Morality

[shunyadragon]

If you are going to say, on the one hand, they have a sense of morality - no quotations - and on the other hand, say they don't have a concept of ownership - quotations, there seem to be a "framing the language to fit the argument".
Animals do protect their own, whether it is territory, food, or young.
Other animals take from them, and they take from others. There is no morality in the picture. They live and survive. That's it.

There is no morality, as animals don't rationalize. They depend upon food, and territory for their survival, and that of their young. That's it

Actually, the primary goal of all life, and ALL animals, including humans is to depend on their environment, and food for their survival, that's it.

Do Animals Think Rationally? - University of Houston.

Previous research has shown that animals can remember specific events, use tools and solve problems. But exactly what that means – whether they are making rational decisions or simply reacting to their environment through mindless reflex – remains a matter of scientific dispute.

Cameron Buckner, assistant professor of philosophy at the University of Houston, argues in an article published in Philosophy and Phenomenological Research that a wide range of animal species exhibit so-called “executive control” when it comes to making decisions, consciously considering their goals and ways to satisfy those goals before acting.

He acknowledges that language is required for some sophisticated forms of metacognition, or thinking about thinking. But bolstered by a review of previously published research, Buckner concludes that a wide variety of animals – elephants, chimpanzees, ravens and lions, among others – engage in rational decision-making.

“These data suggest that not only do some animals have a subjective take on the suitability of the option they are evaluating for their goal, they possess a subjective, internal signal regarding their confidence in this take that can be deployed to select amongst different options,” he wrote.

The question has been debated since the days of the ancient philosophers, as people considered what it means to be human. One way to address that, Buckner said, is to determine exactly what sets humans apart from other animals.

Language remains a key differentiator, and Buckner notes that serious attempts in the 1970s and ‘80s to teach animals human language – teaching chimpanzees to use sign language, for example – found that although they were able to express simple ideas, they did not engage in complex thought and language structures.

Ancient philosophers relied upon anecdotal evidence to study the issue, but today’s researchers conduct sophisticated controlled experiments. Buckner, working with Thomas Bugnyar and Stephan A. Reber, cognitive biologists at the University of Vienna, last year published the results of a study that determined ravens share at least some of the human ability to think abstractly about other minds, adapting their behavior by attributing their own perceptions to others.

In his latest paper, Buckner offers several examples to support his argument:

• Matriarchal elephants in Kenya’s Amboseli National Park were able to determine the threat level of human intruders by differentiating ethnicity, gender and age, suggesting an understanding that adult Maasai tribesmen sometimes kill elephants in competition for grazing or in retaliation for attacks against humans, while Kamba tribesmen and women and children from both tribes don’t pose a threat.
• Giraffes are not generally considered prey by lions in Africa, due to the long-necked animals’ ability to deliver skull-crushing kicks. Lions in South Africa’s Selous Game Reserve, however, are reported to have learned that giraffes found in a sandy river bed can get stuck and even trip, making them suitable prey.

His goal, Buckner said, was to compile the empirical research, “to see that we’ve accumulated enough evidence to say that animals really are rational in a distinctive way.”

 

[shunyadragon]

RF staff should make a film on this.
I could see it now. "Desperados - The Remake"

Pet Chimp Is Killed After Mauling Woman
A 200-pound pet chimpanzee in Stamford, Conn., Monday viciously mauled a woman he had known for years, leaving her critically injured with much of her face torn away, the authorities said. The animal was shot dead by the police after he assaulted an officer in his car.

Incidents & Attacks Involving Captive Chimpanzees

Birds come around us because they love our company. Not because the want food. They just looooove us.

Not a coherent response. Yes, Chimp societies have morals, reward and punishment for their behavior. You requested references that primate societies have morals, lying, steeling, murder, morals involving reward and punishment, and rational behavior, and I have provided references to support this and answered your posts.

Your reference of a chip mauling a woman and received appropriate punishment is in a human society, it does show primates can and will assault and commit murder, and my references involve primates and animals involved in moral and rational behavior in their societies.

 

[Aupmanyav]

- The problem is glaring. If gang members rape and murder your niece, according to you, One should not condemn them, but accept that there are differences in morals. You don't see a problem with that?
- What are you saying then. i don't understand. Have you changed your mind, to the general view... and what is the general view?
- So in your view, there is no morality, except man decides that, and there are no fixed standards. Is that correct?

- My niece does not need to be involved. I said, generally in India people want harsh punishment to law breakers; and in case of rape, they generally want death punishment, for my niece or any other woman, if it happens to them. If people get a chance, they would not hesitate to lynch such a person. You are paying no attention to what I am writing.
- Not that I have changed the view, the Indian society has changed its views and wants the girls to study and not marry at an early age. At the moment the minimum age for marriage is 18 years. There is a possibility that this age may be increased.
- Yeah, there are no fixed standards. The society decides it, the government makes laws. What the society wants and what law the government makes may not be exactly the same.

 

[shunyadragon]

RF staff should make a film on this.
I could see it now. "Desperados - The Remake"

Pet Chimp Is Killed After Mauling Woman
A 200-pound pet chimpanzee in Stamford, Conn., Monday viciously mauled a woman he had known for years, leaving her critically injured with much of her face torn away, the authorities said. The animal was shot dead by the police after he assaulted an officer in his car.

Incidents & Attacks Involving Captive Chimpanzees

Birds come around us because they love our company. Not because the want food. They just looooove us.

