Heal Our Planet Earth
Commentary on "Scientist Finds the Beginnings of Morality in Primate Behavior - NY Times"

Fellow activists:

It is easy and almost natural for those in our movement to be misanthropes. How many times have I heard over the years: "The Earth would be in much better shape had our species not evolve into being at all." Or, "God made just one mistake, and that is to have created Man." Some even advocate the intentional self-destruction of our species, wishing for a global pandemic to wipe out our species, "for the good of all".

I beg to differ, and find such sentiments demoralizing on the whole movement, if not inducing of self-destructive behavior on the adherents. I know this well, because I was one such adherent once upon a time. Now, I hold a much more optimistic view, and have become more purposeful, more effective, and infinitely happier. I have my reasons:

1.  It is common agreement among scientists that it is not "if" but "when" another kilometer-wide asteroid would come crashing down on Earth. It could be a thousand centuries from now, but it could also be next week. The last one 64 million years ago wiped out the large dinosaurs (leaving the birds as their progeny). This one will wipe out the large mammals - whales and dolphins and seals and birds, and tigers and bears and deer and elephants, whom we all love so much. This is inevitable in the absence of the one thing that can save them - no, not any omnipotent god, nor any hi-tech aliens, but one of Earth's own species capable of high technology that can defend Life on Earth - the entire Biosphere - from such exterminating incursions. Even if no asteroid ever again comes down on Earth, the Earth will still ultimately be destroyed by the dying Sun. If life's inevitable fate is destruction, what then is the meaning of life?

2.  I believe that even the hi-tech aliens, with enough technology to come to this planet, but enough wisdom to not use it to destroy us, once went through a barbaric stage when they could have destroyed themselves, and their home planet and all its life-forms along with it. I believe that our species is now at this critical stage. We are now sitting at a P-Level ("P" for "Planetary") final exam. If we fail, we will destroy our planet and ourselves. If we pass, we will save it from ourselves. The fact that we are sitting at this exam does not mean that we are evil. But if we fail, then we are.

3.  As the following article attests, Homo sapiens is a moral species. This sense of Morality evolved out of Amorality over millions of years, and is hard won. If Homo sapiens is wiped out, then this sense of morality is wiped out along with it. The problem is this: Where there is Morality, there is Immorality. It is out of this sense of morality that we can condemn ourselves for being immoral. I believe that the rise of immorality out of morality is inevitable, and the presence of immorality does not condemn morality itself. It is morality that gives us our sense of good and evil. Those species without a sense of morality are neither good nor evil. And that species with a sense of morality, which exhibits exceedingly immoral behavior, is also exceedingly good. AR activists, at least from an AR activist's point of view, are exceedingly good. How many species have Animal Rights Activists, who would devote their entire lives working for other creatures and other species? One - ours.

4.  In today's world of Christianity versus Islam (this is one of the ways I look at it), Armageddon is first of all within us. World War Three is only the ramification of our inner conflict. Again, this is one of the problems in our cosmic test. And again, its is not the fact that we have the conflict that makes us evil, but our refusal to resolve the conflict or our intensifying it. But if Christianity and Islam commit global mutual destruction, dragging the other religions down with them, in other words, if humanity commits suicide, dragging the other species down with us, then we are evil indeed.

5.  I also believe that given the basic biological species with a large brain and opposable thumbs, the rise of primitive societies with religion, conflict and technology is inevitable. By "primitive society" I mean of course such early cultures as cannibalistic tribes, and such early "civilizations" as Sumaria, Egypt, Greece, Chin and Rome, but I also mean the contemporary societies, even those considered most advanced, including Canada and the United States. There is nothing evil about being primitive in the cosmic order of things, but there is something evil about a primitive society refusing to evolve.

6.  I also believe that given an initial technical impulse, the eventual advent of such technologies as fossil-fuel combustion and nuclear power are inevitable. Again, there is nothing intrinsically evil about these technologies, but the misuse of them is evil. Given fossil fuel technology, I also believe that global warming is inevitable. There is nothing intrinsically evil about global warming, but to see it and do nothing, or to deny it out of corporate greed, or to burn the last gallon of gas because "if I don't, another will," is evil. I even believe that warfare is inevitable among primitive societies. There is nothing immoral about the historical heritage of war, but there is something evil about waging war in spite of the advent of the peace movement, which is itself an inevitable development. Once we realize the evil of war, then to wage war is evil. Given the inevitability of conflict among primitive technical societies, weapons also becomes inevitable, and, with the advent of nuclear physics, which is inevitable given physics, nuclear weapons likewise. Again, the presence of nuclear weapons is not itself evil, but the use of them to result in a global nuclear holocaust definitely is.

7.  Life is beautiful in a myriad ways - the explosive grace of the cheetah, the acrobatics of the falcon, the majesty of the whale, the delicateness of the butterfly, the geometry of the plankton, even the erect dignity of the human. But there is something extra to the human species - they can create beauty out of themselves.

