• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

"Origin of the Species" is Theistic

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
You can have these things functioning on an intuitive level, no reasoning necessary.
That concept has long been debunked since it used to be an adage as such up until studies done in the 60's and since have very much proven that some animals can indeed use reason. Studies done on chimps, for example, have clearly shown this.

In my field of anthropology, there's a related field called "primatology", and Jane Goodall undoubtedly is the most recognized figure there, and she long not only concluded but also well established that chimps very much use reason.

In my Intro To Anthro course, I used some of her works, including a couple of her videos, and there's much parallel behavior between us and chimps. Experiments with the chimp Washoe clearly showed that he used reasoning techniques that simply cannot be attributed to instinct alone.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
That concept has long been debunked since it used to be an adage as such up until studies done in the 60's and since have very much proven that some animals can indeed use reason. Studies done on chimps, for example, have clearly shown this.

In my field of anthropology, there's a related field called "primatology", and Jane Goodall undoubtedly is the most recognized figure there, and she long not only concluded but also well established that chimps very much use reason.

In my Intro To Anthro course, I used some of her works, including a couple of her videos, and there's much parallel behavior between us and chimps. Experiments with the chimp Washoe clearly showed that he used reasoning techniques that simply cannot be attributed to instinct alone.
I think it is incredibly cool that you teach anthropology, and that you use Jane Goodall as a source, and all of that.

However, recent studies continue to investigate what is, in their own words, intuitive morality v. reasoning morality.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
I think it is incredibly cool that you teach anthropology, and that you use Jane Goodall as a source, and all of that.

However, recent studies continue to investigate what is, in their own words, intuitive morality v. reasoning morality.
Could you provide a link for that, please? Plus when you say "intuitive" is that term imply "instinctive"?

Either way, the studies that I have seen over recent decades don't seem to go against what they've seen and long concluded as I've had subscriptions to "Scientific American" for some five decades now and almost certainly would have seen some studies that would show that the upper primates cannot use reason. Everything I've seen says the opposite. Even the link I provided you a couple of days ago concluded that they can use reason.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
Monkeys, especially bonobos, cannot reason about moral issues. If they could they would not be having all that wanton sex all over the place. Downright disgraceful is what it is.
 

Bear Wild

Well-Known Member
It's quite possible that new information has come to light. However, the most recent information I have read, which continued to repeat the information I learned at the university, stated that chimps did not care if another chimp was treated unjustly. Let me give you a scenario. It was originally done with Capuchin monkeys but was repeated with chimps. Chimp Joe and Chimp Jay are in adjoining cages. They have been taught that if they exchange a rock they will get a treat. The lab worker comes in, and both chimps go to it. The worker begins by rewarding both with cucumber slices (which are mostly water). Everyone is happy and content. But then things change. In the next round, the worker rewards Chimp Joe with a grape (a much sweeter and heartier treat) and still gives Chimp Jay a cucumber slice. Chimp Jay now feels cheated and throws the cucumber slice out of the cage. He'll have none of it! It's not fare!!! Now, here is the question: is there any indication that Chimp Joe gives a squat about the unfairness to Chimp Jay? Does he go over to comfort Jay? Does he set aside one of his grapes and share it? Absolutely not. Chimps only care about justice when its concerns themselves. At least, that is true to the best of my knowledge.

Here is website that not only has the Capuchin video, but also discusses a followup study where chimps were used instead, and it was repeated a second time using a mechanical feeder. The food refusal was severe when the food was given by a live lab assistant, meaning that the chimp understood that the inequity was do to a moral agent. Again, you see no sign of compassion or sharing from the second chimp.
Do chimpanzees really care about equity? - International Cognition and Culture Institute

The site you have has an author that starts out with - "For a start, why would capuchins (and chimpanzees and dogs) have a sense of fairness given how small (or null) the place of cooperation plays in their ecology?". Not sure why the author made such a ridiculous statement. There are so many examples of cooperation in wild chimpanzees. Ex. - Boesch, Christophe. 2002. Cooperative hunting roles among Tai Chimpanzees. Human Nature. Vol. 13 issue 1 pages 27 - 49. There social behavior in the wild has been well documented especially with examples of becoming an alpha male, raising and protecting offspring in a social group. Even examples of bonobos sharing food with stranger bonobos. A social group is by its nature has to be cooperative.

This made me suspicious of the authors writing so I went to the source for the chimpanzee experiment leading to the researcher's description social disappointment rather than inequality aversion. The study was excellent at showing an error of not using the control of food avoidance without the partner present. Their results however show more about that chimpanzees recognize the humans as the source of preferred foods and recognized that the mechanical feeder does not respond to their behavior. It was clear that the visual perspective of seeing the partner with better food was not the motivating factor but then again this study did not allow the chimpanzees to share food as in the study I gave you on capuchin monkeys. Hattori, Y., K. Leimgruber, K. Fujita, and F. B. M. de Waal. 2012. Food-related tolerance in capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) varies with knowledge of the partner’s previous food-consumption. Behaviour 149:171–85. There are pleanty of studies to show how much more any animal responds to their own kind compared to responding to a different species or mechanical object. They should have discussed this aspect in their study before making such certain claims.
 

Bear Wild

Well-Known Member
You haven't shown how chimpanzees use reasoning to form moral decision making either before a behavior, or to reflect on it after.
There social behavior is full of moral decision making which requires reasoning and yes I have given you examples which you ignore. Just stating you opinion is not productive. I even gave you definitions followed by examples and you give back you opinion.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Could you provide a link for that, please? Plus when you say "intuitive" is that term imply "instinctive"?
Yes. Intuitive morality is biologically "programmed." See trolley car dilemmas.