One relevant portion of the reference you apparently did not read:

"Every species of ape and monkey has its own protocol for reconciliation after fights, Dr. de Waal has found. If two males fail to make up, female chimpanzees will often bring the rivals together, as if sensing that discord makes their community worse off and more vulnerable to attack by neighbors. Or they will head off a fight by taking stones out of the males’ hands. Dr. de Waal believes that these actions are undertaken for the greater good of the community, as distinct from person-to-person relationships, and are a significant precursor of morality in human societies. Macaques and chimpanzees have a sense of social order and rules of expected behavior, mostly to do with the hierarchical natures of their societies, in which each member knows its own place. Young rhesus monkeys learn quickly how to behave, and occasionally get a finger or toe bitten off as punishment. Other primates also have a sense of reciprocity and fairness. They remember who did them favors and who did them wrong. Chimps are more likely to share food with those who have groomed them. Capuchin monkeys show their displeasure if given a smaller reward than a partner receives for performing the same task, like a piece of cucumber instead of a grape."

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

"purpose of morality"? What do you mean?

It's explained in the rest of the post that you took this quote from............................
To build a cooperative society that can actually thrive and prosper and where the well-being of citizens and society at large is maximized.

What about the one who delights in playing the songs even more, after learning about next door, but is more interested in the music... until they get bored of course?

That person is demonstrably immoral because every time he plays a song, he kills somebody. That doesn't exactly fit the idea of maximizing well being of yourself, your fellow man or society at large.

Still trying to understand this purpose and goal. What set the goal, and when?

I don't get what there is to not understand about that....................
I don't wish to insult you, but stuff like this normally only needs to explained multiple times to psychopaths or otherwise morally bankrupt people.

If morality isn't inherently linked to well-being and the attempt at maximizing it, then I have no clue what you mean when you talk about "morality".

That is the goal and it is always the case. Morality has no meaning or use when we remove that aspect.

I don't understand.

Yeah... sadly, I know you don't.

If you are going to say, on the one hand, they have a sense of morality - no quotations - and on the other hand, say they don't have a concept of ownership - quotations, there seem to be a "framing the language to fit the argument".

A concept of ownership has nothing to do with a sense of morality.
That has to do with social dynamics and overall set-up of a social structure.

If there is no concept of ownership, then there is also no concept of stealing. Because stealing is to take property of another without permission. If there is no such thing as property, then there is no such thing as "stealing" either.

Just like how an invertebrate can not break a bone - because it has no bones.

Animals do protect their own, whether it is territory, food, or young.

Which doesn't have anything to do with stealing and ownership of goods.

Other animals take from them, and they take from others. There is no morality in the picture. They live and survive. That's it.

Are you being deliberately obtuse here? Surely you must see how you are all over the place and are making false equivocations. I suspect you are just playing dumb now.

There is no morality, as animals don't rationalize. They depend upon food, and territory for their survival, and that of their young. That's it

Social species, like wolves and humans, also depend on the other members of the tribe for their survival. Solitary creatures don't.

So whenever a social setting becomes important for your, as well as the tribe's, survival, then "rules of conduct" within the social context one happens to be in, become important.

It's like being in a team. The team, and by extension team members, will be hurt if one of the members doesn't act like a team player but instead like a selfish solo player who leeches of of the team or abuses the team to get its way or simply doesn't play by the rules of the team.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So in your view, there is no morality

A concept of morality exists whenever a social setting exists that requires it.

, except man decides that

EVEN in your twisted idea of "divine morality", it is man that has to decide.
Chances are rather big that that person is going to be using very warped standards and extremely bad assumption loaded reasoning, but it's STILL man that has to engage in the moral evaluation and judgement.

, and there are no fixed standards. Is that correct?

The standard is maximizing well-being of yourself, your fellow man and society at large.

Or to put it in generic and more modern terms: to maximize the well-being of all sentient creatures and to minimize the amount of avoidable suffering.

That's the standard.
We evaluate our actions by analyzing the consequences of those actions and contrast those conclusions with how it affects well-being and suffering.

That which increases suffering is immoral.
That which increases well-being is moral.
That which has no effect either way is amoral.



It's not rocket science.

 

[nPeace]

Actually, the primary goal of all life, and ALL animals, including humans is to depend on their environment, and food for their survival, that's it.

If one lacks spirituality, yes.
To the contrary, I agree with the one who said, "Man must live not on bread alone", ad "Seek first the kingdom of God".

Do Animals Think Rationally? - University of Houston.

Previous research has shown that animals can remember specific events, use tools and solve problems. But exactly what that means – whether they are making rational decisions or simply reacting to their environment through mindless reflex – remains a matter of scientific dispute.

Cameron Buckner, assistant professor of philosophy at the University of Houston, argues in an article published in Philosophy and Phenomenological Research that a wide range of animal species exhibit so-called “executive control” when it comes to making decisions, consciously considering their goals and ways to satisfy those goals before acting.

He acknowledges that language is required for some sophisticated forms of metacognition, or thinking about thinking. But bolstered by a review of previously published research, Buckner concludes that a wide variety of animals – elephants, chimpanzees, ravens and lions, among others – engage in rational decision-making.

“These data suggest that not only do some animals have a subjective take on the suitability of the option they are evaluating for their goal, they possess a subjective, internal signal regarding their confidence in this take that can be deployed to select amongst different options,” he wrote.

The question has been debated since the days of the ancient philosophers, as people considered what it means to be human. One way to address that, Buckner said, is to determine exactly what sets humans apart from other animals.

Language remains a key differentiator, and Buckner notes that serious attempts in the 1970s and ‘80s to teach animals human language – teaching chimpanzees to use sign language, for example – found that although they were able to express simple ideas, they did not engage in complex thought and language structures.

Ancient philosophers relied upon anecdotal evidence to study the issue, but today’s researchers conduct sophisticated controlled experiments. Buckner, working with Thomas Bugnyar and Stephan A. Reber, cognitive biologists at the University of Vienna, last year published the results of a study that determined ravens share at least some of the human ability to think abstractly about other minds, adapting their behavior by attributing their own perceptions to others.

In his latest paper, Buckner offers several examples to support his argument:

• Matriarchal elephants in Kenya’s Amboseli National Park were able to determine the threat level of human intruders by differentiating ethnicity, gender and age, suggesting an understanding that adult Maasai tribesmen sometimes kill elephants in competition for grazing or in retaliation for attacks against humans, while Kamba tribesmen and women and children from both tribes don’t pose a threat.
• Giraffes are not generally considered prey by lions in Africa, due to the long-necked animals’ ability to deliver skull-crushing kicks. Lions in South Africa’s Selous Game Reserve, however, are reported to have learned that giraffes found in a sandy river bed can get stuck and even trip, making them suitable prey.

His goal, Buckner said, was to compile the empirical research, “to see that we’ve accumulated enough evidence to say that animals really are rational in a distinctive way.”

... and the debate continues.

 

[nPeace]

Not a coherent response. Yes, Chimp societies have morals, reward and punishment for their behavior. You requested references that primate societies have morals, lying, steeling, murder, morals involving reward and punishment, and rational behavior, and I have provided references to support this and answered your posts.

Your reference of a chip mauling a woman and received appropriate punishment is in a human society, it does show primates can and will assault and commit murder, and my references involve primates and animals involved in moral and rational behavior in their societies.

I always marvel at how you twist my words and add on what you want so that you can claim you addressed my questions.

I think your ways only harm your position, as more people lose respect for scientists who don't stick to science, rather than form their own opinions, and run with assumptions, regardless.

No you have not provided any evidence that primates make rational decisions. They simply respond to situations with the experience they gain, making sure they eat, survive, take care of their young, and secure their territory.

What you have shown me, are unverified assumptions, that fit your belief system.

Spoiler: Assumptions

Are chimpanzees more aggressive than humans? - Jane Goodall.
Studying aggression in chimpanzees has therefore been an important topic of discussion among scientists and has resulted in two main opposing hypotheses regarding its origin. The first is that aggressive behaviour in chimpanzees is a naturally evolved behaviour that resulted in a competitive advantage and better reproductive success. The other hypothesis is that aggressive behaviour in chimpanzees is a result of human interference, with the expansion of human settlements and activities reducing chimpanzee habitat and raising the stress and tension of chimpanzee groups living closer together with fewer available resources.

A recent study by a group of primatologists assessed long-term data on aggressive behaviour in chimpanzees to examine which of the two hypotheses was best supported. Their findings indicated that aggressive behaviour in chimpanzees was more related to adaptive strategies, therefore suggesting an evolutionary origin. They believe that aggressive behaviours in chimpanzees likely resulted in benefits that ultimately led to better access to resources and improved the overall evolutionary fitness of the aggressor.

A key thing to keep in mind is that, just like humans, chimpanzees are not always aggressive, and the aggressive behaviours referenced above represent a small portion of daily chimpanzee behaviours. Chimpanzees spend much more of their time grooming, socializing, and foraging for food in non-aggressive ways. Ultimately, it should come as no surprise that our closest cousins are very similar to humans when it comes to aggression and aggressive behaviour.

Spoiler: Arguments

https://www.pnas.org/content/115/2/245
Two types of aggression in human evolution
Abstract
Two major types of aggression, proactive and reactive, are associated with contrasting expression, eliciting factors, neural pathways, development, and function. The distinction is useful for understanding the nature and evolution of human aggression. Compared with many primates, humans have a high propensity for proactive aggression, a trait shared with chimpanzees but not bonobos. By contrast, humans have a low propensity for reactive aggression compared with chimpanzees, and in this respect humans are more bonobo-like. The bimodal classification of human aggression helps solve two important puzzles. First, a long-standing debate about the significance of aggression in human nature is misconceived, because both positions are partly correct. The Hobbes–Huxley position rightly recognizes the high potential for proactive violence, while the Rousseau–Kropotkin position correctly notes the low frequency of reactive aggression. Second, the occurrence of two major types of human aggression solves the execution paradox, concerned with the hypothesized effects of capital punishment on self-domestication in the Pleistocene. The puzzle is that the propensity for aggressive behavior was supposedly reduced as a result of being selected against by capital punishment, but capital punishment is itself an aggressive behavior. Since the aggression used by executioners is proactive, the execution paradox is solved to the extent that the aggressive behavior of which victims were accused was frequently reactive, as has been reported. Both types of killing are important in humans, although proactive killing appears to be typically more frequent in war. The biology of proactive aggression is less well known and merits increased attention.

proactive aggressionreactive aggressionhuman evolutionself-domesticationcapital punishment
Much human aggression is either currently adaptive or derived from adaptive strategies. Patterns of violence therefore appear to have been shaped by natural selection. However, an unresolved question is whether human propensities for aggression have evolved to be relatively low or high.

Two opposed positions predominate. Before Darwin they are often considered to have been represented by the contrasting stances of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Thomas Hobbes, and afterward by those of evolutionists Peter Kropotkin and Thomas Henry Huxley. The “Rousseau–Kropotkin paradigm” sees humans as a naturally benign and unaggressive species, comparable to primates that have a consistently low frequency of conflict (e.g., Callitrichidae or muriqui, Brachyteles arachnoides). This position therefore considers violence to be promoted mainly by recent cultural novelties, such as settled living, patriarchal ideology, or lethal technology. The “Hobbes–Huxley paradigm,” in contrast, rejects the idea of the noble savage and holds violence in the evolutionary past to have been frequent and adaptive. By this view human tendencies are more like those of primates with steep dominance hierarchies and relatively frequent deaths from aggression, such as chacma baboons, Papio ursinus, and chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes. Accordingly, cultural constraints on violence, such as social controls exerted by a powerful leader, are considered to be responsible for human societies’ being relatively peaceful. In short, Rousseau–Kropotkin sees humans as a naturally peaceful species corrupted by society, while Hobbes–Huxley sees humans as a naturally aggressive species civilized by society.

In this paper I argue that the two opposed perspectives are both inadequate because they suffer from the same problem: They wrongly treat aggression as a single behavioral category.

Spoiler: Irrational

Aggressive behaviour - Functions and evolution of aggression
Aggression sometimes occurs when parents defend their young from attack by members of their own species. Female mice, for example, defend their pups against hostile neighbours, while male stickleback fish defend eggs and fry against cannibalistic attack. More frequently, however, animals fight over resources such as food and shelter—e.g., vultures fight over access to carcasses, and hermit crabs fight over empty shells. Another important resource over which fighting commonly occurs is potential mates.

This is not to suggest that animals make rational calculations about the consequences of their behaviour. Rather, it is assumed that natural selection, acting over thousands of generations, has resulted in the evolution of animals that are able to adjust their behaviour to the circumstances in which fights occur, by mechanisms that may well be unconscious (like the neuroendocrine effects described in the section Neuroendocrine influences).
Aggression may be focused on a specific area, such as a defended territory from which rivals are vigorously excluded. A notable example is shown by mudskippers, intertidal fish that defend small territories where they browse on microscopic plants. The fish build mud walls around the borders of their territories, and at low tide water is retained within the walls (incidentally permitting the human observer to visualize the mosaic of territories in a colony of these fish). Territorial behaviour is also shown by rag worms and fiddler crabs when they defend their burrows, by male dragonflies and sticklebacks defending breeding grounds, by male tree frogs, sage grouse, and Uganda kob defending high-quality sites for courting and mating, and by spiders, reef fish, and hyenas when they defend feeding areas.

Then they claim it's only religious that disagree with each other about this or that.
It would be nice if you did stuck to science, instead of promoting your preferred ideas and assumptions like some religious debater.
It would also be nice if you did not continue putting people's lives in danger with your evolution doctrine.

 

[nPeace]

Spoiler: Vicious

Ferocity of chimpanzee attack stuns medics, leaves questions
St. James and LaDonna Davis raised Moe the chimp as their son. That was the word they used to describe him, and that was how they treated him -- like a hairy, rambunctious child who was a pampered member of the family.

They taught him to wear clothes, to take showers, to use the toilet, and to watch television in their West Covina, Calif., home.

On Thursday, the day they marked as Moe's 39th birthday, their love for the chimp nearly cost them their lives.

The Davises were visiting Moe at an animal sanctuary in the hills of eastern Kern County -- a place to which he had been banished after biting a woman -- when they were attacked by two other chimps and brutally mauled.

St. James Davis took the brunt of the attack, the ferocity of which left paramedics stunned. ''I had no idea a chimpanzee was capable of doing that to a human," said Kern County Fire Captain Curt Merrell, who was on the scene.

Davis, who remained in critical condition Friday, was badly disfigured. According to his wife, he lost all the fingers from both hands, an eye, part of his nose, cheek and lips, and part of his buttocks. His foot was mutilated and his heel bone was cracked.

LaDonna, 61, said she was sitting at a table with her husband, getting ready to cut the chimp's birthday cake, when she saw the two other chimps out of the corner of her eye. Moe, according to other accounts, was still in his cage.

Male chimps usually stand about 4 feet tall and weigh between 90 and 120 pounds, specialists say. They are strong and aggressive animals who routinely kill and devour much larger animals in the wild. Their upper body strength is said to be five to 10 times that of the average human.

Carruthers shot Ollie, but the shot had no apparent effect. He reloaded the gun with more powerful, fully jacketed, ammunition, this time turning on the first chimp, Buddy.

Carruthers ''kneeled down, got pretty close and shot the first chimp in the head," Chealander said. ''When he fell off Mr. Davis, the second chimp attacked Mr. Davis and dragged him down a walkway by the back of the house. . . . By this time, Mr. Davis was really torn up."

Carruthers followed, and shot the second chimp in the head, ending the attack.

Why not do science for a change, and leave the guessing to us religious folk , would be my suggestion,

Instead of misleading the public with... I call them, religious ideas.

I found the last paragraph quite appalling.

Spoiler

Ape specialist Deborah Fouts, director of the Chimp and Human Communication Institute at Central Washington University, said the attack may have been prompted by jealousy.

''Chimpanzees have a real sense of right and wrong and fairness and unfairness," said Fouts, a veteran of four decades of work with chimps. ''It sounds like people were showering a lot of attention on Moe, birthday cake and the like. . . . Perhaps the other chimps were jealous of Moe."

What a terrible assumption to make, in light of the fact that these two "moral" chimps thought it morally right to murder two innocent persons.
I'm glad she works in this field, and not psychology, or psychiatry.

