Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

Evidence of moral behavior in animals?

Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2012 2:31:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Title of the video says it all: Capuchin monkeys reject unequal pay.
The monkeys do not accept lower "wages" for the same amount of "work." The guy explains it in more detail in the video.
Pretty funny and telling. What do you think we can conclude from this? At the very least, these monkeys ain't dummies.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
1Devilsadvocate
Posts: 1,518
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2012 4:05:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Nothing to do with morality.

If the monkey receiving grapes refused because of "unequal pay", that would show morality.

Also the money is pretty dumb, it keeps reaching out of it's cage for the grapes, which are to far away. It keeps doing this over and over. As Einstein said, insanity is doing the same thing over & over expecting different results.

Lastly, with these kind of experiments one must be sceptical, the animals can easily be trained to get specific results. This has been known to happen before, (particularly with monkeys).

If monkeys had morality some one should have seen it by now.
If monkeys are shown to be "moral" in one case it's likely a fluke unless it can be repeated.
I cannot write in English, because of the treacherous spelling. When I am reading, I only hear it and am unable to remember what the written word looks like."
"Albert Einstein

http://www.twainquotes.com... , http://thewritecorner.wordpress.com... , http://www.onlinecollegecourses.com...
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2012 4:21:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/3/2012 4:05:55 PM, 1Devilsadvocate wrote:
Nothing to do with morality.

If the monkey receiving grapes refused because of "unequal pay", that would show morality.

Also the money is pretty dumb, it keeps reaching out of it's cage for the grapes, which are to far away. It keeps doing this over and over. As Einstein said, insanity is doing the same thing over & over expecting different results.

Lastly, with these kind of experiments one must be sceptical, the animals can easily be trained to get specific results. This has been known to happen before, (particularly with monkeys).

If monkeys had morality some one should have seen it by now.
If monkeys are shown to be "moral" in one case it's likely a fluke unless it can be repeated.

It depends on how you define "morality." I'm essentially a moral nihilist so I'm not trying to make an argument for objective morality here or anything. If one thinks that "fairness" has something to do with morality, then one might be inclined to call their behavior an appeal to some sense of justice or morality. To put it simply, the monkey knows that someone else is getting better food for the same task and it's righteously pissed about it- it knows it deserves better given the conditions. That's pretty smart.

This is also not a one time deal. Actually, this video is kind of old news. They had been doing these experiments for years with various different animals and Capuchin monkeys in particular responded in this way often. Repetition is not the problem- it has been established that this is not a "fluke." It's just a matter of what you think the behavior means. I'd say it indicates the monkeys are pretty intelligent, which really shouldn't come as too much of a surprise but it is funny and interesting to see it in action.

I don't really think that the monkey reaching for the grapes proves that it is "dumb." I also don't really see what Einstein's anecdote about so-called insanity has to do with it. Like most creatures, monkeys can learn and would most likely not unsuccessfully reach for the grapes forever, given the opportunity to do so.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2012 4:50:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/3/2012 4:21:56 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 12/3/2012 4:05:55 PM, 1Devilsadvocate wrote:
Nothing to do with morality.

If the monkey receiving grapes refused because of "unequal pay", that would show morality.

Also the money is pretty dumb, it keeps reaching out of it's cage for the grapes, which are to far away. It keeps doing this over and over. As Einstein said, insanity is doing the same thing over & over expecting different results.

Lastly, with these kind of experiments one must be sceptical, the animals can easily be trained to get specific results. This has been known to happen before, (particularly with monkeys).

If monkeys had morality some one should have seen it by now.
If monkeys are shown to be "moral" in one case it's likely a fluke unless it can be repeated.

It depends on how you define "morality." I'm essentially a moral nihilist so I'm not trying to make an argument for objective morality here or anything. If one thinks that "fairness" has something to do with morality, then one might be inclined to call their behavior an appeal to some sense of justice or morality. To put it simply, the monkey knows that someone else is getting better food for the same task and it's righteously pissed about it- it knows it deserves better given the conditions. That's pretty smart.

