1. Scientist Finds the Beginnings of Morality in Primate Behavior

Comment #26882 by peterdf on March 22, 2007 at 6:23 am

It seems to me that the issue of "is and ought" and the relationship of man and animal is a lot simpler than some philosophers and thinkers would have people believe. The notion that ethics has no foundation in biology is self-evidently false. EVERYTHING about mankind is rooted in biology. We evolved - it's where we came from!

It follows that if we reject supernatural origins for ethics, morality and emotional behaviour – and as rationalists we must – our value systems have to have an emotional basis. They must have evolved as a means of managing our behaviour. If something "ought" to be, then it ought to be because someone THINKS it ought to be. If no one THINKS it ought to be then it ought NOT to be. Unless of course the something will never impact on anyone's feelings in which case the whatever-it-is is entirely neutral in ethical and moral terms.

Moral philosophers have an important and useful role in investigating and applying appropriate moral weight to the conflicting emotional interests demanded by our evolved feelings without looking beyond it all to ask daft questions like 'how ought it to be?' There is, however, a different question that has a salience that simply cannot be ignored. If emotions evolved to manage our behaviour in terms of a tribal hunter/gatherer society will they still be appropriate today - now that's something to keep the philosophers busy.

On the question of the relationship between man and animals, I once went to a conference of evolutionary psychologists and I was astonished that they used a different terminology for human behaviour than they did for animal behaviour. (No it isn't a misprint - I did say evolutionary psychologists) An animal has "dominance", a human has "prestige", an animal has "submissiveness" a human "conformity". While these terms are not completely interchangeable it was shocking to see just how far we have to go in order to see our species in terms of his true biological heritage.

Emotions can have great profundity – and no human (or probably ape) can deny it. It is that very profundity, and our anthropocentric arrogance, that tricks us into thinking that emotions are anything other than instincts that evolved to help us survive.