If they are so rational, why didn't they just talk to the nice couple, and tell them to leave the place, and then drag the cake from Moe, and eat it?
That would convince me of how rational there are.
What an appalling promotion of a false belief system... imo.
More people will think that they can keep chimps, and do a better job.

How sad.

Spoiler: An Interview

Why would a chimpanzee attack a human?
To find out more about chimpanzee attacks, we spoke with Frans de Waal, lead biologist from the Yerkes National Primate Research Center. He is affiliated with the Living Links Center at Emory University in Atlanta where he is a professor of psychology, and is also author of The New York Times notable book of the year, Our Inner Ape.

[An edited transcript of the interview follows.]

Are captive chimpanzee attacks on humans common?
Yeah, definitely common. Most of the time they attack through cage bars. They bite off fingers. It happens more often with people they don't know very well and people who aren't familiar with chimpanzees. But it has happened to many of the best scientists and researchers, who are now missing digits. The reason we have them behind bars in zoos and research settings is because chimpanzees can be very dangerous — it's to protect ourselves. This was a sort of free-ranging chimp, which is much more dangerous.

But chimps in the wild are not used to people — they're afraid of them. That's why Jane Goodall had to habituate them. So, really wild chimps don't attack people. But in captivity, they have learned in the meantime that they are stronger than humans.

How strong are they?
The chimpanzee has strength for a human that is utterly incomprehensible. People watch pro wrestlers on TV and think they are strong. But a pro wrestler would not be able to hold a chimpanzee still if they wanted to. Chimpanzee males have been measured as having five times the arm strength as a human male. Even a young chimpanzee of four or five years, you could not hold it still if you wanted to. Pound-for-pound, their muscles are much stronger. And the adult males, like Travis—unless his were filed down—have big canine teeth. So you have a very dangerous creature in front of you that is impossible to control.

Do chimps in captivity show more aggressive behavior than those in the wild?
In the wild they're pretty aggressive. They have warfare among groups, where males kill other males, and they have been known to commit infanticide. Aggression is a common part of the chimpanzee behavior, whether it's between or within groups.

They can show tremendous mutilation. They go for the face; they go for the hands and feet; they go for the testicles. To outsiders, they have very nasty behaviors.

Are male chimpanzees more aggressive than females?
Yes, that's for sure.

What might cause a chimp to attack someone it knows?
They're very complex creatures. People must not assume that with someone they already know there's not some underlying tension. It's often impossible to figure out what reason they have for attacking.

Having a chimp in your home is like having a tiger in your home. It's not really very different. They are both very dangerous.

Do you think Lyme disease or the Xanax might have been a factor in the attack?
It's all possible. It's possible it was the Xanax. In general, in chimpanzees—because they are so genetically close to us—they will react very similarly to drugs. It might be that the dosages are different, but it really should be pretty much the same.

A chimp in your home is like a time bomb. It may go off for a reason that we may never understand. I don't know any chimp relationship that has been harmonious. Usually these animals end up in a cage. They cannot be controlled.

When a chimp is young, they're very cute and affectionate and funny and playful. There's a lot of appeal. But that's like a tiger cub—they're also a lot of fun to have.

What happens when people decide they can't live with a chimpanzee pet any longer?
There are chimpanzee sanctuaries. If you want to put a chimp in a sanctuary, I would think you would have to come with a lot of money—it's pretty much for lifelong maintenance. A chimp can live for about 50 years, and 10 is usually the age when people don't want them any more. So that's 40 years of care.

I don't know where people would find these animals or why you would want to have them. Even if a chimp were not dangerous, you have to wonder if the chimp is happy in a human household environment.

One relevant portion of the reference you apparently did not read:

"Every species of ape and monkey has its own protocol for reconciliation after fights, Dr. de Waal has found. If two males fail to make up, female chimpanzees will often bring the rivals together, as if sensing that discord makes their community worse off and more vulnerable to attack by neighbors. Or they will head off a fight by taking stones out of the males’ hands. Dr. de Waal believes that these actions are undertaken for the greater good of the community, as distinct from person-to-person relationships, and are a significant precursor of morality in human societies. Macaques and chimpanzees have a sense of social order and rules of expected behavior, mostly to do with the hierarchical natures of their societies, in which each member knows its own place. Young rhesus monkeys learn quickly how to behave, and occasionally get a finger or toe bitten off as punishment. Other primates also have a sense of reciprocity and fairness. They remember who did them favors and who did them wrong. Chimps are more likely to share food with those who have groomed them. Capuchin monkeys show their displeasure if given a smaller reward than a partner receives for performing the same task, like a piece of cucumber instead of a grape."

Yes. More assumptions - just like your assuming I didn't read it. Hence it's not relevant.

 

[shunyadragon]

I always marvel at how you twist my words and add on what you want so that you can claim you addressed my questions.

I think your ways only harm your position, as more people lose respect for scientists who don't stick to science, rather than form their own opinions, and run with assumptions, regardless.

No you have not provided any evidence that primates make rational decisions. They simply respond to situations with the experience they gain, making sure they eat, survive, take care of their young, and secure their territory.

What you have shown me, are unverified assumptions, that fit your belief system.

