Aah, Suzanne... I shall live to a ripe old age then! LOL

tarav,

I hope you have a wonderful long life. In the article that I read, I think they studied longevity in nuns and came to the conclusion that they lived longer than non-nuns, and this increased longevity may be related to not having the stresses (etc.) that alot of married women have.

However, maybe there is something else about nuns that causes them to live longer -- their faith and compassion, for instance.

I'm sure genetics is also a big factor. Luckily for me, my mother will be 92 in September and is in great health.

I have read these studies also, that married men live longer than single men, but single women live longer than married women. The conclusion generally seems to be that marriage is better for men than women. But, there could be other reasons. Men do not live as long as women, therefore, married women will generally lose their spouse and be alone. Perhaps, it is this loneliness of missing their beloved lifelong companion that causes their health to deteriorate more rapidly.

A study earlier this year led by Linda Waite, a sociologist at the University of Chicago, showed that happily married couples tend to live longer than unwed individuals. Married men were found to live, on average, 10 years longer than non-married men, and married women lived about four years longer than non-married woman.

http://www.livescience.com/health/06052 ... earch.html

I think the study above is interesting, men live 10 years to the woman's 4. Married or not, I think you will live longer if you are happy.

I say "Amen" to your last sentence, Suzanne. I think being happy and having good self esteem are key to enhancing the immune system and to living longer.

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.

My comment on your interesting question is that De Waal does say that morality requires the cognitive capacity that only humans have. The contradiction with his lament about the scientists might be explained by his citation of Antonio D'Amasio (p. 38), whose work shows that even in rational decision-making, we must have an emotional investment or else we just have no "reason" to make a choice at all. So, no, we can't be entirely rational and would not want to be. Some scientists assume that we are these entirely rational agents.

I want to stick in another comment about De Waal's Veneer Theory. Maybe this is not entirely a fair judgment, but I do see De Wall putting up a straw man here. It is apparently De Waal himself who names Veneer Theory. Then he attacks the theory (chart on p. 22) as not in fact a theory at all! If I am mistaken about the origin of Veneer Theory, someone please let me know. De Waal also acknowledges a tradition running from Aristotle through Westermarck of humans as primarily social creatures, contrary to what VT says. He is saying little new, perhaps, only observing that some modern commentators have gone off in the other direction of viewing humans as by nature selfish and isolated. The key point here might be the extent to which these other scientists actually articulate this view, vs. the impression De Wall gets from their writing.

I can't see a strong reason to object to T.H. Huxley's view. I haven't read the context of his remarks and probably should. But just on the face of it, I can see no contradiction between believing in Darwin's theory and also believing that humans must be vigilant lest our aggressive, selfish, or self-deceiving tendencies overtake us. There is a large amount of empirical evidence of humans screwing up to support such a view, after all. What is wrong with viewing us as gardeners as Huxley does? It seems like simple prudence not to be overconfident in any innate goodness we have. Where exactly is the "veneer" in his view, anyway? De Waal tells us that Huxley's view goes way back to the Garden of Eden myth, which I'm sure is true, but by this does he mean to discredit it? I would say that the mythic origin of the view tends to back up its truth. De Waal seems to want to promote too simple a view of our nature, that we are "good by nature." But the facts don't support such a simple view, unfortunately.

I agree with the Suzannes in that happiness is key! I am still interested in the idea that women who are married have less of an increase in life expectancy than married men. Are women generally not as happy in marriages as men? Why? Thank you, Suzanne for the link. It is interesting that the livescience.com article said,
[quote]The researchers speculated that married men live longer because they adopt healthier lifestyles and take fewer risks. Married woman, on the other hand, probably live longer because of the improved financial well-being that comes with marriage.[quote]
I wish there would've been some speculation as to why there is a difference between the sexes.
Also, thank you to Will and Robert for their responses on emotions and rationality.

The differences between apes and man seem...inconsolable.

The lessons to be learned from the apes are not inconceivable in other creative disciplines of thought.

De Waal goes so far as to suggest that primatologists are suited to be moral or ethical theorists a priori. Twice! This is absurd.

The lives and social interactions of monkeys seem to exemplify best our childern rather than our organized civiliztion.

Can we talk about morals in any sense other than anthropomorphically? Can we even hope to realistically understand the happiness of another species much less its sense of tolerance or impartialty in a meaningful sense? Without anthropormorphism?

