Religion
Related: About this forumReview: The Bonobo and the Atheist, By Frans De Waal
Doug Johnstone
Saturday 20 April 2013
As an atheist, I've always found it insulting when religious people claim that human morality is handed down from upon high, the implication being that if you don't believe in God then you are free to behave as badly as you want. It has always seemed self-evident to me that morality stems from our emotions, and that behaving morally works for the betterment of society. So I was delighted to read Frans de Waal's compelling book, which blows the idea of top-down morality out of the water.
De Waal is a world-renowned primatologist and the book's subtitle, "In Search of Humanism Among the Primates", outlines his purpose. And, not to put too fine a point on it, he finds humanism in bucketfuls among the primates.
Trawling through decades of research and observation, he describes all sorts of behaviour in bonobos, chimpanzees, and monkeys (as well as non-primates such as dogs, elephants and dolphins) which clearly indicate that they have a well developed sense of right and wrong. Time and again, experiments have revealed that primates understand the value of co-operation in specific tasks; that they have a strong sense of fair play, an awareness of the permanence of death, and use their own experience and imagination in order to empathise with others.
De Waal argues coherently that this behaviour has evolved over millennia within social groups of mammals for the better survival of the group and that human morality has similarly evolved. Furthermore, the author makes a pretty good argument for the reasons for the evolution of religion in humans: as our social groups got bigger, we had to invent a larger dominant figure to explain and maintain the hierarchies we had already created. This is inevitably speculative, but De Waal's considered approach makes his arguments more persuasive than the confrontational neo-atheism of Richard Dawkins et al.
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/review-the-bonobo-and-the-atheist-by-frans-de-waal-8581418.html
dimbear
(6,271 posts)speculation that the world would have been better off if we had derived from classier ancestors, such as pigs or seals. Primate behavior leaves a great deal to be desired in terms of finesse.
Or bears. Certainly bears would be good.
TM99
(8,352 posts)Or bears. Certainly bears would be good.
I could not agree more.
LostOne4Ever
(9,286 posts)How about 's!
The most moral of all political animals!
dimbear
(6,271 posts)Hard working little devils, and stubborn too.
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)..preferably prehensile and definitely furry.
fur, too. can you imagine how cool it would be if we had various stripes and whatnot? of course knowing humans we'd enslave all the tabby's or some nonsense, anyway.
LTX
(1,020 posts)addresses the difficulty with reductionist sourcing -- simply moving the evolutionary subject down a branch on the sentience tree has the curious side-effect of deepening the mystery of sentience itself. I do note that De Waal says "moral law is not imposed from above or derived from well-reasoned principles; rather it arises from ingrained values that have been there since the beginning of time." Seems rather like saying moral law is not imposed from above, it is imposed from below.
Jim__
(14,063 posts)The reviewer opens with:
But, if the values are ingrained, then we are indeed free to behave as badly as we want; it is just that we want to behave according to these ingrained values, and we naturally define these values as good. It removes the imposition.
LTX
(1,020 posts)to distance himself. But "ingrained" is, in my view, an equally murky term. From whence the "values" that become "ingrained"? In what do they become "ingrained"? (Neurotransmitters? Vesicule gates? Electrons popping through proteolipid membranes?) And what is the mechanism by which immaterial "values" otherwise materialize in sentient cell conglomerations?
Don't get me wrong. I actually think De Waal is on the right track, and he is an indisputably perceptive observer. Altruistic interaction and apparent value judgments increase in complexity along various branches of the evolutionary tree, so it certainly seems (almost self-evidently) the most profitable course to follow the track of development along ancestral branches. But there seems something a touch disingenuous about replacing inexplicable "imposition" from above with (currently) inexplicable "ingraining" from below.
Jim__
(14,063 posts)I disagree with a lot of what the Churchland's say. However, I think what she says about oxytocin playing a role in adding to empathy in human beings and then culture and society enhancing that effect is on the right track.
An excerpt from a review of Patricia Churchland's Braintrust:
Oxytocin's primary purpose appears to be in solidifying the bond between mother and infant, but Churchland arguesdrawing on the work of biologiststhat there are significant spillover effects: Bonds of empathy lubricated by oxytocin expand to include, first, more distant kin and then other members of one's in-group. (Another neurochemical, aregenine vasopressin, plays a related role, as do endogenous opiates, which reinforce the appeal of cooperation by making it feel good.)
...
From there, culture and society begin to make their presence felt, shaping larger moral systems: tit-for-tat retaliation helps keep freeloaders and abusers of empathic understanding in line. Adults pass along the rules for acceptable behaviorwhich is not to say "just" behavior, in any transcendent senseto their children. Institutional structures arise to enforce norms among strangers within a culture, who can't be expected to automatically trust each other.
...
Recognizing our continuity with a specific species of animal was a turning point in her thinking about morality, in recognizing that it could be tied to the hard and fast. "It all changed when I learned about the prairie voles," she sayssurely not a phrase John Rawls ever uttered.
She told the story at the natural-history museum, in late March. Montane voles and prairie voles are so similar "that naifs like me can't tell them apart," she told a standing-room-only audience (younger and hipper than the museum's usual patronsthe word "neuroscience" these days is like catnip). But prairie voles mate for life, and montane voles do not. Among prairie voles, the males not only share parenting duties, they will even lick and nurture pups that aren't their own. By contrast, male montane voles do not actively parent even their own offspring. What accounts for the difference? Researchers have found that the prairie voles, the sociable ones, have greater numbers of oxytocin receptors in certain regions of the brain. (And prairie voles that have had their oxytocin receptors blocked will not pair-bond.)
...
I think your question about how immaterial values materialize in a sentient cell is a much more difficult question. I believe that biochemicals like oxytocin and social interactions can create "moral" behavior in p-zombies (theoretical human equivalents that lack any phenomenal experience) - perhaps something comparable to the mating and parenting behaviors of the different voles.
LTX
(1,020 posts)Thanks for this. Precisely the kind of nifty new avenues that should be shared with more regularity here. You're a scholar and a gentleman.
eomer
(3,845 posts)Johnstone either writes out of ignorance or else willfully misrepresents Dawkins' thoughts. Either way, not cool Mr.Johnstone.
rug
(82,333 posts)Sorry you took offense.
eomer
(3,845 posts)Anyway, no problem - I wasn't offended but rather was just pointing out that Johnstone's remark was unreasonable in my opinion.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)Personally, I find apologist tip-toers around religion to be much less persuasive than those who are blunt (not rude, blunt) and honest, and treat religion like a big boy, like any other belief system or ideology out there, and don't spare it or give it "special status" or play bumper ball with it. I think the religious should take offense at those who do, since it seems somewhat condescending and disrespectful to not treat them like grown-ups.
People will take offense at first, but that's NOT Dawkin's fault.
People took offense at seeing a black man and a white woman together (and many still do), but through repeated exposure, people get over their offense, and also begin to think about WHY they are offended, which is the whole point in the first place.