Spoiler: Assumptions

Are chimpanzees more aggressive than humans? - Jane Goodall.
Studying aggression in chimpanzees has therefore been an important topic of discussion among scientists and has resulted in two main opposing hypotheses regarding its origin. The first is that aggressive behaviour in chimpanzees is a naturally evolved behaviour that resulted in a competitive advantage and better reproductive success. The other hypothesis is that aggressive behaviour in chimpanzees is a result of human interference, with the expansion of human settlements and activities reducing chimpanzee habitat and raising the stress and tension of chimpanzee groups living closer together with fewer available resources.

A recent study by a group of primatologists assessed long-term data on aggressive behaviour in chimpanzees to examine which of the two hypotheses was best supported. Their findings indicated that aggressive behaviour in chimpanzees was more related to adaptive strategies, therefore suggesting an evolutionary origin. They believe that aggressive behaviours in chimpanzees likely resulted in benefits that ultimately led to better access to resources and improved the overall evolutionary fitness of the aggressor.

A key thing to keep in mind is that, just like humans, chimpanzees are not always aggressive, and the aggressive behaviours referenced above represent a small portion of daily chimpanzee behaviours. Chimpanzees spend much more of their time grooming, socializing, and foraging for food in non-aggressive ways. Ultimately, it should come as no surprise that our closest cousins are very similar to humans when it comes to aggression and aggressive behaviour.

Spoiler: Arguments

https://www.pnas.org/content/115/2/245
Two types of aggression in human evolution
Abstract
Two major types of aggression, proactive and reactive, are associated with contrasting expression, eliciting factors, neural pathways, development, and function. The distinction is useful for understanding the nature and evolution of human aggression. Compared with many primates, humans have a high propensity for proactive aggression, a trait shared with chimpanzees but not bonobos. By contrast, humans have a low propensity for reactive aggression compared with chimpanzees, and in this respect humans are more bonobo-like. The bimodal classification of human aggression helps solve two important puzzles. First, a long-standing debate about the significance of aggression in human nature is misconceived, because both positions are partly correct. The Hobbes–Huxley position rightly recognizes the high potential for proactive violence, while the Rousseau–Kropotkin position correctly notes the low frequency of reactive aggression. Second, the occurrence of two major types of human aggression solves the execution paradox, concerned with the hypothesized effects of capital punishment on self-domestication in the Pleistocene. The puzzle is that the propensity for aggressive behavior was supposedly reduced as a result of being selected against by capital punishment, but capital punishment is itself an aggressive behavior. Since the aggression used by executioners is proactive, the execution paradox is solved to the extent that the aggressive behavior of which victims were accused was frequently reactive, as has been reported. Both types of killing are important in humans, although proactive killing appears to be typically more frequent in war. The biology of proactive aggression is less well known and merits increased attention.

proactive aggressionreactive aggressionhuman evolutionself-domesticationcapital punishment
Much human aggression is either currently adaptive or derived from adaptive strategies. Patterns of violence therefore appear to have been shaped by natural selection. However, an unresolved question is whether human propensities for aggression have evolved to be relatively low or high.

Two opposed positions predominate. Before Darwin they are often considered to have been represented by the contrasting stances of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Thomas Hobbes, and afterward by those of evolutionists Peter Kropotkin and Thomas Henry Huxley. The “Rousseau–Kropotkin paradigm” sees humans as a naturally benign and unaggressive species, comparable to primates that have a consistently low frequency of conflict (e.g., Callitrichidae or muriqui, Brachyteles arachnoides). This position therefore considers violence to be promoted mainly by recent cultural novelties, such as settled living, patriarchal ideology, or lethal technology. The “Hobbes–Huxley paradigm,” in contrast, rejects the idea of the noble savage and holds violence in the evolutionary past to have been frequent and adaptive. By this view human tendencies are more like those of primates with steep dominance hierarchies and relatively frequent deaths from aggression, such as chacma baboons, Papio ursinus, and chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes. Accordingly, cultural constraints on violence, such as social controls exerted by a powerful leader, are considered to be responsible for human societies’ being relatively peaceful. In short, Rousseau–Kropotkin sees humans as a naturally peaceful species corrupted by society, while Hobbes–Huxley sees humans as a naturally aggressive species civilized by society.

In this paper I argue that the two opposed perspectives are both inadequate because they suffer from the same problem: They wrongly treat aggression as a single behavioral category.

Spoiler: Irrational

Aggressive behaviour - Functions and evolution of aggression
Aggression sometimes occurs when parents defend their young from attack by members of their own species. Female mice, for example, defend their pups against hostile neighbours, while male stickleback fish defend eggs and fry against cannibalistic attack. More frequently, however, animals fight over resources such as food and shelter—e.g., vultures fight over access to carcasses, and hermit crabs fight over empty shells. Another important resource over which fighting commonly occurs is potential mates.

This is not to suggest that animals make rational calculations about the consequences of their behaviour. Rather, it is assumed that natural selection, acting over thousands of generations, has resulted in the evolution of animals that are able to adjust their behaviour to the circumstances in which fights occur, by mechanisms that may well be unconscious (like the neuroendocrine effects described in the section Neuroendocrine influences).
Aggression may be focused on a specific area, such as a defended territory from which rivals are vigorously excluded. A notable example is shown by mudskippers, intertidal fish that defend small territories where they browse on microscopic plants. The fish build mud walls around the borders of their territories, and at low tide water is retained within the walls (incidentally permitting the human observer to visualize the mosaic of territories in a colony of these fish). Territorial behaviour is also shown by rag worms and fiddler crabs when they defend their burrows, by male dragonflies and sticklebacks defending breeding grounds, by male tree frogs, sage grouse, and Uganda kob defending high-quality sites for courting and mating, and by spiders, reef fish, and hyenas when they defend feeding areas.

