Good Natured is a book by primatologist Frans de Waal on animal behavior and the evolution of ethics. Much of the book details observations of primate behavior, especially that of chimpanzees and bonobos. We seem to be reaching a point at which science can wrest morality from the hands of philosophers. That this is already happening—albeit largely at a theoretical level—is evident from recent books by, among others, Richard D. Alexander , Robert Frank, James Q. Wilson , and Robert Wright journalist.
|Published (Last):||19 July 2017|
|PDF File Size:||3.94 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||3.78 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read. Want to Read saving…. Want to Read Currently Reading Read. Other editions. Enlarge cover. Error rating book. Refresh and try again. Open Preview See a Problem? Details if other :. Thanks for telling us about the problem. Return to Book Page. Preview — Good Natured by Frans de Waal. To observe a dog's guilty look. Might there he a code of ethics in the animal kingdom? Must an animal be human to he humane? In this provocative book, a renowned scientist takes on To observe a dog's guilty look.
In this provocative book, a renowned scientist takes on those who have declared ethics uniquely human Making a compelling case for a morality grounded in biology, he shows how ethical behavior is as much a matter of evolution as any other trait, in humans and animals alike.
World famous for his brilliant descriptions of Machiavellian power plays among chimpanzees-the nastier side of animal life--Frans de Waal here contends that animals have a nice side as well. Making his case through vivid anecdotes drawn from his work with apes and monkeys and holstered by the intriguing, voluminous data from his and others' ongoing research, de Waal shows us that many of the building blocks of morality are natural: they can he observed in other animals. Through his eyes, we see how not just primates but all kinds of animals, from marine mammals to dogs, respond to social rules, help each other, share food, resolve conflict to mutual satisfaction, even develop a crude sense of justice and fairness.
Natural selection may be harsh, but it has produced highly successful species that survive through cooperation and mutual assistance. De Waal identifies this paradox as the key to an evolutionary account of morality, and demonstrates that human morality could never have developed without the foundation of fellow feeling our species shares with other animals.
As his work makes clear, a morality grounded in biology leads to an entirely different conception of what it means to he human--and humane. Get A Copy. Paperback , pages. More Details Original Title. Other Editions Friend Reviews. To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.
To ask other readers questions about Good Natured , please sign up. Lists with This Book. Community Reviews. Showing Average rating 4. Rating details. More filters. Sort order. Oct 28, Michael rated it really liked it. My follow up to Moral Minds. It presents a lucid, straightforward account of how our moral faculties may have evolved from our pre-human ancestors. I've been thinking about why I find this subject fascinating, and one reason is that this research challenges a fundamental notion of human nature advanced by some religions, which is that the humans are inherently sinful, and it is only by the grace of God that our sinful natures can be restrained or redeemed.
There is a secular version of this view My follow up to Moral Minds. There is a secular version of this view as well, which holds that humans are beasts at heart whose basest instincts are held in check by a mere veneer of civilization.
Take away our modern moral codes and laws and the beast quickly emerges. I find this to be a grim, depressing view of what it means to be human, one that has us constantly at war with our inner selves. It also makes no sense from an evolutionary perspective, since if civilization or God is all that keeps us from tearing each other apart, how could we and our pre-human ancestors have made it through the period before organized religions and systems of laws were developed?
What would have held primitive human and pre-human groups together, and how would moral systems have ever emerged? The view advanced in this book is that our system of morals actually draws on deep-seated social instincts developed over millions of years of evolution culminating in the primates, and specifically us. Humans are, in fact, naturally "good" in the sense that we have all the basic elements to be moral citizens - such as the ability to empathize with others, the need and desire for close social bonds with friends and mates , an acute sense of fairness, a willingness to share and help others with no conscious awareness of promoting the general good, the ability to feel shame in the face of the group's disapproval.
Elements like these have served an evolutionary purpose by promoting group cohesion, stability, and success. It is therefore more accurate to say that our moral codes were built upon a framework of innate moral capacities than that we owe our sense of right and wrong to those same codes.
The author, a biologist, backs this up with much research on primates, and especially chimpanzees, our closest relatives. There is evidence in chimpanzee communities of quite evolved capacities such as sympathy for others' distress, mourning the loss of a parent or child, and reciprocal altruism doing favors for others with no immediate expectation of reward.
There is no claim that chimpanzees have a moral code similar to ours, but it is possible to see how moral systems might have emerged from some of these basic elements.
To be sure, there are always cheaters, and all societies deal with them through a system of punishment. They also reward good behavior by elevating the status of individuals who do good things - and all primates including humans are acutely conscious of status.
There are also dysfunctional societies where what we think of as civilized legal systems have broken down, leaving anarchy. And yet, even in such dysfunctional environments think Somalia , elements of our common moral heritage remain - parents love and care for their children, friends protect friends, tribe members look out for other tribe members - and crimes are generally directed at those perceived to be outside the group.
