Primate Social Instincts, Human Morality, and the Rise and Fall of "Veneer Theory"[/align]
Please use this thread for discussing Part I: Morally Evolved.
![Smile :smile:](./images/smilies/icon_smile.gif)
In total there are 2 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 2 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
Most users ever online was 871 on Fri Apr 19, 2024 12:00 am
Quite.MaryLupin wrote:I find de Waal’s project interesting.
I don't know that it is a matter of caring or selfish per se. When you look at the social contract theory of Rousseau (perhaps the most widly recognized of social contract theorists), what he is saying that the more man is removed from his true (animal) nature the better he will fit into social organization. De Waal, thank God, refutes this. I think that Hobbes greatly influenced Rousseau's thinking but was always much more concerned with the breaking up of social order rather than a human's introduction into it. I want to read the essay you posted really bad, but I don't have the time.MaryLupin wrote:1. Is it better to think of this book as trying to prove that we are just as caring as we are selfish?
Not have read the essay, I would hedge my bets and guess that they are both using different means to point towards the validity of...something. Essentially it is my opinion that nothing these thinkers produced should be disregarded "off-handedly." It may be more valuable to know exactly why they were wrong rather than why we may be right.MaryLupin wrote:2.If Hobbes and Rawls are working from different presumptions about the nature of the world, are they really arguing the same thing?
I would think of de Waal as directly challenging Hobbes and Rousseau. But it is also important to rememeber that these names have been dead...for a while. They can't defend themselves and we shouldn't expect it of ourselves to be able to relate to the atmosphere of their times as little we can expect that they would be able to visualize our own.MaryLupin wrote:3. And if not, is de Waal really arguing against what they said or against the cultural presuppositions that gave rise to their various theories?
From Mary Lupin: 1. Is it better to think of this book as trying to prove that we are just as caring as we are selfish?
Huxley was actually the original inventor of the veneer theory, and I guess you would have to say that he and Hobbes both believe humans to be antisocial creatures. Rawls believes that we became social only because there was benefit/protection in the community (selfish reasons you could argue). I think all three of these philosophers are arguing the same thing.From Mary Lupin: 2. If Hobbes and Rawls are working from different presumptions about the nature of the world, are they really arguing the same thing?
I think de Waal is definitely arguing against what they said. Please see the Table on page 22 of the book.From Mary Lupin: 3. And if not, is de Waal really arguing against what they said or against the cultural presuppositions that gave rise to their various theories?
[moral emotions] differ from kindred non-moral emotions by their disinterestedness, apparent impartiality, and flavour of generality.
Unfortunately, the emphasis on individual autonomy and rationality and a corresponding neglect of emotions and attachment are not restricted to the humanities and social sciences.
Tarav, the apparent contradiction may be resolved by seeing how autonomy differs from impartiality.tarav wrote:It seems to me de Waal contradicts himself with respect to emotions and morality. He argues that morality is exhibited by individuals who can be disinterested and impartial. Those words seem to convey a lack of emotion to me. Those words seem to convey rational thought. However, earlier in the chapter, de Waal seems to lament the idea that other scientists equate morality with rationality and detachment. The following quotes might help you see what I'm saying. Let me know what you think.
On p 20 de Waal agrees with and cites Westermarck, who says,Yet on p 6 de Waal says,[moral emotions] differ from kindred non-moral emotions by their disinterestedness, apparent impartiality, and flavour of generality.Unfortunately, the emphasis on individual autonomy and rationality and a corresponding neglect of emotions and attachment are not restricted to the humanities and social sciences.
I have read but can't quote the source (obviously not a randomized clinical study - most probably from Woman's Day magazine) that women who never marry live the longest of all women.On p 5 de Waal mentions a study by Taylor that found that men who are married have a 90% chance of living past 65yrs old while unmarried men have only a 65% chance. I wonder what the stats are for women. Does anyone know?