This is also not a one time deal. Actually, this video is kind of old news. They had been doing these experiments for years with various different animals and Capuchin monkeys in particular responded in this way often. Repetition is not the problem- it has been established that this is not a "fluke." It's just a matter of what you think the behavior means. I'd say it indicates the monkeys are pretty intelligent, which really shouldn't come as too much of a surprise but it is funny and interesting to see it in action.

I don't really think that the monkey reaching for the grapes proves that it is "dumb." I also don't really see what Einstein's anecdote about so-called insanity has to do with it. Like most creatures, monkeys can learn and would most likely not unsuccessfully reach for the grapes forever, given the opportunity to do so.

I don't see how it proves that the monkeys are smart. Its simply a behavior that results from an emotional feeling. While the behavior can be seen as irrational, its actually quite rational when it comes to long-term games in game theory and for group forming dynamics.

Funnily, I don't think I had the equity bias even when I was a little child. I remember when our teacher was trying to explain fractions based on a piece of (imaginary) candy. She made it shared it was purposely divided unequally. My thought process was that your still getting a piece of candy, so why would i reject it even if it was unequal. I also had difficulty socializing and verbal communication when I was little. However, I was above average when it came to mathematical ability and spatial reasoning, and had no problem reading.

Makes me wonder if that's why libertarians tend to be stereotyped as geeks is because they are less likely to fall for the equity bias.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2012 5:34:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/3/2012 2:31:52 PM, Oryus wrote:
Title of the video says it all: Capuchin monkeys reject unequal pay.
The monkeys do not accept lower "wages" for the same amount of "work." The guy explains it in more detail in the video.
Pretty funny and telling. What do you think we can conclude from this? At the very least, these monkeys ain't dummies.



That there lies an innate sense of justice. That is, indeed, evidence of an objective aspect of morality...
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2012 5:35:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/3/2012 4:50:28 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/3/2012 4:21:56 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 12/3/2012 4:05:55 PM, 1Devilsadvocate wrote:
Nothing to do with morality.

If the monkey receiving grapes refused because of "unequal pay", that would show morality.

Also the money is pretty dumb, it keeps reaching out of it's cage for the grapes, which are to far away. It keeps doing this over and over. As Einstein said, insanity is doing the same thing over & over expecting different results.

Lastly, with these kind of experiments one must be sceptical, the animals can easily be trained to get specific results. This has been known to happen before, (particularly with monkeys).

If monkeys had morality some one should have seen it by now.
If monkeys are shown to be "moral" in one case it's likely a fluke unless it can be repeated.

It depends on how you define "morality." I'm essentially a moral nihilist so I'm not trying to make an argument for objective morality here or anything. If one thinks that "fairness" has something to do with morality, then one might be inclined to call their behavior an appeal to some sense of justice or morality. To put it simply, the monkey knows that someone else is getting better food for the same task and it's righteously pissed about it- it knows it deserves better given the conditions. That's pretty smart.

This is also not a one time deal. Actually, this video is kind of old news. They had been doing these experiments for years with various different animals and Capuchin monkeys in particular responded in this way often. Repetition is not the problem- it has been established that this is not a "fluke." It's just a matter of what you think the behavior means. I'd say it indicates the monkeys are pretty intelligent, which really shouldn't come as too much of a surprise but it is funny and interesting to see it in action.

I don't really think that the monkey reaching for the grapes proves that it is "dumb." I also don't really see what Einstein's anecdote about so-called insanity has to do with it. Like most creatures, monkeys can learn and would most likely not unsuccessfully reach for the grapes forever, given the opportunity to do so.

I don't see how it proves that the monkeys are smart. Its simply a behavior that results from an emotional feeling. While the behavior can be seen as irrational, its actually quite rational when it comes to long-term games in game theory and for group forming dynamics.

