Is morality unique to humans?

[Falvlun]

Never gonna happen. Sure, we have the possiblity to do that but boy is it improbable. I suppose most other species have the possibility to do that also, to some degree, but again it's very unlikely. Mean while we continue to destroy ourselves.

On the other hand, we not only have the possibility to engage in Genocide, but we've also actually done it - plenty of times.

And for the majority of human life, we could not build machines that fly.

As stated earlier, I think the biggest difference about morality when it comes to humans is that we are able to think about it. And we are then able to transmit those ruminations on to others and future generations so they don't have to reinvent the wheel. Eventually, reason will win out.

 

[painted wolf]

Never gonna happen. Sure, we have the possiblity to do that but boy is it improbable. I suppose most other species have the possibility to do that also, to some degree, but again it's very unlikely. Mean while we continue to destroy ourselves.

On the other hand, we not only have the possibility to engage in Genocide, but we've also actually done it - plenty of times.

What is your point?
Other than we are evil little monkeys.

Morality isn't perfect... we have what we evolved with. Other species have the morality that they evolved with... it's not a human only trait.
We are still evolving... but it's a slow process.

wa:do

 

[Aquitaine]

And for the majority of human life, we could not build machines that fly.

As stated earlier, I think the biggest difference about morality when it comes to humans is that we are able to think about it. And we are then able to transmit those ruminations on to others and future generations so they don't have to reinvent the wheel. Eventually, reason will win out.

Who says that animals arn't able to think about it? Also I'm not sure what will happen, however I think as we mentally evolve, intelligence will win out - but whether or not that intelligence will go towards enlightening us or damning us I do not know. Basically it's like we use our intellect as like a double-edged sword, for enlightenment, but also to come up with more cunning ways to manipulate, exploit, kill and decieve our fellow species. But it'll take more than just pure intelligence to "fix" us so to speak, and I'm somewhat skeptical that "in the end" reason will win.

 

[ninerbuff]

Exactly.

LOL and that reminds me of that line from Aliens: "You know Burke I don't know who's worse, us or them - you don't see them screwing each other over for a ********** percentage!"

My favorite action movie!!! And that is where I got the line from! Game over man, game over!

 

[Aquitaine]

What is your point?

Other than we are evil little monkeys.

Morality isn't perfect... we have what we evolved with. Other species have the morality that they evolved with... it's not a human only trait.
We are still evolving... but it's a slow process.

wa:do

What I'm trying to say is that throughout our vast history the primary purpose or use of our efforts, like Industry, technology, order etc, has been used mostly for acts of aggression and power struggles, and that very little of our efforts seem to actually go towards something decent for humanity, the planet, and other species etc.

Thus I disagree that we have this novel ability to care for our entire species - it's a possibility, but I don't think it's probable. I also don't think it's a unique Human trait, because yes we can display small amounts of that behavour, but so can animals to their fellow species - the only difference is that other animals don't have such a poor track record of inflicting unneccessary suffering onto themselves.

Let's face it: we're a bunch of over-rated, arrogant and aggressive bipedal animals, who just consume, drain and destroy stuff - to the point where not only do we have an accumilated body count of God-knows how many millions, but also to the point where we're destroying our host planet and a ton of other species with it.

 

[lunamoth]

Altruism certainly appears in other species. Morality, however, requires a system of values and higher reasoning (thinking about thinking).

I know of no evidence for value systems in species other than humans.

 

[painted wolf]

Rats are capable of thinking about thinking (ie. metacognition)

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

What I'm trying to say is that throughout our vast history the primary purpose or use of our efforts, like Industry, technology, order etc, has been used mostly for acts of aggression and power struggles, and that very little of our efforts seem to actually go towards something decent for humanity, the planet, and other species etc.

I'm not arguing that point... we both agree about this.

And human violence only really spikes when we start to occupy crowded living conditions of the early cities. Prior to that it was simply easier to move than to fight. Once you have crops to tend you can't just move away. We have been trying to adapt to sedentary life ever since.

Thus I disagree that we have this novel ability to care for our entire species - it's a possibility, but I don't think it's probable.

So you don't believe in the existence of global charities, the UN charter and conservation efforts? You don't see the sudden development of social justice movements as important in human history?

