Pikkukuvaa napsauttamalla pääset Google Booksiin.
Ladataan... Primates and Philosophers: How Morality Evolved (Princeton Science Library) (alkuperäinen julkaisuvuosi 2006; vuoden 2016 painos)Tekijä: Frans de Waal (Tekijä)
TeostiedotPrimates and Philosophers: How Morality Evolved (tekijä: Frans de Waal) (2006)
- Ladataan...
Kirjaudu LibraryThingiin nähdäksesi, pidätkö tästä kirjasta vai et. Ei tämänhetkisiä Keskustelu-viestiketjuja tästä kirjasta. Primates and Philosophers, or how you should think of morality on the 21st century. This could as well be the title of this book. For, as de Waal states in the conclusion of this work "The debate with my colleagues made me think of Wilson’s (1975: 562) recommendation three decades ago that 'the time has come for ethics to be removed temporarily from the hands of philosophers and biologicized.'" (2006) So there you have. You can either go by the moralists who believe that morality is only a human affair, or go the biological way and realize that as with everything else, in what concerns morality, we are again the tip of the iceberg in evolutionary terms. If you are interested in delving deeper into these kind of debates, you'll definitely love this book. There's plenty of academic nitty-picking inside, so you have to measure how much committed you are to these issues before opening the book. Again, quoting de Waal, "While making for good academic fights, semantics are mostly a waste of time. Are animals moral? Let us simply conclude that they occupy several floors of the tower of morality. Rejection of even this modest proposal can only result in an impoverished view of the structure as a whole" (2006). In any case, de Waal's essays are rich and insightful as everything he has written thus far. So you won't waste your time if you just read his contributions to the volume. An interesting and important topic, poorly handled. The scientists and philosophers who contribute to this discussion write as if they are arguing against each other's conclusions, but the truth is that they not only have not defined the terms of the debate, they have not defined the question to be debated. Also, de Waal listed each reference in text. That is to say, instead of using end- or foot-notes, the reader is constantly bumping into such as (Williams 1988:438) and being jarred out of the development of understanding of the sentence that note interrupts. Moreover, there are no notes about the other contributors, Singer et al. What is a lay reader like me supposed to think of them? Why should I give any weight to their contributions? None wrote clearly enough to illuminate the debate, and apparently none have done actual research, so I don't feel guilty for not being able to understand every intricacy of their essays. What is perhaps most interesting is that the straw man concept most thoroughly discussed (VT) is that which says that humans are completely self-centered and only behave as if moral and/or altruistic for Machiavellian reasons. This implies that we're polite only as a social 'grease.' And then the reader is cued to wonder why the authors so often refer to 'my respected colleague' and 'the minor flaw in an intelligent theory' etc.... Do they really respect one another, or do they type those words while gritting their teeth? Some studies reported, some ancient philosophies compared, some animal anecdotes shared... adds up to a book that could be provocative. But I'm waiting for another one - one based on real science that is, perhaps, inspired by the work of de Waal. A discussion of the evolution of morality. The author is a primatologist, and brings his experience to the question by asking whether there is any evidence of consciousness and altruism in our nearest relatives, which would help support the argument for an evolutionary origin of morality. The paper is actually quite short, and there are answers from other writers, mostly philosophers, who disagree with all or part of what de Waal has to say, followed by his response. The questions raised are interesting, the articles are well written, and none of them seem to be disagreeing with the idea of an evolutionary basis for morality; they are mostly quibbling about details. Frans de Waal is one of my favorite writers about what makes us human, and in that context I was a bit disappointed in this book. I had expected a bright and breezy de Waal book, like "Our Inner Ape" or "Chimpanzee Politics". Instead, this book consists of a longish academic article by de Waal, preceded by an introduction, and followed by commentary and appendices. There is lots of interesting stuff in the the book; my problem is that it's not nearly as much fun to get at. Worth ready, but also worthy reading. ei arvosteluja | lisää arvostelu
Kuuluu näihin kustantajien sarjoihin
Can virtuous behavior be explained by nature, and not by human rational choice? "It's the animal in us," we often hear when we've been bad. But why not when we're good? Primates and Philosophers tackles this question by exploring the biological foundations of one of humanity's most valued traits: morality. In this provocative book, renowned primatologist Frans de Waal argues that modern-day evolutionary biology takes far too dim a view of the natural world, emphasizing our "selfish" genes and reinforcing our habit of labeling ethical behavior as humane and the less civilized as animalistic. Seeking the origin of human morality not in evolution but in human culture, science insists that we are moral by choice, not by nature. Citing remarkable evidence based on his extensive research of primate behavior, de Waal attacks "Veneer Theory," which posits morality as a thin overlay on an otherwise nasty nature. He explains how we evolved from a long line of animals that care for the weak and build cooperation with reciprocal transactions. Drawing on Darwin, recent scientific advances, and his extensive research of primate behavior, de Waal demonstrates a strong continuity between human and animal behavior. He probes issues such as anthropomorphism and human responsibilities toward animals. His compelling account of how human morality evolved out of mammalian society will fascinate anyone who has ever wondered about the origins and reach of human goodness. Based on the Tanner Lectures de Waal delivered at Princeton University's Center for Human Values in 2004, Primates and Philosophers includes responses by the philosophers Peter Singer, Christine M. Korsgaard, and Philip Kitcher and the science writer Robert Wright. They press de Waal to clarify the differences between humans and other animals, yielding a lively debate that will fascinate all those who wonder about the origins and reach of human goodness. Kirjastojen kuvailuja ei löytynyt. |
Current Discussions-Suosituimmat kansikuvat
Google Books — Ladataan... LajityypitMelvil Decimal System (DDC)171.7Philosophy and Psychology Ethics Theories of Ethics Evolutionary or educationalKongressin kirjaston luokitusArvio (tähdet)Keskiarvo:
Oletko sinä tämä henkilö? |
The editors observe that all five share the understanding that Emphasis mine. Some of the counterarguments call out de Wall for anthropomorphizing his studies (more on that), but he has long observed enough behavior that he justifies well his "scientific anthropomorphism" (as distinguished from the Peter Rabbit-ish writings.) (their emphasis) Important distinction. There is no anthropomorphism in that. Humans want to project "ought" and it is the duty of the impartial scientific observer to maintain a distance.
So, to frame the argument, de Wall says Our evolution didn't spontaneously pop out a "moral" product. I don't know how anyone can deny that some animals have empathy and either it developed independently (which has happened for multiple many features) or has passed down from some earlier species. de Wall argues that Veneer Theory "lacks any sort of explanation of how we moved from being amoral animals to moral beings. The theory is at odds with the evidence for emotional processing as driving force behind moral judgment." de Waal: Extreme? perhaps, but it bears thought. He notes this on morality: This is lost on so many people! Racism, xenomisia, nationalism...hello! This makes sense, no? de Waal: Still. the fringe elements supported and promoted by the current US administration seem to have a closer connection to the cousins...
Journalist (and sociobiologist/evolutionary psychologist) Robert Wright picks at de Waal's use of anthropomorphic language in his writings and arguments. He says His beef with de Waal seems to be that "It isn’t always clear from the behavioral evidence alone which kind of anthropomorphic language is in order." and that de Waal seems to prefer cognitive anthropomorphism. de Waal does tend to impart a more human reasoning to explain some of his (many) observations of simian behavior, the cognitive anthropomorphism, but then he does have decades of behaviors observed!
Philosopher Christine Korsgaard sides with de Waal in arguing against Veneer Theory in her essay: She then looks at de Waal's consideration of intent as he establishes the primacy of the bases for the evolution of our morality. She has a point - interpretation is necessary, as we cannot (yet) know what animals are thinking, so care must be taken to normalize that interpretation.
Peter Singer, philosopher, in his response essay "Morality, Reason, and the Rights of Animals" points out I didn't pull much from his counter, but I thought that worth sharing. In de Waal's response to the responses, he asks I submit that Daniel Kahneman answers that. Our emotional brain reacts first, much as we rational beings hate to admit it, and that emotional brain developed much earlier than the human primate overlay.
Okay, I veneered the second half of the book (first half, too, really, but...) I need to read more de Waal, but my confirmation bias thinks he's right, whether he uses the appropriate descriptive language or attributions. ( )