Home > Work > Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals

Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals QUOTES

Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals QUOTES

1 " Much of this literature assumes that the world is waiting for biologists to point out what is Normal and Natural, hence worth being adopted as ideal. Attempts to derive ethical norms from nature are highly problematic, however. Biologists may tell us how things are, perhaps even analyze human nature in intricate detail, yet there is no logical connection between the typical form and frequency of a behavior (a statistical measure of what is "normal") and the value we attach to it (a moral decision). Lorenz came close to confusing the two when he was disappointed that the perfect goose marriage, with the partners faithful unto death, was actually quite rare. But perhaps Lorenz was only titillating his readers with his favorite birds' "shortcomings," because he also gave us his student's wonderful retort: "What do you expect? After all, geese are only human! "

― Frans de Waal , Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals

2 " To put the issue of ethics back into ethology in a more successful manner, we need to take note of the chorus of protest against previous attempts. Philosophers tell us that there is an element of rational choice in human morality, psychologists say that there is a learning component, and anthropologists argue that there are few if any universal rules. The distinction between right and wrong is made by people on the basis of how they would like their society to function. It arises from interpersonal negotiation in a particular environment, and derives its sense of obligation and guilt from the internalization of these processes. Moral reasoning is done by us, not by natural selection. "

― Frans de Waal , Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals

3 " The object of empathy is understanding. The object of sympathy is the other person's well-being." Whether based on empathy or not, animal succorance is the functional equivalent of human sympathy, expected only in species that know strong attachment. I am not speaking here of anonymous aggregations of fish or butterflies, but the individualized bonding, affection, and fellowship of many mammals and birds. "

― Frans de Waal , Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals

4 " Absorption of parental care into adult human relationships is evident from the widespread use of infantile names (such as "baby") for mates and lovers, and the special high-pitched voice that we reserve for both young children and intimate partners. In this context, Eibl-Eibesfeldt mentions the kiss, which probably derives from mouth-to-mouth feeding of masticated food. Kissing without any transfer of food is an almost universal human expression of love and affection, which, according to the ethologist, resembles kiss feeding "with one partner playing the accepting part by opening the mouth in a babyish fashion and the other partner performing tongue movements as if to pass food." Significantly, chimpanzees both kiss feed their young and kiss between adults. A close relative of the chimpanzee, the bonobo, even tongue-kisses. "

― Frans de Waal , Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals

5 " Attention to what children actually do, rather than what they tell interviewers about themselves, is revolutionizing our view of moral development: emotions and actions often seem to come first, rationalizations and justifications later. These insights are also relevant for animal research, which of necessity relies on observation. The same techniques can be applied in both cases, as psychologists unintentionally discovered in their experiments in the household: some pets appeared as upset as the children by the "distress" of a family member, hovering over them or putting their heads in their laps with what looked like great concern. Possibly, then, "altruism in the higher human sense" is not limited to our species. "

― Frans de Waal , Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals

6 " If attachment underlies care and sympathy, the attitude toward dead or dying companions is worth investigating because there is no more poignant evidence for attachment than agony following the final breath of a relative or companion. A well-known example is elephants, who sometimes pick up the ivory or bones of a dead herd member, hold the pieces in their trunks, and pass them around. Some pachyderms return for years to the spot where a relative died, touching and inspecting the relics. Do they miss the other? Do they recall how he or she was during life? "

― Frans de Waal , Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals

7 " If Tallulah stuffs grass into the mouth of a dying herd member, if a chimpanzee goes to hug another who has just been beaten up, or if the top male of a monkey group fails to punish a brain-damaged infant for bothering him, we want to know what makes these animals react in this way. How do they perceive the distress or special circumstances of the other? Do they have any idea of how their behavior will affect the other? These questions remain exactly the same whether or not the other is a relative. "

― Frans de Waal , Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals

8 " The attitude toward members of one's own species should of course not be equated with that toward other species. Lack of concern for other species is to be expected, given the virtual absence of attachment. Animals often seem to regard those who belong to another kind as merely ambulant objects. Sue Boinsky reports that when an angry capuchin male in the wild ran out of ammunition while hurling things at her, he simply turned around, grabbed an unsuspecting squirrel monkey who sat nearby, and threw it at her as if it were just another branch. The capuchin, who would never have acted in this way with a member of his own species, clearly could not care less about the shrieking little monkeys with whom he shared the forest. Cruelty to other animals is something that we humans may have begun worrying about; it is a concern without precedent in nature. Hunters judge the hunted by caloric rather than emotional value, and even if other species are not perceived as food, usually nothing is to be gained by investing care in them. "

― Frans de Waal , Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals

9 " If carnivory was indeed the catalyst for the evolution of sharing, it is hard to escape the conclusion that human morality is steeped in animal blood. When we give money to begging strangers, ship food to starving people, or vote for measures that benefit the poor, we follow impulses shaped since the time our ancestors began to cluster around meat possessors. At the center of the original circle we find aprize hard to get but desired by many, a situation that remains essentially unchanged. In the course of human evolution and history, this small, sympathetic circle grew steadily to encompass all of humanity— if not in practice then at least in principle. Some philosophers, such as Peter Singer in The Expanding Circle, even feel that all creatures under the sun deserve to be included, and that animals should therefore never be used for research, entertainment, or human consumption. Given the circle's proposed origin, it is profoundly ironic that its expansion should culminate in a plea for vegetarianism. "

― Frans de Waal , Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals