“The fact that man knows right from wrong proves his intellectual superiority to the other creatures; but the fact that he can do wrong proves his moral inferiority to any creature that cannot.” (Mark Twain)
Back in the early 90s of the last century Carl Sagan co-wrote a book with Ann Druyan (Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors) that bears directly on what Mark Twain had said nearly a century before. In that book the authors stress the similarities between humans and other animal species, perhaps with the object of letting some of the air out of human puffery.
Aristotle insisted that humans are “rational animals,” thereby seeking to differentiate our species from the rest because of our abilities to reason, our use of tools and also our use of language. Subsequent studies have shown that many other animal species can not only reason, and even use tools, but also many of them do so remarkably quickly; some even use language. There have been studies of chimpanzees that have not only learned several hundred words but have shown and ability to teach that language to their young! Jane Goodall studied the amazing Lucy, a chimpanzee brought up by humans who showed many of the signs of being human herself:
“No longer pure chimp but yet eons away form humanity, she was man-made, some other kind of being. I watched, amazed, as she opened the refrigerator and various cupboards, found bottles and a glass, then poured herself a gin and tonic. She took the drink to the TV, turned on the set, flipped from one channel to another then, as though in disgust, turned it off again. She selected a glossy magazine from the table and, still carrying her drink, settled in a comfortable chair. Occasionally, as she leafed through the magazine, she identified [in Ameslan] something she saw. . . .”
This doesn’t sound, to my ear, much different from the description of a great many humans we can observe pretty much any day, a condition that has been worsened by the addition of mind-numbing electronic toys that are putting our minds to sleep and causing even greater Lucy-like behavior. But the one thing that Sagan and Druyan missed when trying to make the case for the similarity between humans and other animal species, was the presence in humans of the capacity to act morally.
In saying this I am aware of the studies that have shown macaque monkeys, for example, that are unable to inflict pain on others of their species, refusing treats when asked to turn a dial that will increase an electronic charge connected with another monkey and causing him to scream in pain. They simply will not do this. This would appear to be evidence of a moral sense, a determination to do the right thing. And it is in sharp contrast with studies of humans put in the same, or similar, situations who are perfectly willing to turn the dial and inflict pain on other humans when asked to do so by another human in a white coat.
However, the behavior of the monkeys does not show the presence of anything more than an instinct to act, or refuse to act, in a certain way. It provides no evidence that there is a reasoning process involved. On the other hand, humans have a reasoning capacity and, as Kant insisted, also the capacity to ask the pivotal ethical question “what ought I to do?” And yet many of them will turn the dial. This would seem to prove Twain’s thesis stated at the outset of this post: we are inferior to other creatures. But does it?
What the experiment shows is that some humans are simply unable or unwilling to do the right thing — not that they could not do so under different conditions. Kant does not say that humans always do the right thing, he says we have the capacity to do the right thing. Often we do not do it. And this does help Twain make his case. Moreover, as Sagan and Druyan note at the conclusion of their careful study:
“The many sorrows of our recent history suggest that we humans have a learning disability.”
And yet we are the species who now have nuclear arsenals at our disposal, weapons numerous and powerful enough to end all life on earth. In addition, in this country any certified moron can walk into a gun shop with a credit card and ten minutes later walk away with an automatic weapon with the capacity to kill dozens of other humans in a matter of seconds. And our only solution to this situation is to insist that more morons arm themselves against the possibility that they might be the next target. This seems to be the best we have been able to come up with so far, though if this plan were to be realized it would surely mark the end of any pretense that we are a civilized society and announce to the world that we have once again returned to a state of nature where life is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”
I do agree with Kant that humans have the capacity to act morally and that this is what separates us from the other animals on earth. But the evidence is overwhelming that increasing numbers of us tend not to exercise that capacity and are becoming less and less inclined to do so as our species becomes more numerous, more self-absorbed and disinterested in others. However, if we fail to exercise our inborn capacity to do the right thing we have no instinct to fall back on, as do the macaque monkeys. This is a difference that makes a real difference.
Hugh, the Mark Twain quote frames the issue nicely. Maybe we deserve our morally unfit President. He certainly does not represent the best of us. Keith
Not in the least!
Your posts always offer so much to think about, to ponder. I would posit, for example, that two people might define a ‘moral’ choice in entirely different ways. I always try to ask myself, when on the brink of making a decision, “is this the right thing to do?” But, isn’t it true that what I may see as the ‘right’ thing may differ from what another sees as the ‘right’ thing to do? And back to the animal vs human comparison. Yes, humans appear to have the capacity to weigh outcomes of a decision, to reason, but then … man is often cruel for no reason — man kills for no reason beyond, sometimes, that he did not like the colour of another man’s skin. I’ve yet to hear of animals randomly killing their own because they didn’t care for the colour of another’s fur. As I said, you always leave me deep in thought. Keith plants ear worms in my mind, you plant thought worms. Thanks, my friend! Great post!
I am trying to make a distinction between what people do, in fact, and what they ought to do if they were to reflect and try to make a moral choice. And, as I have said before, just because two people have a different take on an issue doesn’t mean they are both right. In principle, at least, they can’t be — though they can both be wrong!
Déjà vu … I do believe we have had this conversation before … once upon a time … 😉 And again, I would argue that two people can differ, and both be right. But, as I recall, you beat me on that one last time, and as it’s nearly 2:00 a.m., I will save it for later, for I cannot remember my selling points at the moment.
I liken it to a jury trial. The defendant is either guilty or innocent. He cannot be both.Likewise, two people might disagree about whether Hitler was wrong to try to exterminate the Jews, but one or the other of the two must be wrong. They cannot both be right! Hope you get some sleep and this makes sense in the AM!!!