Scientist Finds the Beginnings of Morality in Primate Behavior

[greyl]

...
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.
...

www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html

[smoogatz]

1. K&R. Now if only we could find some evidence of morality in humans...

[greyl]

5. Heheh, oh man. :)

My favorite point about the whole thing is that since humans have existed for 3 million years, it's silly to think morality had to finally be taught to them a few thousand years ago by Divine Revelation.
Some cultures may need "Saviors", but humanity at large does not.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. I think morality, like everything else,

is still evolving--as we have population pressures, our concepts of what must be done to get along is changing. In fact, the idea that concepts must be changed is very scary to many people, which causes much of the strife we see in the world, I think.

[independentpiney]

3. Agreed, the group moral behavior applies to has evolved historically

from clan/tribe to ethnic and religious groups to states and nations. Right now getting over nationalism is the big hump.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

4. yeah, from thinking nationally to thinking globally

haven't seen your posts before, so welcome to DU!:hi:

[aquart]

6. He's wrong.

Really. We had very few "adversaries" when we evolved. The proof is that we are naked, slow, short-toothed, and clawless. Also, our children take forever to become useful members of society. That can only happen to a species that is NOT under threat.

Sweet man, but he's got it ass backwards.

[greyl]

7. Whose children?

You can't compare our culture's 18 year gestation with the human cultures that predated it by 100's of thousands of years where becoming a "useful member of society" began at a much younger age.

edit: I caught myself repeating the ubiquitous cultural meme that our culture represents humanity.
In addition to the cultures that predated ours, there are still several lingering tribal cultures where you can see evidence of very young children being useful members of their society.

[MistressOverdone]

10. In some cultures

times and places, 18 was getting up there, especially for women who were likely to eventually die bearing children.

It is such a different mindset it is hard to grasp. My own grandmother married at 14 and had five children before she was 20, way back in 1908.

Back to the apes (no pun intended) I remember reading once that gorilla mothers teach parenting skills to each other and also keep each other from being abusive. Wouldn't that count as a type of morality?

[greyl]

11. Yes, good points.

I think it shows how morality has evolved along with humanity, and that humans weren't born into this world into some amoral "fallen" state.

[MistressOverdone]

12. Yes, and even dogs know

to be careful of puppies. Where is the line between morality and doing what benefits your species? I personally think that most of our taboos in our own culture are based on activities that don't advance the species...such as incest.

[aquart]

13. A fawn falls out of his mother and gets up and runs.

Why? Because predators are waiting. That's how children are born to species under threat. Can any infant of our species or our ancestors species do that?

We also have one at a time, generally, with a long gestation of nine months which means we are not expecting most of our children to die off at a rate that threatens a stable population. Is there anything as helpless as a mother nursing an infant? Yet the skeletons we have dug up don't show huge canines or any other defensive acoutrement on our females. Our ladies nursed in peace.

He takes war as a given without a clue to its roots and pins morality to it? And he doesn't know what makes religion so he places it later? Eh. Bad anthropologist, no doughnut.

[HamdenRice]

8. Your interpretation of this is shallow

Animals may have a certain amount of cooperation that develops as a result of "game theory." In other words, cooperation may enhance survival. Cooperation may be reinforced by affective behavior, such as animal emotion.

Morality is exhibited when people do "good" things even when it may not necessarily be in the interest of their survival. This is something that various cultural, philosophical and theological traditions teach.

Do you really think that the ethical and moral behavior of say, a chimp band, or for that matter, a cro-magnon band, would be the same as a modern human? Do you really believe that the human rights culture of the ancient Babylonians was as developed as say the human rights culture reflected International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights? Do you really believe that moral and ethical behavior has not improved in 100,000 years as a result of culture?

While the data presented in the article cited is interesting, your interpretation is preposterous.

[greyl]

9. I don't think you read the article, and you're arguing with straw men.

Do you really think that the ethical and moral behavior of say, a chimp band, or for that matter, a cro-magnon band, would be the same as a modern human?

No.


Do you really believe that the human rights culture of the ancient Babylonians was as developed as say the human rights culture reflected International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights?

No. However, Babylonians are ancestors of our culture. They don't represent the thousands of truly ancient human cultures at all.

Do you really believe that moral and ethical behavior has not improved in 100,000 years as a result of culture?

Which existing culture would you like to hold up as an example of "most improved"?

[varkam]

14. Oh! I know the answer to this one.

Which existing culture would you like to hold up as an example of "most improved"?

I going with Amerika, Regis. That's my final answer.

[Orsino]

15. Morality was inevitable.

Intelligence enables us to take the long view, and to plan beyond the current season. There's no escaping the notion that helping thy neighbor has survival value, though we also have the cunning to make exceptions for short-term personal gain.

Balancing individual, marital, family, tribal, national and global concerns makes for complicated moral codes. Those who didn't reach workable compromises haven't left many descendants.

[greyl]

16. Moral Minds: How Nature Designed Our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong

Moral Minds: How Nature Designed Our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong
by Marc D Hauser

For hundreds of years, scholars have argued that moral judgments arise from rational and voluntary deliberations about what ought to be. The common belief today is that we reach moral decisions by consciously reasoning from principled explanations of what society determines is right or wrong. This perspective has generated the further belief that our moral psychology is founded entirely on experience and education, developing slowly and subject to considerable variation across cultures. In his groundbreaking book, Hauser shows that this dominant view is illusory.

Combining his own cutting-edge research with findings in cognitive psychology, linguistics, neuroscience, evolutionary biology, economics, and anthropology, he examines the implications of his theory for issues of bioethics, religion, law, and our everyday lives.
http://www.powells.com/biblio?show=9780060780708#synopses_and_reviews

The greatest myth within religious communities is that religion is the basis of all morality. Unfortunately science is catching up. Just as Chomsky argued that humans have a language instinct, Marc Hauser from the main campus (Harvard) is arguing that humans have a morality instinct. This idea is mighty dangerous. It underpins the entire culture war in the US. Now Hauser's new book, Moral Minds: How Nature Designed Our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong, is making the rounds.
So philosophers and other humanity professors won't like it (or more precisely, will not feel comfortable with it). But religious folk will downright be hostile towards it. This view of human Nature challenges the need for religion, regardless of whether religious world views are truth.

A couple of days ago (while microinjecting) I was listening to Marc Hauser on WBUR's On Point (click here to listen). It was a good show. But it is obvious that the idea of a moral instinct, which not so revolutionary in scientific circles, is downright dynamite within the general public.
http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/F607D7B0-EF99-4293-A907-4127BFEF55F8/