Funnily, I don't think I had the equity bias even when I was a little child. I remember when our teacher was trying to explain fractions based on a piece of (imaginary) candy. She made it shared it was purposely divided unequally. My thought process was that your still getting a piece of candy, so why would i reject it even if it was unequal. I also had difficulty socializing and verbal communication when I was little. However, I was above average when it came to mathematical ability and spatial reasoning, and had no problem reading.

Makes me wonder if that's why libertarians tend to be stereotyped as geeks is because they are less likely to fall for the equity bias.

haha Less likely to "fall for" equity? Oh, Lily Ledbetter LOVES you, kermit. You know how to charm em'
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2012 6:03:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It begs the interesting question of whether apparently "moral" behavior counts as moral if it is only motivated by, say, punishment and/or reward. The question is interesting, because one can also ask whether the human conception of morality can be non-arbitrarily differentiated from that.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2012 7:04:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/3/2012 5:35:47 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 12/3/2012 4:50:28 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/3/2012 4:21:56 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 12/3/2012 4:05:55 PM, 1Devilsadvocate wrote:
Nothing to do with morality.

If the monkey receiving grapes refused because of "unequal pay", that would show morality.

Also the money is pretty dumb, it keeps reaching out of it's cage for the grapes, which are to far away. It keeps doing this over and over. As Einstein said, insanity is doing the same thing over & over expecting different results.

Lastly, with these kind of experiments one must be sceptical, the animals can easily be trained to get specific results. This has been known to happen before, (particularly with monkeys).

If monkeys had morality some one should have seen it by now.
If monkeys are shown to be "moral" in one case it's likely a fluke unless it can be repeated.

It depends on how you define "morality." I'm essentially a moral nihilist so I'm not trying to make an argument for objective morality here or anything. If one thinks that "fairness" has something to do with morality, then one might be inclined to call their behavior an appeal to some sense of justice or morality. To put it simply, the monkey knows that someone else is getting better food for the same task and it's righteously pissed about it- it knows it deserves better given the conditions. That's pretty smart.

This is also not a one time deal. Actually, this video is kind of old news. They had been doing these experiments for years with various different animals and Capuchin monkeys in particular responded in this way often. Repetition is not the problem- it has been established that this is not a "fluke." It's just a matter of what you think the behavior means. I'd say it indicates the monkeys are pretty intelligent, which really shouldn't come as too much of a surprise but it is funny and interesting to see it in action.

I don't really think that the monkey reaching for the grapes proves that it is "dumb." I also don't really see what Einstein's anecdote about so-called insanity has to do with it. Like most creatures, monkeys can learn and would most likely not unsuccessfully reach for the grapes forever, given the opportunity to do so.

I don't see how it proves that the monkeys are smart. Its simply a behavior that results from an emotional feeling. While the behavior can be seen as irrational, its actually quite rational when it comes to long-term games in game theory and for group forming dynamics.

Funnily, I don't think I had the equity bias even when I was a little child. I remember when our teacher was trying to explain fractions based on a piece of (imaginary) candy. She made it shared it was purposely divided unequally. My thought process was that your still getting a piece of candy, so why would i reject it even if it was unequal. I also had difficulty socializing and verbal communication when I was little. However, I was above average when it came to mathematical ability and spatial reasoning, and had no problem reading.

Makes me wonder if that's why libertarians tend to be stereotyped as geeks is because they are less likely to fall for the equity bias.

haha Less likely to "fall for" equity? Oh, Lily Ledbetter LOVES you, kermit. You know how to charm em'

Its actually recognized as part of human irrationality/bias among behavior economist. Under rationality assumptions, assuming maximization of welfare, it doesn't make sense to reject an offer that lessens your state of well being.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2012 7:17:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/3/2012 7:04:16 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/3/2012 5:35:47 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 12/3/2012 4:50:28 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/3/2012 4:21:56 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 12/3/2012 4:05:55 PM, 1Devilsadvocate wrote:
Nothing to do with morality.

If the monkey receiving grapes refused because of "unequal pay", that would show morality.

Also the money is pretty dumb, it keeps reaching out of it's cage for the grapes, which are to far away. It keeps doing this over and over. As Einstein said, insanity is doing the same thing over & over expecting different results.