An alien listening to our broadcasts, seeing our news and listening to our music, would say, "I've seen the evil of which this species is capable, and would not weep thrice if tomorrow I see a global nuclear holocaust, or if next century it is roasted by global baking, but I would weep twice, once for the millions of innocent species that fall with it, and once for the species that precipitated it. It would be a tragedy of interstellar proportions if the species capable of creating a masterpiece like the music I just heard would end up committing suicide - out of self-loathing and self-hatred.

Know how good we can be, and be that good, is what I say.

Anthony Marr, founder
Heal Our Planet Earth (HOPE)

Scientist Finds the Beginnings of Morality in Primate Behavior
By NICHOLAS WADE - New York Times
March 20, 2007

Some animals are surprisingly sensitive to the plight of others. Chimpanzees, who cannot swim, have drowned in zoo moats trying to save others. Given the chance to get food by pulling a chain that would also deliver an electric shock to a companion, rhesus monkeys will starve themselves for several days.

Biologists argue that these and other social behaviors are the precursors of human morality. They further believe that if morality grew out of behavioral rules shaped by evolution, it is for biologists, not philosophers or theologians, to say what these rules are.

Moral philosophers do not take very seriously the biologists’ bid to annex their subject, but they find much of interest in what the biologists say and have started an academic conversation with them.

The original call to battle was sounded by the biologist Edward O. Wilson more than 30 years ago, when he suggested in his 1975 book “Sociobiology” that “the time has come for ethics to be removed temporarily from the hands of the philosophers and biologicized.” He may have jumped the gun about the time having come, but in the intervening decades biologists have made considerable progress.

Last year Marc Hauser, an evolutionary biologist at Harvard, proposed in his book “Moral Minds” that the brain has a genetically shaped mechanism for acquiring moral rules, a universal moral grammar similar to the neural machinery for learning language. In another recent book, “Primates and Philosophers,” the primatologist Frans de Waal defends against philosopher critics his view that the roots of morality can be seen in the social behavior of monkeys and apes.

Dr. de Waal, who is director of the Living Links Center at Emory University, argues that all social animals have had to constrain or alter their behavior in various ways for group living to be worthwhile. These constraints, evident in monkeys and even more so in chimpanzees, are part of human inheritance, too, and in his view form the set of behaviors from which human morality has been shaped.

Many philosophers find it hard to think of animals as moral beings, and indeed Dr. de Waal does not contend that even chimpanzees possess morality. But he argues that human morality would be impossible without certain emotional building blocks that are clearly at work in chimp and monkey societies.

Dr. de Waal’s views are based on years of observing nonhuman primates, starting with work on aggression in the 1960s. He noticed then that after fights between two combatants, other chimpanzees would console the loser. But he was waylaid in battles with psychologists over imputing emotional states to animals, and it took him 20 years to come back to the subject.

He found that consolation was universal among the great apes but generally absent from monkeys — among macaques, mothers will not even reassure an injured infant. To console another, Dr. de Waal argues, requires empathy and a level of self-awareness that only apes and humans seem to possess. And consideration of empathy quickly led him to explore the conditions for morality.

Though human morality may end in notions of rights and justice and fine ethical distinctions, it begins, Dr. de Waal says, in concern for others and the understanding of social rules as to how they should be treated. At this lower level, primatologists have shown, there is what they consider to be a sizable overlap between the behavior of people and other social primates.

Social living requires empathy, which is especially evident in chimpanzees, as well as ways of bringing internal hostilities to an end. 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.

These four kinds of behavior — empathy, the ability to learn and follow social rules, reciprocity and peacemaking — are the basis of sociality.

Dr. de Waal sees human morality as having grown out of primate sociality, but with two extra levels of sophistication. People enforce their society’s moral codes much more rigorously with rewards, punishments and reputation building. They also apply a degree of judgment and reason, for which there are no parallels in animals.

Religion can be seen as another special ingredient of human societies, though one that emerged thousands of years after morality, in Dr. de Waal’s view. There are clear precursors of morality in nonhuman primates, but no precursors of religion. So it seems reasonable to assume that as humans evolved away from chimps, morality emerged first, followed by religion. “I look at religions as recent additions,” he said. “Their function may have to do with social life, and enforcement of rules and giving a narrative to them, which is what religions really do.”

As Dr. de Waal sees it, human morality may be severely limited by having evolved as a way of banding together against adversaries, with moral restraints being observed only toward the in group, not toward outsiders. “The profound irony is that our noblest achievement — morality — has evolutionary ties to our basest behavior — warfare,” he writes. “The sense of community required by the former was provided by the latter.”

Dr. de Waal has faced down many critics in evolutionary biology and psychology in developing his views. The evolutionary biologist George Williams dismissed morality as merely an accidental byproduct of evolution, and psychologists objected to attributing any emotional state to animals. Dr. de Waal convinced his colleagues over many years that the ban on inferring emotional states was an unreasonable restriction, given the expected evolutionary continuity between humans and other primates.

