Primate Morality, Part 2

In my previous blog I introduced an article discussing new facts leading to the belief of primate morality. In this article the author was presented with numerous different opinions against his theory of primate morality and its conception. Immanuel Kant’s view was that, “morality must be based on reason” (Wade); whereas David Hume argued, “moral judgments proceed from the emotions” (Wade). A philosopher at the University of North Carolina, Jesse Prinz, felt that biologists were off in their opinion and believes that, “morality is developed after human evolution was finished and that moral sentiments are shaped by culture not genetics” (Wade). Dr. Frans de Waal who has been conducting these recent studies with primates is discovering that they posses or are developing social skills. So far he has noted four kinds of specific behavior among primates: “empathy, the ability to learn and follow social rules, reciprocity and peacemaking” (Wade), all of which he considers to be the basis of sociality. Dr. de Waal goes on to point out that he sees “human morality as having grown out of primate sociality, but with two extra levels of sophistication. People enforce their society’s moral codes much more rigorously with rewards, punishments and reputation building. They also apply a degree of reason, for which there are no parallels in animals” (Wade). Despite all that de Waal has presented philosophers still have trouble accepting his ideas. Dr. Phillip Kitcher, a philosopher himself, feels that this is because philosophers have always searched for the system of ethics that is “complete and finished” where as de Waal’s empirical research isn’t necessarily an open and closed case (Wade).

This article presents several different viewpoints on primate morality and morality in general. Yet how is a person, uneducated in biology, sociology or psychology, supposed to comprehend the different arguments and determine which is true? Latour, in his chapter on laboratories, says how when everyday people read a scientific articles they have three choices about how they are going to understand it or approach it, “giving up (the most likely outcome), going along, or working again through what the author did (Latour, p. 71). Most people who read something beyond their grasp move on and possibly store a few pieces of the article’s information away somewhere in their mind. Most of these articles contain words and terminology that everyday people cannot grasp so they, like me, feel that it does not pertain to them. Other people sometimes go along with what the author says because they don’t know otherwise and do not know that just because the person writing the article is a scientist or other type of professional that they have the right and the ability to question them and their ideas. The final group of people, according to Latour, questions the reading and set about researching the information necessary for them to better grasp the article and the concepts behind it. More often than not this process requires the interested person to follow in the footsteps of the author, maybe not to the same extent because a normal person doesn’t have the same access to research as a scientist does, though they can at least look at the same issues and formulate their own ideas.

For this article on primate morality a person could read it and feel that there is no reason for them to care about this topic and that it is not pertinent to them. Or a person could just take the article for fact and believe that just because a scientist, or specifically in this case a primatologist, performed the research and drew the appropriate conclusion therefore it is correct and fact. Though I believe this type of thinking is a little ignorant, I myself am guilty of it on certain occasions. I think this is because we all live such fast paced lives we don’t have time to research or follow in the scientist’s footsteps every time we read something. However, when I do come across an issue or topic that holds my interest I will take the extra time to do some research on the issues discussed in the article so that I can form my own opinion. People today are so used to taking what other people have to say as fact and it is evident in how people think or make decisions. I think this is most obvious when science is brought into politics because it is in that context that most people verbalize their thought on certain issues. Though the issue of primate morality may not be important to everyone it is of some value to people who question the nature of man. Therefore it is important that those people follow through on their research and look beyond what one person says. This article in the New York Times is very good in providing the main argument as well as some other scientist’s arguments so that readers have some direction in which to look for more research so they can make an educated decision on what their own opinion is.

Bibliography-

Wade, Nicholas. Scientist Finds the Beginnings of Morality in Primate Behavior. New York Times, March 20, 2007. Section F, p. 3. http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20611FE3C540C738EDDAA0894DF404482