I also don't think it's a unique Human trait, because yes we can display small amounts of that behavour, but so can animals to their fellow species - the only difference is that other animals don't have such a poor track record of inflicting unneccessary suffering onto themselves.

No... other species only care for their close genetic kin or members of their immediate social group. Except in very rare circumstances.

Most species violence is against members of the same species btw. Even deer kill their own more frequently than they kill predators.

Let's face it: we're a bunch of over-rated, arrogant and aggressive bipedal animals, who just consume, drain and destroy stuff - to the point where not only do we have an accumilated body count of God-knows how many millions, but also to the point where we're destroying our host planet and a ton of other species with it.

Again... I'm not arguing that. I agree... but I also see our beginning desires to care for people world wide as a point of hope for the future of our species.
wa:do

 

[Zadok]

I'd love to answer your question but I honestly do not understand it.

Please re-phrase it.

Let me make this real simple. Many want proof that there is a G-d before they will consider in any way being thankful for all the wonders of creation. My question then is - if someone requires proof before they are thankful for all creation what is the odds that they will contribute to the wellbeing of their fellow creatures unless there is absolute proof such creature disserves it.

My point is that those that require proof that something is disserved before they offer any kindness or appreciation - how humane is that? How is that more moral than the brute savagery of dumb animals?


Zadok

 

[Falvlun]

Who says that animals arn't able to think about it?

Do you have proof that they can?

Perhaps some do, but I'd be willing to wager that they don't to the extent that we are capable of doing. Our big brains, and capacity for language, truly are our specialty.

Also I'm not sure what will happen, however I think as we mentally evolve, intelligence will win out - but whether or not that intelligence will go towards enlightening us or damning us I do not know. Basically it's like we use our intellect as like a double-edged sword, for enlightenment, but also to come up with more cunning ways to manipulate, exploit, kill and decieve our fellow species. But it'll take more than just pure intelligence to "fix" us so to speak, and I'm somewhat skeptical that "in the end" reason will win.

Perhaps I'm overly optimistic, but I don't see how higher intelligence, and triumph of reason, could fail to lead to a more equitable and happy world. I see our squabbling amongst each other, our greediness, as primitive, something to grow out of.

Altruism certainly appears in other species. Morality, however, requires a system of values and higher reasoning (thinking about thinking).

I know of no evidence for value systems in species other than humans

Do you have a study showing altruism? There are certainly cases of reciprical altruism-- I'll scratch your back if you'll scratch mine-- but I've had trouble in the past finding instances of true altruism.

Let me make this real simple. Many want proof that there is a G-d before they will consider in any way being thankful for all the wonders of creation. My question then is - if someone requires proof before they are thankful for all creation what is the odds that they will contribute to the wellbeing of their fellow creatures unless there is absolute proof such creature disserves it.

My point is that those that require proof that something is disserved before they offer any kindness or appreciation - how humane is that? How is that more moral than the brute savagery of dumb animals?

Just hold on a sec. We don't know that God exists. Why should we find something worthy of gratitude and worship if we don't even know that it's there? Do you leave carrots out for the unicorns?

But we do know that humans exist. And we know how we want (or don't want) to be treated. It follows that other humans probably want to be treated in the same way. It also follows that we are more likely to be treated in the way we want if it was a rule that everybody had to treat everybody that way.

And yes, call me savage, but before I thank someone for something, they would have to have shown that they earned it.

 

[painted wolf]

Do you have a study showing altruism? There are certainly cases of reciprical altruism-- I'll scratch your back if you'll scratch mine-- but I've had trouble in the past finding instances of true altruism.

Just one example...

PLoS Biology: Generalized Reciprocity in Rats

wa:do

 

[Zadok]

[/font]
...
[/color][/font][/color]
Just hold on a sec. We don't know that God exists. Why should we find something worthy of gratitude and worship if we don't even know that it's there? Do you leave carrots out for the unicorns?

But we do know that humans exist. And we know how we want (or don't want) to be treated. It follows that other humans probably want to be treated in the same way. It also follows that we are more likely to be treated in the way we want if it was a rule that everybody had to treat everybody that way.

And yes, call me savage, but before I thank someone for something, they would have to have shown that they earned it.

You are making my point - that is that we cannot prove that G-d is disserving of any thanks - likewise anyone that believes in G-d, should they be respected for giving thanks? Take a look around this very forum at the shots being fired at individuals and their beliefs. You think it has anything to do with how they treat others? Hardly - it is all about stereotyping.