What I like about this approach is that it gives us a rather more hopeful view of human nature. Yes, we need to fight against selfish and destructive impulses - but it's in our nature to want to do good for our family and friends.
This general view also explains far better why the overall arc of human development has been towards a gradual reduction of everyday brutality and the emergence of international standards of conduct. The more we communicate across groups and cultures, the more we feel part of one large group, and the more our innate moral faculties seem to apply to everyone.
Nov 21, Jon rated it it was amazing. From one perspective, it is an explanation of how human morality could be explained by evolutionary forces that would favor the reproduction of organisms who exhibited rudimentary moral behavior. From another perspective, the book is a counter-argument to the viewpoint that seemingly ethical or altruistic behavior in animals perhaps including humans are explained by the simple pairing of stimulus and response that happen "Good Natured" is easily among the top three nonfiction books I've read.
From another perspective, the book is a counter-argument to the viewpoint that seemingly ethical or altruistic behavior in animals perhaps including humans are explained by the simple pairing of stimulus and response that happen to increase genetic fitness. In , Richard Dawkins published his seminal book "The Selfish Gene," supporting the theory, colloquially stated, that an organism is merely a gene's way of reproducing itself.
With this paradigm shift, biologists were able to explain a wide variety of seemingly altruistic or self-sacrificing behaviors - for instance why so many animals will increase their offspring's chances of survival by sacrificing their own.
In short time, many had attributed all animal behaviors including human , even those that were seemingly altruistic, to strategies to maximize reproduction. In one sense, this conclusion was correct; an animal that sacrifices it's own reproductive success will not pass on the genes that allowed that behavior.
However, de Waal makes an important distinction between the evolutionary cause of a behavior's persistence and the psychological motivation for an organism acting as it does.
De Waal's is a primatologist who has spent thousands of hours observing apes chimpanzees, bonobos, orangutans, gorillas, humans and monkeys many varieties and his writing is replete with examples from his own observations that bolster his theories. De Waal takes neither the position that non-human animals lack any sense of morality nor that they possess the abstract moral reasoning of which some humans are capable.
While morality has taken the form of abstract reasoning among humans, de Waal argues that the roots of morality lie with emotion rather than reason. De Waal identifies a number of behaviors with concomitant emotions in animals that lead to a sort of proto-morality.
One aspect of morality could be called "sympathy. Helping relatives, as are found in extended families and tribes, also has clear reproductive value on a genetic level.
At its most advanced levels, sympathy takes the form of empathy - an actual understanding of how another individual in a different situation might feel, think, and act. How did human ancestors get from basic instincts to care for their offspring to an actual understanding of how others of their species might experience a different situation? Two factors are necessary to make this jump. First, the species must be social and inter-dependent on other members of their own species for survival.
Solitary animals do not exhibit any behavior that approximates morality. This is why dogs care about pleasing their people and cats don't.
Second, members of the species must be able to distinguish among individuals of their species and remember past actions of each individual which is really two requirements. With sociality and memory come rudimentary sharing among non-related individuals that will benefit both over the long run. For instance, bats, which die if they don't eat for more than two days, will share meals with non-related bats who were unsuccessful getting food on a particular night - provided that the recipients reciprocate in the future when the tables are turned.
It works like a rudimentary insurance policy spreading risk among pairs of individuals. Animals with more developed memories actually begin to assign a "reputation" to others of their species. Chimpanzees remember which members of their group have shared food with them in the past and which have not and reward and punish those individuals, respectively, in the future.
It works much like what humans call "fairness. Smaller chimps will team up to prevent one of their group from being beaten by a larger, more dominant chimp. Again, chimps who try to take advantage of an alliance by reaping protection from others without protecting others when they are in trouble are shunned or worse. With the advantage that comes with alliances comes an evolutionary factor that could select for the mental capability to guess what others are thinking to generalize the expectations that others will have of one's behavior in an alliance.
Another outgrowth of sociality and memory is a dominance hierarchy. Stronger individuals have a natural advantage in competing for scarce resources and taking those resources away from others.
One way to avoid an out-and-out fight every time resources are discovered is to remember which individuals have prevailed in past competitions and to give deference to such individuals provided that the dominant individual allows the subordinate enough of the resources to make it worth the subordinate not challenging the dominant in a desperate attempt at survival.
Remember, even the dominant individual depends on the subordinates for his or her survival. And as alliances can turn the table on a strong chimp, alliances can also turn the tables on an otherwise dominant chimp.
By Gail Vines. By placing morality outside the biological realm, Huxley sidestepped the need to account for its evolution. Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish. Existing subscribers, please log in with your email address to link your account access. Paid annually by Credit Card.
Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals
Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read. Want to Read saving…. Want to Read Currently Reading Read. Other editions. Enlarge cover. Error rating book. Refresh and try again.