be confused with morality.

Obvious to you. You obviously didn't read the whole thing considering they explained how they tested this subject. Also read the peanut and grape experiment some posts above mine.


I'm just curious, are you serious? There are so many things I could say that would ruin that post, but I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not.

But choosing a peanut or grape for a fellow ape isn't an example in morals, it's an example of an ape getting what it wants for itself and its friend.  For all we know giving a fellow ape a grape may increase the likelihood that ape (A) picks the fleas out of ape (B)'s fur.  All these experiments show is that an ape can make a reasoned decision that may be rational based off our (human) morals.  This experiment doesn't show that apes have sense of morals because we aren't able to tell what (if any) morals apes have.  All we can do is compare action to our own action and try to create a link.

That is exactly what morals are.

Modes of behaviour that encourage social cohesion.

That they don't codify those modes of behaviours in the way we do, does not make those said modes of behaviour not morals.

This. Everything we define as anything is in relation to what we make it. The chimps got a grape for the other ape after he was given a peanut and appeared to act like he was treated unfairly. Actually, Jennings proved my point (ironically):

it's an example of an ape getting what it wants for itself and its friend

That's exactly how they theorized this trait came to be in the OP. 'Humans' worked together to get what they wanted/needed when times were hard.

All these experiments show is that an ape can make a reasoned decision that may be rational based off our (human) morals.

Exactlty

it's an example of an ape getting what it wants for itself and its friend

Thanks for your choice of words. Re-read the OP and you'll understand what I mean.

AussieReaper wrote:

Dogs are pack animals, but they don't share in the sense we understand it. It's always the dominant members of the group who eat first and the rest have nothing but scraps. Apes, like humans are unique in that they don't just look out for the troop leaders and themselves before weaker individuals.

Remember that story of the child falling into the Gorilla (largest of the ape species) enclosure?

A 3-year-old boy fell into a gorilla ,exhibit at the Brookfield on Friday afternoon, and was rescued by a female gorilla who cradled the child and brought him to zoo keepers.

The child injured his head falling 18 feet onto concrete in an area with seven gorillas. He was still alert when taken to a hospital, but was listed in critical condition later.

Binti, a 7-year-old female with a baby gorilla on her back, picked up the boy, cradled him in her arms, and placed him near a door where zoo keepers could retrieve the boy, said zoo spokeswoman Sondra Katzen.

"Another gorilla walked toward the boy and she kind of turned around and walked away from the other gorillas and tried to be protective,'' said zoogoer Carrie Stewart.

Source

How can that be interpreted any differently to a sense of social and moral ethics? An ape protecting an injured human from a larger male ape at risk of not only herself but also her child.

Shit...if I was in that pit I don't even know if I would do that..

xBlackPantherx wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

But choosing a peanut or grape for a fellow ape isn't an example in morals, it's an example of an ape getting what it wants for itself and its friend.  For all we know giving a fellow ape a grape may increase the likelihood that ape (A) picks the fleas out of ape (B)'s fur.  All these experiments show is that an ape can make a reasoned decision that may be rational based off our (human) morals.  This experiment doesn't show that apes have sense of morals because we aren't able to tell what (if any) morals apes have.  All we can do is compare action to our own action and try to create a link.

That is exactly what morals are.

Modes of behaviour that encourage social cohesion.

That they don't codify those modes of behaviours in the way we do, does not make those said modes of behaviour not morals.

This. Everything we define as anything is in relation to what we make it. The chimps got a grape for the other ape after he was given a peanut and appeared to act like he was treated unfairly. Actually, Jennings proved my point (ironically):

it's an example of an ape getting what it wants for itself and its friend

That's exactly how they theorized this trait came to be in the OP. 'Humans' worked together to get what they wanted/needed when times were hard.

All these experiments show is that an ape can make a reasoned decision that may be rational based off our (human) morals.

Exactlty

it's an example of an ape getting what it wants for itself and its friend

Thanks for your choice of words. Re-read the OP and you'll understand what I mean.

For me to "prove your point" you would have to offer up a point.  You didn't - until your previous post, so I'm a little confused as to what I've proven for you.  I've read the OP three times now.  Apes working together for the benefit of the whole isn't the same as ape's having morality!  Apes working together just like humans worked together 1 million years ago doesn't prove that we 'inherited' morality either.  All it shows is that the building blocks for society (not the same as morality) started through the animal kingdom (duh!).  That's like saying that the discovery of Lucy by the Leakey's proves that humans descended directly from apes - when all it shows is that there is a common ancestor.

As for Scorpion's definition of morals as behaviour that encourages social cohesion, I don't buy it.  Killing half the colony may also encourage social cohesion through the thinning of a herd - does that make it moral to do so?  Morality is a sense of right and wrong, something that is uniquely human strictly because we are able to qauntifiy what exactly we view to be right and wrong - even if those values change.  Sure, the concept evolved through animals and the development of instincts that are "for the good of the herd" but they aren't the same.  The reality is that we do not know the intent behind animalistic actionm, which is imperitve.

Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2009-02-18 09:49:03)

I am not disputing that morality comes/developed biologically - that's the (duh!) in my previous post.  Of course there are biological factors for groupthink as far as "the greater good of the herd", and of course we inherited those from the animal kingdom - I think the primary cause for a species existence is "for the good of the herd" - and that is where the basis for morals developed.  However I think it is far too large of a gap to bridge in saying that these animals act "for the good of the herd" -therefore it shows they have morals.  This "evidence" is not enough to bridge that gap - much like the Leakey's discovery of Lucy in Africa doesn't bridge the gap from the evolution of ape -> man.

Murder is by definition immoral.

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

I am not disputing that morality comes/developed biologically - that's the (duh!) in my previous post.  Of course there are biological factors for groupthink as far as "the greater good of the herd", and of course we inherited those from the animal kingdom - I think the primary cause for a species existence is "for the good of the herd" - and that is where the basis for morals developed.  However I think it is far too large of a gap to bridge in saying that these animals act "for the good of the herd" -therefore it shows they have morals.  This "evidence" is not enough to bridge that gap - much like the Leakey's discovery of Lucy in Africa doesn't bridge the gap from the evolution of ape -> man.

Murder is by definition immoral.

I think we're maybe arguing semantics here.

For me 'Right and Wrong'=/='Morals'.

'Morals' say "Murder is Wrong".

'Right and Wong' says "Except when it's for the greater good".

'Morals' are the inherent trait.

'Right and Wrong' is the cultural baggage.

IMO, anyway.

As far as society is concerned, "right and wrong" are morals - that's generally what we can say are our morals -> look to our laws for what we deem as "right and wrong".  Personally, notsomuch.  Murder is by definition the unlawful killing of an individual -> murder is immoral.  However we (American society) don't consider the implementation of the death penalty as "murder", therefore it fits within the "right and wrong" of greater society.  Personally I don't generally agree with the death penalty (because it's against my morals ).

So yeah, semantics shmemantics.