The same can be said for human behavior. You asked the questions and I responded with references.

Then they claim it's only religious that disagree with each other about this or that.
It would be nice if you did stuck to science, instead of promoting your preferred ideas and assumptions like some religious debater.
It would also be nice if you did not continue putting people's lives in danger with your evolution doctrine.

It is your anti-science, ancient mythology agenda that tries to turn back time to an age where human lives are in danger.

 

[shunyadragon]

Spoiler: Vicious

Ferocity of chimpanzee attack stuns medics, leaves questions
St. James and LaDonna Davis raised Moe the chimp as their son. That was the word they used to describe him, and that was how they treated him -- like a hairy, rambunctious child who was a pampered member of the family.

They taught him to wear clothes, to take showers, to use the toilet, and to watch television in their West Covina, Calif., home.

On Thursday, the day they marked as Moe's 39th birthday, their love for the chimp nearly cost them their lives.

The Davises were visiting Moe at an animal sanctuary in the hills of eastern Kern County -- a place to which he had been banished after biting a woman -- when they were attacked by two other chimps and brutally mauled.

St. James Davis took the brunt of the attack, the ferocity of which left paramedics stunned. ''I had no idea a chimpanzee was capable of doing that to a human," said Kern County Fire Captain Curt Merrell, who was on the scene.

Davis, who remained in critical condition Friday, was badly disfigured. According to his wife, he lost all the fingers from both hands, an eye, part of his nose, cheek and lips, and part of his buttocks. His foot was mutilated and his heel bone was cracked.

LaDonna, 61, said she was sitting at a table with her husband, getting ready to cut the chimp's birthday cake, when she saw the two other chimps out of the corner of her eye. Moe, according to other accounts, was still in his cage.

Male chimps usually stand about 4 feet tall and weigh between 90 and 120 pounds, specialists say. They are strong and aggressive animals who routinely kill and devour much larger animals in the wild. Their upper body strength is said to be five to 10 times that of the average human.

Carruthers shot Ollie, but the shot had no apparent effect. He reloaded the gun with more powerful, fully jacketed, ammunition, this time turning on the first chimp, Buddy.

Carruthers ''kneeled down, got pretty close and shot the first chimp in the head," Chealander said. ''When he fell off Mr. Davis, the second chimp attacked Mr. Davis and dragged him down a walkway by the back of the house. . . . By this time, Mr. Davis was really torn up."

Carruthers followed, and shot the second chimp in the head, ending the attack.

Why not do science for a change, and leave the guessing to us religious folk , would be my suggestion,

Instead of misleading the public with... I call them, religious ideas.

I found the last paragraph quite appalling.

Spoiler

Ape specialist Deborah Fouts, director of the Chimp and Human Communication Institute at Central Washington University, said the attack may have been prompted by jealousy.

''Chimpanzees have a real sense of right and wrong and fairness and unfairness," said Fouts, a veteran of four decades of work with chimps. ''It sounds like people were showering a lot of attention on Moe, birthday cake and the like. . . . Perhaps the other chimps were jealous of Moe."

What a terrible assumption to make, in light of the fact that these two "moral" chimps thought it morally right to murder two innocent persons.
I'm glad she works in this field, and not psychology, or psychiatry.

If they are so rational, why didn't they just talk to the nice couple, and tell them to leave the place, and then drag the cake from Moe, and eat it?
That would convince me of how rational there are.
What an appalling promotion of a false belief system... imo.
More people will think that they can keep chimps, and do a better job.

How sad.

Spoiler: An Interview

Why would a chimpanzee attack a human?
To find out more about chimpanzee attacks, we spoke with Frans de Waal, lead biologist from the Yerkes National Primate Research Center. He is affiliated with the Living Links Center at Emory University in Atlanta where he is a professor of psychology, and is also author of The New York Times notable book of the year, Our Inner Ape.

[An edited transcript of the interview follows.]

Are captive chimpanzee attacks on humans common?
Yeah, definitely common. Most of the time they attack through cage bars. They bite off fingers. It happens more often with people they don't know very well and people who aren't familiar with chimpanzees. But it has happened to many of the best scientists and researchers, who are now missing digits. The reason we have them behind bars in zoos and research settings is because chimpanzees can be very dangerous — it's to protect ourselves. This was a sort of free-ranging chimp, which is much more dangerous.

But chimps in the wild are not used to people — they're afraid of them. That's why Jane Goodall had to habituate them. So, really wild chimps don't attack people. But in captivity, they have learned in the meantime that they are stronger than humans.

How strong are they?
The chimpanzee has strength for a human that is utterly incomprehensible. People watch pro wrestlers on TV and think they are strong. But a pro wrestler would not be able to hold a chimpanzee still if they wanted to. Chimpanzee males have been measured as having five times the arm strength as a human male. Even a young chimpanzee of four or five years, you could not hold it still if you wanted to. Pound-for-pound, their muscles are much stronger. And the adult males, like Travis—unless his were filed down—have big canine teeth. So you have a very dangerous creature in front of you that is impossible to control.

Do chimps in captivity show more aggressive behavior than those in the wild?
In the wild they're pretty aggressive. They have warfare among groups, where males kill other males, and they have been known to commit infanticide. Aggression is a common part of the chimpanzee behavior, whether it's between or within groups.

They can show tremendous mutilation. They go for the face; they go for the hands and feet; they go for the testicles. To outsiders, they have very nasty behaviors.

Are male chimpanzees more aggressive than females?
Yes, that's for sure.

