Diogenes wrote: ↑Thu Feb 29, 2024 6:21 pm
And certainly other animals are moral creatures.
I disagree and it would be interesting to deep dive into this. Earlier I brought up examples of animal behavior:
How would you distinguish between moral and amoral behavior among animals?
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1143725#p1143725
If someone breaks a moral value, then another one would view wrong has been done and would react to it. There is no indication of that in this chimp experiment.
In several of the videos, the animal (chimp and elephant) elicit cooperation from a partner despite the partner not being as hungry or as eager for the ‘reward.’ These are examples of reciprocity (the partner will need help when he is hungry in the future).
Could be. But the fundamental question of ethics is Hume’s is-ought problem. Just because something is does not mean something ought. Just because we see reciprocity in nature doesn’t mean it’s a normative value.
For me the most telling video is when one ape in a cage gets a better reward for the same behavior as the other. They both recognize the unfairness of this and the ‘aggrieved’ chimp complains. The other, albeit reluctantly [again we see the very human like interplay between self interest and moral responsibility], shares his reward. This is EXACTLY like human morality. We recognize in ourselves the tension between self interest and our duty to others.
Or it can be explained as survival instincts since it’s reacting to getting less food compared to another. I think a more telling experiment would be they do different things and one works hard and another one doesn’t work hard and they get the exact same reward.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1143789#p1143789
Diogenes wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 4:30 am Are we watching the same video? As you know, I have presented Franz de Waal’s Ted Talk many times here. My favorite clip from it is not of chimps, but Capuchin monkeys. Here’s an excerpt: https://tinyurl.com/2m3c89wj
I’m not sure that’s a moral value either. The chimp wanted to get a grape instead of a cucumber. And then expressed anger because he didn’t get a grape.
It is clear (and amusing) that the monkey acts exactly like a human would when receiving inferior pay for the same task. A moral value (equality) is being broken by one monkey getting a grape while the other gets a slice of cucumber. The monkey receiving lower value “views this as wrong and reacts to [the unfairness of] it.” This is exactly what you challenged when you wrote “there is no indication of that” (reaction to the moral value of expectation of equal treatment being violated). Do you see that?
Yes I saw that. I don’t think it would’ve mattered what the task of the second monkey did (get a rock, ring a bell, solve a Rubik’s cube). The fact the first monkey saw the second monkey get a grape revealed a better reward was available and wanted that instead.
This is proof monkeys have moral values and complain when they are violated.
Or it is proof monkeys would rather have a better reward when they see one is available.
As I wrote, it takes religion to make an arbitrary value judgment; to condemn a behavior that is not intrinsically harmful or abusive.
I would dispute male on male sex is not intrinsically harmful or abusive…
otseng wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2024 8:34 am And a case can be made where male-on-male sex carries significant potential to cause harm.
Men who have sex with men are at a higher risk of infection with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, as well as other sexually transmitted infections.
Gay men and other men who have sex with men may be at an increased risk of depression, bipolar disorder and anxiety.
And research has shown that gay men and other men who have sex with men experience intimate partner violence at a higher rate than do other men.
https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-life … t-20047107
That men who have sex with men are at an increased risk of HIV infection is well known
Men who have sex with men are at an increased risk of sexually transmitted infection with the viruses that cause the serious condition of the liver known as hepatitis.
Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs) occur in sexually active gay men at a high rate.
Of all the sexually transmitted infections gay men are at risk for, human papilloma virus – which causes anal and genital warts – is often thought to be little more than an unsightly inconvenience. However, these infections may play a role in the increased rates of anal cancers in gay men.
https://www.health.ny.gov/community/lgb … ncerns.htm
There are many reasons why gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men may have higher rates of HIV and STDs. Some of them are:
* Prevalence of HIV among sexual partners of gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men is 40 times that of sexual partners of heterosexual men;
* Receptive anal sex is 18 times more risky for HIV acquisition than receptive vaginal sex;
* Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men on average have a greater number of lifetime sexual partners.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with homosexuality, whereas theft, assault, murder, unfairness and unequal treatment ARE intrinsically immoral.[/size]
Note that I’ve never claimed homosexuality in the modern sense is condemned by the Bible.
You have also not addressed my question…
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1143990#p1143990
As it says in the video, even anthropologists, economists, and philosophers have commented on that study and said, “fairness is a very complex issue, and that animals cannot have it.” Frans de Waal also admitted, “So we’re getting very close to the human sense of fairness.” I could grant that, but that doesn’t mean it is equivalent to human fairness.
You still need to answer my question…
You cannot just cherry pick animal behavior and claim it is an example of morality and at the same time ignore all their other behavior. If there is no objective determination of what is moral or amoral behavior among animals, one cannot then claim human ethics can be derived from animal behavior.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1144083#p1144083