Monkey morality is no kangaroo court
|
Beginnings of morality are seen in primates
|
BARRIER BROKEN: Compassion and care is also seen between species. - Photo: S. Subramanium
THE WORD humane is defined in the dictionary as meaning `characterised by tenderness, compassion and sympathy for men and animals, benevolent,' and is said to be a variant of the word `human.'
This implies then that the quality is special or unique to we humans, distinguishing us from animals.
The opposite is `brutal,' a word that the dictionary defines as meaning cruel, inhuman, coarse, harsh and irrational. It comes from the Latin word brutius meaning heavy, stupid, and irrational. It would seem then that humanness is a quality that we humans possess and animals do not.
Alas, this is another example of the arrogance of we homo sapiens. First we call ourselves sapiens, or the thinking ones, to distinguish ourselves not only from animals in general, but even from other primates and homos such as erectus, habilis and Neanderthals.
This myth was broken in recent years with the discoveries that even the lowly crow can think and make tools. We say that, unlike other species, we are possessed of culture; we make art and music. Then come the discoveries that songbirds sing their hearts out, create new tunes and enjoy doing so. Compassion and care is also seen between species. There are many recorded cases of dogs caring for orphan kittens. Deer are known to be quite friendly with rabbits.
No mutual benefit
There seems no mutual material benefit derived from these. Inter-species friendship and mutual care are being increasingly recorded by naturalists and pet-lovers.
It is thus becoming more and more difficult to say where the dividing line is between humans and other animals. Biology tells us that our closest relatives are the primate apes, and that the family line between them and us branched only a few million years ago.
The DNA, or the molecular genetic heritage, of the chimpanzee is about 98 per cent similar to ours. A mere 2 per cent of the genetic provenance distinguishes us from them.
Yet, we would like to think that this 2 per cent is where all the difference is. It is this that makes us sapient, rational, moral and human. Now comes a series of studies telling us that apes possess a sense of compassion, benevolence and care for their fellow beings. The beginnings of morality are seen already in primate behaviour.
Science writer Nicholas Wade gives us instance after instance of morality in monkeys in the March 20, 2007 issue of The New York Times.
He writes: "Chimpanzees, who cannot swim, have drowned in zoo moats trying to save others. Given the chance to get food by pulling a chain that would also deliver an electric shock to a companion, rhesus monkeys will starve themselves for several days. Biologists argue that these and other social behaviours are the precursors of human morality.
"They further believe that if morality grew out of behavioural rules shaped by evolution, it is for biologists, not philosophers or theologians, to say what these rules are."
Wade cites three books by biologists that underscore this point. The first is the 1975 book by Edward O. Wilson titled Sociobiology. The second is by Marc Hauser called Moral Minds and the third is the recent one Primates and Philosophers by the primatologist Frans de Waal.
These suggest that the brain has a genetically shaped mechanism for acquiring moral rules, a universal moral grammar similar to the neural machinery for learning language. Basic emotions are controlled in a particular part of the brain. This part, called the limbic system, is present in all mammals.
Of these, emotions such as compassion, shame and guilt, are apparently common, however, to a smaller group of species, and are regulated in the part called the pre-frontal cortex. It seems that among the primates, the pre-frontal cortex is much bigger in we humans than in the great apes or monkeys.
But the very fact that it is present in primates would mean that the stirrings of humaneness and morality go back to several millions of years in our history, starting with the monkeys or perhaps in species that came about even earlier.
Wade writes: "Dr. De Waal sees human morality as having grown out of primate sociality, but with two extra levels of sophistication. People enforce in their societies moral codes much more rigorously with rewards, punishments and reputation building. They also apply a degree of judgment and reason, for which there are no parallels in animals."
Given the way biologists have been unravelling the social behaviour of animal communities, the statement of Dr. de Walls' may soon be modified. The so-called alpha male in a chimpanzee group or a gorilla band might exert command not only through physical size and "brute force", but by using fair play and principles of justice as well.
In other words, he might not simply be King Kong, but also a budding King Solomon.
Parodying principles
People use the pejorative phrase "kangaroo court" to describe a self-appointed or irregular tribunal, usually disregarding or parodying existing principles of law, human rights or justice. As we learn more about the sociobiology of other animals, it might become necessary to stop using this phrase, lest we offend the kangaroos.
D. BALASUBRAMANIAN
dbala@lvpei.org
Printer friendly
page
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Sci Tech