The point is that if we are going to claim the high moral ground by giving criticism to those we do not agree with then we should expect the same in return. That is if an individual requires proof that others disserve thanks before giving thanks how moral and kind will they be with those that disagree with them proving to them they disserve no kindness what-so-ever?

When you responded – we do not know G-d exist but we know people exist. Exactly – how kind are we to those that exist that we do not have proof disserve any of our thanks or kindness. Leaving carrots out for unicorns? This is again my point – if someone is willing to do something – without knowing that it will provide benefit but hopping or believing that it will. Are we not better off by such thinking than those that spitefully intend to denigrate such attitudes?

I am sure that you can dream up some harm that foolish acts of kindness could bring in some exaggerated extreme situation.

What I do not understanding – if someone is attempting to be kind and thankful – why denigrate them just because you personally do not feel any benefit from it? Why not encourage acts of kindness and thankfulness? Oh yes – I forgot. Because they cannot prove to you their G-d exists.

Just a side note here – what most religious pundits believe of G-d – I do not believe is possible to exist. Many Christians denigrate my LDS faith and refuse to allow us to be considered Christian. My ancestors were driven from their homes and exposed to a harsh winter where 1 in every 5 died all at the hand of Trinitarian Christians that for hundreds of years sought unkindness to anyone that does not believe in the Trinity. But still I contend that we all should be more kind and show thanks especially when there is not enough proof to justify it. If we can only be kind to those that are kind to us – that is not kindness but a return of what we receive.

Truly – kindness is best demonstrated when it is not expected and not proven to be necessary.

Zadok

 

[Falvlun]

Zadok, your point is so convoluted it hardly qualifies as a point. As far as I can make out, you are trying to claim that we should be nice to God-- regardless of whether he exists or not-- because if we aren't, then we are going to be mean to our fellow humans since we can't prove that they deserve kindness.

As stated before, there are some pretty empirical reasons out there for why we should be kind to humans, not least that we know for sure that they exist. Why would I waste my time being nice to things I don't even know exist? There are so many other things out there that deserve my time and attention. The unicorn's carrots could have went to the food pantry.

 

[Aquitaine]

So you don't believe in the existence of global charities, the UN charter and conservation efforts? You don't see the sudden development of social justice movements as important in human history?

It's not that I don't acknowledge their existence, it's just that they're completely, disproportionally outweighed by our constant violence, aggression and thoughtlessness. Even as we speak, there are plenty of unjust wars going on (my country has recently pulled out of one and is currently engaged in another), there's plenty of slavery going on which we're dependent on (like all the factory workers in China making about £1 a day to produce all our stuff), and there's plenty of Dictators and their henchmen running around doing thier business. There's also plenty of rich bankers screwing our future generations by sealing of our futures to be nothing but a road to endless debt.

If I were to judge us as a species, I'd say we're actually the worst species on the planet, and I honestly believe if all other animals were given the vote to exile one species from this planet - they'd all choose us (except us lol).

No... other species only care for their close genetic kin or members of their immediate social group. Except in very rare circumstances.

When it comes down to it, I'd say we're not much different. I mean there's a real difference between "care" and care. How many things do you think we do that are not for a reward of some sort - be it a physical, social, or mental reward?

Again... I'm not arguing that. I agree... but I also see our beginning desires to care for people world wide as a point of hope for the future of our species.

I disagree. I think things will become worse, depending on which regions of the World we're to look at. I suppose a lot of it depends on wealth an prosperity, but ultimately to me it appears that we simply arn't suited to living in large communities and being given ultimate responsibility over our planet and the rest of the other living creatures on it.

 

[Aquitaine]

Do you have proof that they can?

Perhaps some do, but I'd be willing to wager that they don't to the extent that we are capable of doing. Our big brains, and capacity for language, truly are our specialty.

Honestly, no. I don't study animals or their behavour, but I'm sure there's some examples out there.

On the other hand, I'd be willing to wager that they don't have the capability for sheer cruelty as much as we do.

Perhaps I'm overly optimistic, but I don't see how higher intelligence, and triumph of reason, could fail to lead to a more equitable and happy world. I see our squabbling amongst each other, our greediness, as primitive, something to grow out of.

