"Origin of the Species" is Theistic

[ecco]

The thought that animals can have morals like humans reeks of evolution and is therefore completely unacceptable to some people.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

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.

I stand by what I said in the previous post.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

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.

Sorry, but it is precisely the LACK of evidence that is so telling. Scientifically, you can't go around saying something is true when there is no evidence for it.

 

[metis]

Sorry, but it is precisely the LACK of evidence that is so telling. Scientifically, you can't go around saying something is true when there is no evidence for it.

As part of our physical anthropology education, we study primatology, and I have yet to run across a primatologist who takes your position. I've posted links and several quotes, which you have just blown off.

Thus, I'm done-- believe in whatever you choose to believe, I guess.

 

[Bear Wild]

Sorry, but it is precisely the LACK of evidence that is so telling. Scientifically, you can't go around saying something is true when there is no evidence for it.

First there is plenty of evidence showing advanced cognition in primates. For you to say otherwise represents a lack of knowledge of the evidence.
As for the citations you presented, they do not show animals especially primates do not have cognition of the same kinds but just not to the same level. They do take the stance consistent with an evolutionary explanation of morals. In this view core moral beliefs created a better survival and reproduction advantage and would increase in time among individuals increasing in the population consistent with Darwin's concept of natural selection.

The model many are using is the dual process of the brain with system (system 1) that is fast, unconscious, automatic intuitive, and guided by emotions. Then there is a second system (system 2) that is slow, conscious, deliberate, and devoid of emotions. System 1 then is considered the primitive form from an evolutionary standpoint since it is tied to intuitive emotional judgments which was once useful but now less important than the system 2 in dealing with the challenges of life in a modern technological society. Joshua Greene ha been a large proponent.

The last assumption which has not been proven has flaws. We can start with the neuroscience of the intuitive part of emotion mapped out by Woodward, James and John Allman, 2007, “Moral Intuition: Its Neural Substrate and Normative Significance”, Journal of physiology – Paris, 101: 179–202. (available to read on pdf in the internet). Here we see a complex neurologic network in structures of the brain which is clearly integrated throughout the brain including areas dedicated to reasoning and from the neuroscience point of view are involved with moral decision making. These same structures are seen in mammals and particularly similar to humans in ape brains.

A second article which Challenges not the fact that we have a cognitive and an intuitive pathways but rather that both are complex and interact with each other presented by. Railton, Peter, 2014, “The Affective Dog and Its Rational Tale: Intuitiohn and Attunement”, Ethics, 124: 813–59. (also available to read on the internet). This second article gives an excellent reevaluation of how important the intuitive emotional aspect of the brain is and how it influences the conscious reasoning. Thus the intuitive which is a complex network in the brain evolved with the cognitive reasoning network in the brain that both are important in modern society and are continuously interacting. Thus we have not left the intuitive behind at all and both continued to evolve. Since there is sufficient observations that chimpanzees have both the intuitive aspect of the brain and the cognitive reasoning aspect of the brain then there is no reason to believe that they cannot have both types of moral behavior. It again goes back to what Darwin suggested that we are different from animal in degree not kind.

 

[Bear Wild]

As part of our physical anthropology education, we study primatology, and I have yet to run across a primatologist who takes your position. I've posted links and several quotes, which you have just blown off.

Thus, I'm done-- believe in whatever you choose to believe, I guess.

One of the things that primatologist complain about is that those who deny apes with complex cognition have not spent sufficient time with apes to see the complex behavior. The second problem is the experiments often conducted comparing human children with apes are poorly set up. The chimpanzee is typically isolated from his own kind and dealing with a different species in the testing whereas testing with children includes the mother and uses the same species to conduct the test. This type of set up for testing would be considered unacceptable if used to compare two different species that are not human. What is so fascinating is the strange need to different/separate from the rest of the animal kingdom so if one criteria falls as it did with the believe that only humans used tools then create another and if that fails create another. One of my favorites was the claim that since animals do not have a complex language as humans do then the are uncappable of a greater level of consciousness as if language alone creates consciousness.

 

[Bear Wild]

I stand by what I said in the previous post.

You asked for the evidence so I gave you multiple sources not to be overwhelming but rather to give you choices to evaluate. After that I have limited the sources to only one or two which are available to read on the internet. You have not given on source that shows that chimpanzees do not have the capacity for moral reasoning. They have the same brain networking (although at a slightly smaller level) as humans with more than adequate neuron capacity for intuitive and reasoning skills. Not only that I gave you examples on the need for cognitive reasoning as well as intuitive behavior for how chimpanzees navigate the complex cognitive behavior needed to become an alpha male.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You asked for the evidence so I gave you multiple sources not to be overwhelming but rather to give you choices to evaluate.

You don't have to reply to every post.

I said I stood by what I said. That is a reply that states the end of this particular sub-thread. We can of course, continue on others.

You sent me a long answer in reply to a different post. I have to get read to go to Shavuot services. I will look at it again later today.

Blessings.

 

[metis]

One of the things that primatologist complain about is that those who deny apes with complex cognition have not spent sufficient time with apes to see the complex behavior. The second problem is the experiments often conducted comparing human children with apes are poorly set up. The chimpanzee is typically isolated from his own kind and dealing with a different species in the testing whereas testing with children includes the mother and uses the same species to conduct the test. This type of set up for testing would be considered unacceptable if used to compare two different species that are not human. What is so fascinating is the strange need to different/separate from the rest of the animal kingdom so if one criteria falls as it did with the believe that only humans used tools then create another and if that fails create another. One of my favorites was the claim that since animals do not have a complex language as humans do then the are uncappable of a greater level of consciousness as if language alone creates consciousness.

Exactly.

I've seen the evolution on this over the decades. In the 50's and 60's, what was taught was that only humans used reason and made tools, but that all changed afterwards when chimps and gorillas, both in the wild and in test situations, clearly showed that they could and did do both. There are many examples I could cite for this as we've been following this for many decades now.

So, as I know you'll agree with, it's not an either/or dichotomy but more a matter of degrees when it comes to the use of reason.