Does de Waal really present meaningful considerations in respect to moral philosophy and eithcs? If so what are they?

Is this Vaneer Theory really describing an influence which lays overtop of our physical consciousness, or underneath? (i.e Are we human people in an overtopping culture trapped under modern reason, or are we people made reasonable within a mixture of culture/morality in us as a foundation?) Do monkeys act different (morally or however) in captivity, or after being trained?

Is de Waal's argument capable of refuting any serious contemporary moral philosophers, in an way other than as a type of Footnote Theory (FT)? If not the title of this book is seriously misleading.

Exactly which philosophers are de Waal's thoughts connecting to?

---

Still on vacation ....actually wasn't able to read seriously much of the book yet!!

Grim wrote: The lives and social interactions of monkeys seem to exemplify best our childern rather than our organized civiliztion.

Well, it's a building blocks approach he's promoting. We can see the beginning elements of our complex civilization in the social systems of primates. He believes the differences between us are explained in terms of our levels of development, and that in other primates we see a basic similarity in the importance of reciprocity to their societies.

Can we talk about morals in any sense other than anthropomorphically? Can we even hope to realistically understand the happiness of another species much less its sense of tolerance or impartialty in a meaningful sense? Without anthropormorphism?

If we're going to talk about the morality of animals, I think you're correct that we'll have to be talking anthropomorphically. But I don't see de Waal saying that animals have morality, only that we humans would not have morality without the building blocks that we also see in other primates.

Does de Waal really present meaningful considerations in respect to moral philosophy and eithcs? If so what are they?

This is a good question--the "so what?" factor. I think that in his main essay de Waal is mostly concerned with showing the inadequacy of veneer theory. He does say, though, that from studying primates and their proto-morality, we can correct our perspective on the nature or source of our own ethics. "[W]e are standing at the threshold of a much larger shift in theorizing that will end up positioning morality firmly within the emotional core of human nature" (p. 56). He wants to put rationality in a distant second place when it comes to influence on our ethics.

Is this Vaneer Theory really describing an influence which lays overtop of our physical consciousness, or underneath? (i.e Are we human people in an overtopping culture trapped under modern reason, or are we people made reasonable within a mixture of culture/morality in us as a foundation?) Do monkeys act different (morally or however) in captivity, or after being trained?

Maybe, after your vacation, you'll find these questions cleared up by the commentators on de Waal's essay. The thrust of their argument seems to be that veneer theory is not very plausible in itself, and not really held by actual theorists. Therefore, we don't have to be concerned with questions like the ones you ask.

Is de Waal's argument capable of refuting any serious contemporary moral philosophers, in an way other than as a type of Footnote Theory (FT)? If not the title of this book is seriously misleading.

I suppose that his claim that emotion is more important than rationality, could be considered a refutaion to some moral theorists. The title of the book still might be misleading, or at least ambiguous. Publishers like to be provocative to spur sales. But I think it's reasonable to say that we can learn something about our ethics by studying primates, if not learn FROM the ethics of primates.

DWill wrote:de Waal is mostly concerned with showing the inadequacy of veneer theory. He does say, though, that from studying primates and their proto-morality, we can correct our perspective on the nature or source of our own ethics. "[W]e are standing at the threshold of a much larger shift in theorizing that will end up positioning morality firmly within the emotional core of human nature" (p. 56). He wants to put rationality in a distant second place when it comes to influence on our ethics.

De Waal makes a great point that empathy has not been adequately studied by psychology or primatology because it does not fit easily into the model of intelligence that focusses on calculative tasks and tool use. This modern model of intelligence has claimed a monopoly on rationality, ignoring emotion to the detriment of rounded understanding. Rational calculation is only a part of moral decisions. I like the idea of positioning morality within the emotional core of human nature, with the proviso that this emotional core is moral only in so far as it is rational.

A problem I have with de Waal's scheme here is that he does not adequately clarify the purpose of ethics. Ape ethics seem effective regarding social harmony, but there are higher objectives to improve the world and generate the most productive consequences in which the social harmony of the ethics of empathy only plays a part. I think it is dangerous to put rationality in 'a distant second place' to emotion, as that relativises morality by removing any objective criteria for judgement of emotional passions. De Waal makes a good point that rationality has been inadequately understood and used, but surely that is grounds for rational critique, not for the abandonment of higher moral ideals which take the form of a veneer?