Ape Versus Primate


I have just finished reading one of the most important books I’ve found in quite some time: Frans de Waal’s Our Inner Ape. My attention was first drawn to the author when Rutgers University sponsored a talk he gave in the fall that I was unfortunately unable to attend. Simultaneously I saw his book footnoted in a text I was reading and decided to follow up on it. In addition to containing fascinating, documented anecdotes concerning ape behavior (he tells of a bonobo that attempted to help an injured bird fly!) de Waal holds a mirror up to the great apes and sees humanity reflected back. His discussion of the origins of morality makes far more sense to me than any theory I’ve seen a professional ethicist concoct. Our sense of empathy, de Waal notes with considerable evidence, derives from our common ancestor with the apes.

After discussing the understudied trait of kindness in the apes, de Waal writes: “With morality firmly rooted in sentiment it’s easy to agree with Darwin and Westermarck on its evolution and to disagree with those who think culture and religion contain the answer. Modern religions are only a few thousand years old. It’s hard to imagine that human psychology was radically different before religions arose. It’s not that religion and culture don’t have a role to play, but the building blocks of morality clearly predate humanity. We recognize them in our primate relatives, with empathy being most conspicuous in the bonobo and reciprocity in the chimpanzee. Moral rules tell us when and how to apply these tendencies, but the tendencies themselves have been in the works since time immemorial” (225).

These might just be platitudes if ample evidence did not demonstrate their veracity. Apes plan ahead, recognize fairness, and can even see issues from the point of view of others (something Gorgias Press might benefit from learning). They are clearly inheritors of the moral sense that evolution has crafted among all cooperative animals over the eons. Religions like to lay claim to the origins of morality: we behave this way because our god told us to. In a sense that may be true, but only if the “god” is nature itself and the instruction it gives is the way for a species to thrive. Caring for one another, all religions aside, is the formula that evolution presents as the most successful choice of natural selection.

5 thoughts on “Ape Versus Primate

  1. Henk van der Gaast

    Goodness, I’ll have to stop throwing needles at you. You’re coming back with them very quickly.

    From memory, Frans has a session on science saturday (blogging heads) of late. If its not him its a fellow who is of the same ilk.

    Work with all primates (monkeys, apes (hairy or nude)) form the basis of anthropology and anthropological psychology.

    It’s critical for scientists in the evolutionary fields to understand it as well as how we display behaviours reflect on how non technological humans went to interact in the past.

    I have one beef however (and don’t I always?), the term “morals” is so incredibly easy to use and its certainly a term of convenience amongst the religious set.

    I am sure you have had the odd aside about religion claiming its the font of knowledge and the centre of moral thought (me chokes).

    My aside is, using the shorthand and its associated, meanings indicates that one is all to willing that we form rules and regulations that are absolutely new as a life rule of some sort.

    If you look at troupe behaviour (even amongst non primates) there are rules. For primates the rules seem to go across the board.

    We do make new rules called laws and these are supported by notional subsets where we place ourselves in the situation of others and other beings (ethics).

    Strangely enough, they aren’t too different to the good old intratroupe versus intertroupe behaviours other primates and non technological humans display now and displayed “then”.

    Society gets bigger and we all get a lot closer by communication. Still, its ok to corrupt someone we don’t know somewhere else, just don’t do it at home.

    Yes, the term “morals” for me is a useless construct when behaviour is a good and effective word. Has been all along.

    Like

  2. Henk van der Gaast

    Another example is, when science talks of information in a genetic sense, its not talking about communications.

    Most people think so.

    If you talk about morals in the scientific sense, pink caps, cassocks and glass churches just completely dissappear.

    Tis why, I hate using these terms very often when I am trying to popularise science to my very limited sphere of influence.

    I am confusing enough as it is!

    Like

  3. Pingback: Minding the gaps at Undeception

  4. Henk van der Gaast

    What a eminently readable blog post and yet, one wonders the introduction of the value of science in the theological and philosophical debate over morals.

    I’ll publicly ponder this!

    At what stage can theology or philosophy explain their introduction of morals in any society? Why can they claim it now and what do they mean by morality?

    It’s very easy to glibly discount what science discovers about human kind and then sort of infer that science has little value via contribution to such a debate when;

    a) the term morals is so very loosely used in the theological and philosophical vernacular.
    b) science doesn’t give a rats tail about philosophy and theology other than to demand to know how other folk lived and live.

    Science will tell you this is an uncaring, chaotic universe. Its practitioners have covens called conferences and the presentation of these is in rational refereed journal publication. These data can be viewed by all.

    Frankly, you can be a religious or philosophically minded person to do science but you can’t use these to do science.

    You cant even say that all religions or philosophical mind sets gave a morality when all, religious, political and philosophical mindsets still 700,000 years on reflect those of apes present today.

    I think Steve’s example of a bonobo is a poor one when it cuts the bone when you observe the comparatively aggressive baboons and chimps.

    And this is where I delight in the non scientific argument. This is where I delight in the constant accusations of scientism and skepticism.

    These appear to be levelled to reduce the value of an argument based on rationality and reduction. It’s a compliment to me that accusing me of both is admitting I and my colleagues are right and the theological stance is based on conjecture.

    I’ll be keen to see the previous posters real argument why science isn’t a help to theology and philosophy.

    Like

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.