In what ways are the OTHER animals moral?

Primatologist Frans De Waal has spent much of his career pointing out how incredibly similar the emotional and moral behavior of human animals is to the behavior of many other animals (he focuses especially chimps and bonobos). In this post, I will comment on De Waal's 2005 work, Our Inner Ape, where De Waal substantiates his stunning conclusion (well, stunning to those who just can't bear to acknowledge that humans are animals - see here and here and here) that the precursors of morality are easily seen in animals other than human animals. More specifically, De Waal demonstrates that there is a well-substantiated continuity between the proto-moral behavior of chimpanzees and bonobos and the full-bloomed sense of morality that we see in human animals. De Waal is clearly frustrated that people consider only human aggression to be "animalistic," but not human empathy. De Waal describes studies clearly demonstrating empathy in many animals, ranging from rats to the great apes. Children as young as one year of age naturally reach out to comfort others. Household pets such as cats and dogs can become upset (just like children do) when family members feign distress. Empathy therefore develops even before language. This would seem to demonstrate that top-down rule-based (therefore language-based) versions of morality don't capture the essence of what it means to be moral. [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingIn what ways are the OTHER animals moral?

Rice “more sordid” than Foley

Check out this Huffpo post by Robert Scheer.   He is right to warn that we shouldn't allow ourselves to be distracted with sex scandals when there are much more important issues deserving of our attention: The news about the Foley coverup, while important as yet another example of extreme hypocrisy…

Continue ReadingRice “more sordid” than Foley

Time Magazine sticks to science when comparing humans to chimpanzees

I'm applauding the cover story of the October 9, 2006 edition of Time:  "What Makes Us Different?"   [The quick answer is that, out of 3 billion base pairs in the human genome, only 1.23% are different than those found in the chimpanzee genome]. The writers based this article solely on the expert…

Continue ReadingTime Magazine sticks to science when comparing humans to chimpanzees

Warning: having more choices can be detrimental to your happiness

I recently spoke with a friend who was having difficulty making a major decision in his life. I suggested to him that he might be struggling because he is a talented fellow who might therefore have too many options.

After we concluded our conversation, I recalled reading a well-written book called the Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less (2004), by Barry Schwartz. This delightful book incorporates many findings of cognitive science and the psychology of decision-making.  His main point is, indeed, paradoxical:

As the number of available choices increases, as it has in our consumer culture, the autonomy, control and liberation this variety brings are powerful and positive.  But as the number of choices keeps growing, negative aspects of having a multitude of options begin to appear.  As the number of choices grows further, the negatives escalate until we become overloaded.  At this point, choice no longer liberates, but debilitated.  It might even be said to tyrannize. 

When Schwartz speaks of tyranny, he reminds us that we live in a society in which you can find paralyzing members of choices even at the supermarket.  Why is it that we need 16 types of instant mashed potatoes, 75 types of instant gravies, 120 different types of pastas sauce 16 versions of Italian dressing, 275 types of serial and 64 formulas of barbecue sauce?  We face similar numbers of choices when we choose retirement plans, medical care, careers, where to live and who to be.

Modern society has done this to …

Share

Continue ReadingWarning: having more choices can be detrimental to your happiness

No news is bad news, not good news

If the past few weeks have proven anything at all they have proven to us that no news is not good news. In the absence of a steady stream of vigorous reporting to convince us that things are actually going well, we should never assume that things are okay.

We now have evidence that Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice were advised of an imminent Al Qaeda attack in July, 2001, but that they did nothing to protect us. 

We now have evidence that an alleged stalwart protector of children, Mark Foley, is actually a brash and despicable Internet predator.  We know also that several high-ranking Republicans covered up the conduct of Mark Foley for months instead of protecting the teenage boys on the receiving end of Foley’s horny advances.

We now know from the recent NIE report directed to the President that the war in Iraq is inflaming the Middle East and that producing a new generation of Islamic radicals.  This contradicts the constant and ludicrous assertions by the President that attacking Iraq would make Americans safer from acts of terrorism.  In other words, the President’s claim that he was protecting us by attacking Iraq was utterly false and it should have been vigorously questioned by the press for years.

All of this recently revealed information makes me ask “what else don’t we know?” 

Share
Share

Continue ReadingNo news is bad news, not good news