Moral judgment as information processing: an integrative review

Reasoning, cognitive control, and moral intuition

Acadamia | Log In

Moral Intuitions vs. Moral Reasoning. A Philosophical Analysis of the Explanatory Models Intuitionism Relies On

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e344/677f5948bc34208419030b1997fe791ab04a.pdf

Moral Intuition and Moral Reasoning - Oxford Scholarship


I could supply more.
if you google Moral reasoning intuition cognition neuroscience, you will get these and other results.
 
Last edited:

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
So, the problem now isn't the NUMBER of studies, but the fact that you have to look them up?

These goalposts are on wheels!
As I said, the post implied studies published on the internet, since I said I would read them. It also implied a short amount for the same reason.

What he did is called dumping. It's purpose is not to inform, but to overwhelm. We all do it sometimes.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
I have problems replying to concepts when the author of those "concepts" couches them in meaningless words.


ETA: It's clear that I am not the only one who has problems making sense of what you write.
instinct and reflective are hardly meaningless words. You simply tried to avoid replying to the content of my posts. It's as if you dismiss me as being unable to form meaningful ideas.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
The site you have has an author that starts out with - "For a start, why would capuchins (and chimpanzees and dogs) have a sense of fairness given how small (or null) the place of cooperation plays in their ecology?". Not sure why the author made such a ridiculous statement. There are so many examples of cooperation in wild chimpanzees.
I'm not even going to reply to the rest of your post. You show no capability of understanding the nuances of the studies. You conflate the general idea of cooperation, which means many things, with the specific of pursuing justice for the other, which is just one thing. It shows poor reasoning capability. Therefore, my words will be lost on you. You actually reject a well known, replicated, and completely accepted scientific study. Why should *I* try?
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
There social behavior is full of moral decision making which requires reasoning and yes I have given you examples which you ignore. Just stating you opinion is not productive. I even gave you definitions followed by examples and you give back you opinion.
No, it doesn't. It requires intuition/instinct. Like a mother caring for her young. Like humans cooperating. the behavior comes first -- the reasoning merely explains it to us. It's biologically ingrained.
 

Bear Wild

Well-Known Member
No, it doesn't. It requires intuition/instinct. Like a mother caring for her young. Like humans cooperating. the behavior comes first -- the reasoning merely explains it to us. It's biologically ingrained.
They have cultural shifts in behaviors that are not intuitional or instinctual and problem solving that requires reasoning. There behavior is both reasoning and biologically determined as is humans. There is just too much research as well as well documented observations in the wild. A new learned behavior then adopted by other members is no biologically ingrained and well documented. You are either not aware enough at the amount of research or you just do not want to believe it.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
They have cultural shifts in behaviors that are not intuitional or instinctual and problem solving that requires reasoning. There behavior is both reasoning and biologically determined as is humans. There is just too much research as well as well documented observations in the wild. A new learned behavior then adopted by other members is no biologically ingrained and well documented. You are either not aware enough at the amount of research or you just do not want to believe it.
Like I said in my other post, you lack the ability to see the nuances. It's not a big deal to me. Let us disagree agreeably. Besides, we agree so strongly on our appreciation of nature. For example, we are both awed by the evolution of chimp morality (and the fact that they can be adorable as well as shockingly brutal).
 

Bear Wild

Well-Known Member
I'm not even going to reply to the rest of your post. You show no capability of understanding the nuances of the studies. You conflate the general idea of cooperation, which means many things, with the specific of pursuing justice for the other, which is just one thing. It shows poor reasoning capability. Therefore, my words will be lost on you. You actually reject a well known, replicated, and completely accepted scientific study. Why should *I* try?
Actually I am very familiar with the studies although no expert. What I have found is that some draw conclusions that cannot be truly supported by the research. These people draw conclusions that cannot be completely supported by their study. The study is not incorrect but some of the conclusions that I have pointed out are not completely supported. Same problem with the aversion study.
 

Bear Wild

Well-Known Member
Like I said in my other post, you lack the ability to see the nuances. It's not a big deal to me. Let us disagree agreeably. Besides, we agree so strongly on our appreciation of nature. For example, we are both awed by the evolution of chimp morality (and the fact that they can be adorable as well as shockingly brutal).
I lack the ability? It seems you are not informed of all of the research available. Yes chimpanzees can be both sympathetic and cruel just like humans. Bonobos appear to be even more similar to humans and less aggressive as shown by field studies showing the share food with bonobos that are strangers. What part of the human brain are the other apes lacking that makes them incapable of reason?
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
As I said, the post implied studies published on the internet, since I said I would read them. It also implied a short amount for the same reason.

What he did is called dumping. It's purpose is not to inform, but to overwhelm. We all do it sometimes.
You asked for the studies, then when he provided a number of them you accused him of a fallacy and asked him to provide just one.

You changed the conditions of what you asked for, and accused him of using a dishonest tactic when all they did was provide you with the very thing you asked for.

It's okay to feel overwhelmed by the evidence someone presents, but it's dishonest to accuse them of a fallacy for providing the very thing you asked for. That's called moving the goalposts.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
The above doesn't refer to animals as far as I can tell, so I really didn't need articles that deal with human reasoning. I couldn't download the pdf article since my computer can't handle it.

So, maybe cite scientific studies that say that no animals can use reason in areas of morality. It would help if you quote the part(s) that express your opinion as I simply do not have enough time to go through lengthy articles sentence by sentence.
 
Top