Lastly, with these kind of experiments one must be sceptical, the animals can easily be trained to get specific results. This has been known to happen before, (particularly with monkeys).

If monkeys had morality some one should have seen it by now.
If monkeys are shown to be "moral" in one case it's likely a fluke unless it can be repeated.

It depends on how you define "morality." I'm essentially a moral nihilist so I'm not trying to make an argument for objective morality here or anything. If one thinks that "fairness" has something to do with morality, then one might be inclined to call their behavior an appeal to some sense of justice or morality. To put it simply, the monkey knows that someone else is getting better food for the same task and it's righteously pissed about it- it knows it deserves better given the conditions. That's pretty smart.

This is also not a one time deal. Actually, this video is kind of old news. They had been doing these experiments for years with various different animals and Capuchin monkeys in particular responded in this way often. Repetition is not the problem- it has been established that this is not a "fluke." It's just a matter of what you think the behavior means. I'd say it indicates the monkeys are pretty intelligent, which really shouldn't come as too much of a surprise but it is funny and interesting to see it in action.

I don't really think that the monkey reaching for the grapes proves that it is "dumb." I also don't really see what Einstein's anecdote about so-called insanity has to do with it. Like most creatures, monkeys can learn and would most likely not unsuccessfully reach for the grapes forever, given the opportunity to do so.

I don't see how it proves that the monkeys are smart. Its simply a behavior that results from an emotional feeling. While the behavior can be seen as irrational, its actually quite rational when it comes to long-term games in game theory and for group forming dynamics.

Funnily, I don't think I had the equity bias even when I was a little child. I remember when our teacher was trying to explain fractions based on a piece of (imaginary) candy. She made it shared it was purposely divided unequally. My thought process was that your still getting a piece of candy, so why would i reject it even if it was unequal. I also had difficulty socializing and verbal communication when I was little. However, I was above average when it came to mathematical ability and spatial reasoning, and had no problem reading.

Makes me wonder if that's why libertarians tend to be stereotyped as geeks is because they are less likely to fall for the equity bias.

haha Less likely to "fall for" equity? Oh, Lily Ledbetter LOVES you, kermit. You know how to charm em'

Its actually recognized as part of human irrationality/bias among behavior economist. Under rationality assumptions, assuming maximization of welfare, it doesn't make sense to reject an offer that lessens your state of well being.

Not true when two parties are engaged in repeated dynamics where an initial loss can lead to later gains from enhanced "trust." That is, tit-for-tat.

The point of "falling for equity" is that it promotes social behavior over repeated societal interaction. It is an Evolutionary Stable System as long as there is a way to detect "cheaters" (i.e. those who do fulfill their end of whatever bargain is struck).
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2012 7:28:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/3/2012 7:17:08 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 12/3/2012 7:04:16 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/3/2012 5:35:47 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 12/3/2012 4:50:28 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/3/2012 4:21:56 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 12/3/2012 4:05:55 PM, 1Devilsadvocate wrote:
Nothing to do with morality.

If the monkey receiving grapes refused because of "unequal pay", that would show morality.

Also the money is pretty dumb, it keeps reaching out of it's cage for the grapes, which are to far away. It keeps doing this over and over. As Einstein said, insanity is doing the same thing over & over expecting different results.

Lastly, with these kind of experiments one must be sceptical, the animals can easily be trained to get specific results. This has been known to happen before, (particularly with monkeys).

If monkeys had morality some one should have seen it by now.
If monkeys are shown to be "moral" in one case it's likely a fluke unless it can be repeated.

It depends on how you define "morality." I'm essentially a moral nihilist so I'm not trying to make an argument for objective morality here or anything. If one thinks that "fairness" has something to do with morality, then one might be inclined to call their behavior an appeal to some sense of justice or morality. To put it simply, the monkey knows that someone else is getting better food for the same task and it's righteously pissed about it- it knows it deserves better given the conditions. That's pretty smart.