No no, I'm not saying that reasoning can lead to worse things, I'm saying intelligence can. Put it this way, people can use their intelligence to reach objectives (such as to reach a peacefull solution, invent some life-saving technology, or to decieve, to take power, to torture etc). There's many different ways it can go, and there is a difference between simple primitve barbarism that we see in animals, compared to the cold and calculated use of say...... "Rainbow Herbicides" to infect people's food supplies, in order to attempt to gain some sort of advantage during wartime, or certain "Enhanced Interrogation" techniques etc.

To me, reason is when we use our intelligence for "good" purposes, but intelligence alone can just as easily be used for "bad" things. Thus, I remain skeptical that we will become a nicer species as our intelligence increases, instead I simply believe we will become better at achieving our own goals and agendas as our intelligence increases.

 

[Aquitaine]

Let me make this real simple. Many want proof that there is a G-d before they will consider in any way being thankful for all the wonders of creation. My question then is - if someone requires proof before they are thankful for all creation what is the odds that they will contribute to the wellbeing of their fellow creatures unless there is absolute proof such creature disserves it.

My point is that those that require proof that something is disserved before they offer any kindness or appreciation - how humane is that? How is that more moral than the brute savagery of dumb animals?


Zadok

Honestly man, when you start bringing up the G-man and start talking about "the Creator", I lose interest and switch off.

 

[painted wolf]

It's not that I don't acknowledge their existence, it's just that they're completely, disproportionally outweighed by our constant violence, aggression and thoughtlessness. Even as we speak, there are plenty of unjust wars going on (my country has recently pulled out of one and is currently engaged in another), there's plenty of slavery going on which we're dependent on (like all the factory workers in China making about £1 a day to produce all our stuff), and there's plenty of Dictators and their henchmen running around doing thier business. There's also plenty of rich bankers screwing our future generations by sealing of our futures to be nothing but a road to endless debt.

Have I mentioned that new evolutionary traits take a while to spread through a population? And this one seems to only be a couple of generations old?
It's like judging an adult a bad person because they were a brat as a child... no matter what they were doing to make up for it.

If I were to judge us as a species, I'd say we're actually the worst species on the planet, and I honestly believe if all other animals were given the vote to exile one species from this planet - they'd all choose us (except us lol).

Except those species that are doing better because of us.

When it comes down to it, I'd say we're not much different. I mean there's a real difference between "care" and care. How many things do you think we do that are not for a reward of some sort - be it a physical, social, or mental reward?

I think you need to study social evolution.

I disagree. I think things will become worse, depending on which regions of the World we're to look at. I suppose a lot of it depends on wealth an prosperity, but ultimately to me it appears that we simply arn't suited to living in large communities and being given ultimate responsibility over our planet and the rest of the other living creatures on it.

The environmental damage we have done is pretty much irreversible. Our future survival is going to depend on adapting to what is happening.
Like I have said repeatedly.... we are biologically slower at evolving. However the fact that we are expanding out of the "monkeysphere" mentality is a good sign.

I think we have beaten this horse past death and derailed this thread plenty enough.

Back to the OP.... Humans are not the only species to display "morality".

wa:do

 

[Quiddity]

I find equating poop throwing apes and their over all behaivor as any form of morality funny.

 

[painted wolf]

I find equating poop throwing apes and their over all behaivor as any form of morality funny.

yeah, it's easy to mock what you don't understand.
PLoS ONE: Altruism in Forest Chimpanzees: The Case of Adoption
Chimps May Be Aware of Others

Hilarious.

wa:do

 

[logician]

This may have been done before...

Is morality an evolved trait and present in a variety of species, or is it bestowed only upon humans from a deity?

This came about as a result of a brief conversation between myself and Danmac earlier today. I say that evidence is available that indicates moral behaviour is present in some non-human species and, as such, could not have been a divine gift to only our species.

Evidence suggests that moral behaviour is present in many social animal species and is a form of strengthening bonds among the members of a group. However, there is also evidence of trans-species moral behaviour.

I posted this link earlier, but it is more appropriate to this discussion:

Animals can tell right from wrong - Telegraph

Many theists may claim that moral behaviour is a god-given attribute to humans only. Is there any evidence for this?

"Many theists may claim that moral behaviour is a god-given attribute to humans only. Is "

So atheists are by definition immoral?