What might cause a chimp to attack someone it knows?
They're very complex creatures. People must not assume that with someone they already know there's not some underlying tension. It's often impossible to figure out what reason they have for attacking.

Having a chimp in your home is like having a tiger in your home. It's not really very different. They are both very dangerous.

Do you think Lyme disease or the Xanax might have been a factor in the attack?
It's all possible. It's possible it was the Xanax. In general, in chimpanzees—because they are so genetically close to us—they will react very similarly to drugs. It might be that the dosages are different, but it really should be pretty much the same.

A chimp in your home is like a time bomb. It may go off for a reason that we may never understand. I don't know any chimp relationship that has been harmonious. Usually these animals end up in a cage. They cannot be controlled.

When a chimp is young, they're very cute and affectionate and funny and playful. There's a lot of appeal. But that's like a tiger cub—they're also a lot of fun to have.

What happens when people decide they can't live with a chimpanzee pet any longer?
There are chimpanzee sanctuaries. If you want to put a chimp in a sanctuary, I would think you would have to come with a lot of money—it's pretty much for lifelong maintenance. A chimp can live for about 50 years, and 10 is usually the age when people don't want them any more. So that's 40 years of care.

I don't know where people would find these animals or why you would want to have them. Even if a chimp were not dangerous, you have to wonder if the chimp is happy in a human household environment.

Yes. More assumptions - just like your assuming I didn't read it. Hence it's not relevant.

Rambling nonsense will not resolve the fact that you made requests for references and I provided them.

 

[shunyadragon]

If one lacks spirituality, yes.
To the contrary, I agree with the one who said, "Man must live not on bread alone", ad "Seek first the kingdom of God".


... and the debate continues.

Air ball, no response.

 

[shunyadragon]

If one lacks spirituality, yes.
To the contrary, I agree with the one who said, "Man must live not on bread alone", ad "Seek first the kingdom of God".

I do not believe this is an issue from the perspective of our dialogue.

... and the debate continues.

What I provide is documented peer reviewed literature that answered your questions. .

 

[nPeace]

@shunyadragon
Morality
noun
principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
"the matter boiled down to simple morality: innocent prisoners ought to be freed"

a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society.
plural noun: moralities
"a bourgeois morality"

the extent to which an action is right or wrong.
"behind all the arguments lies the issue of the morality of the possession of nuclear weapons"

Do Animals Think Rationally?
Previous research has shown that animals can remember specific events, use tools and solve problems. But exactly what that means – whether they are making rational decisions or simply reacting to their environment through mindless reflex – remains a matter of scientific dispute.

Whether or not to smoke cigars and whether or not to believe in voodoo are not moral decisions. Conscience is an intuitive moral guide only.

So lying is not a moral decision?
So there is no conscience toward God, for worshipers? (1 Peter 2:19 ; 1 Corinthians 10:25-30)
What are you basing that opinion on?
I suppose you think smoking, or using drugs is not a moral issue, as well?

If you don't understand the difference between a moral choice and one that is not, your can't possibly understand morality. Understanding the difference is basic.

Are you taking notes? I hope so.

 

[shunyadragon]

@shunyadragon
Morality
noun
principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
"the matter boiled down to simple morality: innocent prisoners ought to be freed"

a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society.
plural noun: moralities
"a bourgeois morality"

the extent to which an action is right or wrong.
"behind all the arguments lies the issue of the morality of the possession of nuclear weapons"

Do Animals Think Rationally?
Previous research has shown that animals can remember specific events, use tools and solve problems. But exactly what that means – whether they are making rational decisions or simply reacting to their environment through mindless reflex – remains a matter of scientific dispute.

As referenced by direct observation non-human animals exhibit all of the above in primitive moral and rational behavior. You asked the questions and I provide the references.

Are you taking notes? I hope so.

Are yu taking notes and reading the references? I provided . . . I doubt it.

 

[nPeace]

As referenced by direct observation non-human animals exhibit all of the above in primitive moral and rational behavior. You asked the questions and I provide the references.



Are yu taking notes and reading the references? I provided . . . I doubt it.

All I hear is you parroting yourself. What would you like me to do... Be a parrot too.
That's not meaningful.
You are just doing what shunyadragon usually does best.
If I say no, you will parrot yourself for the rest of the thread.
That makes no sense to me, so

 

[shunyadragon]

All I hear is you parroting yourself. What would you like me to do... Be a parrot too.

I am not parroting myself and I have cited objectively verifiable references, and yes you have offered nothing except parroting your assertions and no references to support your assumptions. That's not meaningful.

 

[nPeace]

I am not parroting myself and I have cited objectively verifiable references, and yes you have offered nothing except parroting your assertions and no references to support your assumptions. That's not meaningful.

What? Can you please be honest! What can be worst than a lying scientist!
You keep using that expression "objectively verifiable" on these forums, and yet produce no scientific consensus on the subject.
If a hypothesis, or hypotheses are not even theory, how can they be objectively verified?
Please stop the blatant lies. It reflects badly on you, and science!
I'm done with your nonsense! You can continue your religious babbling... but if you persist on my threads, consider yourself listed on my ignore list.

Do Animals Think Rationally?
Previous research has shown that animals can remember specific events, use tools and solve problems. But exactly what that means – whether they are making rational decisions or simply reacting to their environment through mindless reflex – remains a matter of scientific dispute.

As a scientist, do you agree that it is debated, whether animals think rationally? Does a consensus exist on the matter? Are these proposals hypotheses?