His latest audience is moral philosophers, many of whom are interested in his work and that of other biologists. “In departments of philosophy, an increasing number of people are influenced by what they have to say,” said Gilbert Harman, a Princeton University philosopher.

Dr. Philip Kitcher, a philosopher at Columbia University, likes Dr. de Waal’s empirical approach. “I have no doubt there are patterns of behavior we share with our primate relatives that are relevant to our ethical decisions,” he said. “Philosophers have always been beguiled by the dream of a system of ethics which is complete and finished, like mathematics. I don’t think it’s like that at all.”

But human ethics are considerably more complicated than the sympathy Dr. de Waal has described in chimps. “Sympathy is the raw material out of which a more complicated set of ethics may get fashioned,” he said. “In the actual world, we are confronted with different people who might be targets of our sympathy. And the business of ethics is deciding who to help and why and when.”

Many philosophers believe that conscious reasoning plays a large part in governing human ethical behavior and are therefore unwilling to let everything proceed from emotions, like sympathy, which may be evident in chimpanzees. The impartial element of morality comes from a capacity to reason, writes Peter Singer, a moral philosopher at Princeton, in “Primates and Philosophers.” He says, “Reason is like an escalator — once we step on it, we cannot get off until we have gone where it takes us.”

That was the view of Immanuel Kant, Dr. Singer noted, who believed morality must be based on reason, whereas the Scottish philosopher David Hume, followed by Dr. de Waal, argued that moral judgments proceed from the emotions.

But biologists like Dr. de Waal believe reason is generally brought to bear only after a moral decision has been reached. They argue that morality evolved at a time when people lived in small foraging societies and often had to make instant life-or-death decisions, with no time for conscious evaluation of moral choices. The reasoning came afterward as a post hoc justification. “Human behavior derives above all from fast, automated, emotional judgments, and only secondarily from slower conscious processes,” Dr. de Waal writes.

However much we may celebrate rationality, emotions are our compass, probably because they have been shaped by evolution, in Dr. de Waal’s view. For example, he says: “People object to moral solutions that involve hands-on harm to one another. This may be because hands-on violence has been subject to natural selection whereas utilitarian deliberations have not.”

Philosophers have another reason biologists cannot, in their view, reach to the heart of morality, and that is that biological analyses cannot cross the gap between “is” and “ought,” between the description of some behavior and the issue of why it is right or wrong. “You can identify some value we hold, and tell an evolutionary story about why we hold it, but there is always that radically different question of whether we ought to hold it,” said Sharon Street, a moral philosopher at New York University. “That’s not to discount the importance of what biologists are doing, but it does show why centuries of moral philosophy are incredibly relevant, too.”

Biologists are allowed an even smaller piece of the action by Jesse Prinz, a philosopher at the University of North Carolina. He believes morality developed after human evolution was finished and that moral sentiments are shaped by culture, not genetics. “It would be a fallacy to assume a single true morality could be identified by what we do instinctively, rather than by what we ought to do,” he said. “One of the principles that might guide a single true morality might be recognition of equal dignity for all human beings, and that seems to be unprecedented in the animal world.”

Dr. de Waal does not accept the philosophers’ view that biologists cannot step from “is” to “ought.” “I’m not sure how realistic the distinction is,” he said. “Animals do have ‘oughts.’ If a juvenile is in a fight, the mother must get up and defend her. Or in food sharing, animals do put pressure on each other, which is the first kind of ‘ought’ situation.”

Dr. de Waal’s definition of morality is more down to earth than Dr. Prinz’s. Morality, he writes, is “a sense of right and wrong that is born out of groupwide systems of conflict management based on shared values.” The building blocks of morality are not nice or good behaviors but rather mental and social capacities for constructing societies “in which shared values constrain individual behavior through a system of approval and disapproval.” By this definition chimpanzees in his view do possess some of the behavioral capacities built in our moral systems.

“Morality is as firmly grounded in neurobiology as anything else we do or are,” Dr. de Waal wrote in his 1996 book “Good Natured.” Biologists ignored this possibility for many years, believing that because natural selection was cruel and pitiless it could only produce people with the same qualities. But this is a fallacy, in Dr. de Waal’s view. Natural selection favors organisms that survive and reproduce, by whatever means. And it has provided people, he writes in “Primates and Philosophers,” with “a compass for life’s choices that takes the interests of the entire community into account, which is the essence of human morality.”


Return to Letters

Home Page


Preserving Earth's Biodiversity




Terminate the Canadian Seal Massacre

Compassion for Animals Road Expeditions (CARE)

Deep-Rural-India Expeditions

Educational Outreach

Undercover Operations

Media Events

International Conferences

Omniscientific Cosmology and Integrative Transcendence

About Anthony Marr



Contact Us and Donate

Your Comments and Inquiries are Welcome


This site is hosted and maintained by
The Mary T. and Frank L. Hoffman Family Foundation.