This is also not a one time deal. Actually, this video is kind of old news. They had been doing these experiments for years with various different animals and Capuchin monkeys in particular responded in this way often. Repetition is not the problem- it has been established that this is not a "fluke." It's just a matter of what you think the behavior means. I'd say it indicates the monkeys are pretty intelligent, which really shouldn't come as too much of a surprise but it is funny and interesting to see it in action.

I don't really think that the monkey reaching for the grapes proves that it is "dumb." I also don't really see what Einstein's anecdote about so-called insanity has to do with it. Like most creatures, monkeys can learn and would most likely not unsuccessfully reach for the grapes forever, given the opportunity to do so.

I don't see how it proves that the monkeys are smart. Its simply a behavior that results from an emotional feeling. While the behavior can be seen as irrational, its actually quite rational when it comes to long-term games in game theory and for group forming dynamics.

Funnily, I don't think I had the equity bias even when I was a little child. I remember when our teacher was trying to explain fractions based on a piece of (imaginary) candy. She made it shared it was purposely divided unequally. My thought process was that your still getting a piece of candy, so why would i reject it even if it was unequal. I also had difficulty socializing and verbal communication when I was little. However, I was above average when it came to mathematical ability and spatial reasoning, and had no problem reading.

Makes me wonder if that's why libertarians tend to be stereotyped as geeks is because they are less likely to fall for the equity bias.

haha Less likely to "fall for" equity? Oh, Lily Ledbetter LOVES you, kermit. You know how to charm em'

Its actually recognized as part of human irrationality/bias among behavior economist. Under rationality assumptions, assuming maximization of welfare, it doesn't make sense to reject an offer that lessens your state of well being.

Not true when two parties are engaged in repeated dynamics where an initial loss can lead to later gains from enhanced "trust." That is, tit-for-tat.

The point of "falling for equity" is that it promotes social behavior over repeated societal interaction. It is an Evolutionary Stable System as long as there is a way to detect "cheaters" (i.e. those who do fulfill their end of whatever bargain is struck).

I actually stated this before. Note the bolded. However, in one shot games, like ultimatum and Dictator, people would still choose the 50/50 split, even though under perfect rationality, we'd predict the person giving all his money in Dictator, and only giving a person the minimum amount of money possible in ultimatum.

In ultimatum, a person can choose to give person "A" X amount of their money, and person "B" will choose to either reject the offer or not. If person "B" rejects the offer, then person "A" gets nothing. In dictator, person "A" gives X amount of money, and there will be no consequence whether he/she gives all of it or none of it.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2012 12:30:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/3/2012 2:31:52 PM, Oryus wrote:
Title of the video says it all: Capuchin monkeys reject unequal pay.
The monkeys do not accept lower "wages" for the same amount of "work." The guy explains it in more detail in the video.
Pretty funny and telling. What do you think we can conclude from this? At the very least, these monkeys ain't dummies.



I guess that means flinging poo is naturally moral.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2012 1:51:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/3/2012 4:05:55 PM, 1Devilsadvocate wrote:
Nothing to do with morality.


Nothing humans do have anything to do with morality.

But that would be neglecting the point.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Df0512
Posts: 966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2012 4:26:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/3/2012 2:31:52 PM, Oryus wrote:
Title of the video says it all: Capuchin monkeys reject unequal pay.
The monkeys do not accept lower "wages" for the same amount of "work." The guy explains it in more detail in the video.
Pretty funny and telling. What do you think we can conclude from this? At the very least, these monkeys ain't dummies.



I believe it. I just think people assume animals don't have morality because we don't really understand what it means to them and how they express it.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2012 12:47:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/4/2012 12:30:10 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/3/2012 2:31:52 PM, Oryus wrote:
Title of the video says it all: Capuchin monkeys reject unequal pay.
The monkeys do not accept lower "wages" for the same amount of "work." The guy explains it in more detail in the video.
Pretty funny and telling. What do you think we can conclude from this? At the very least, these monkeys ain't dummies.



I guess that means flinging poo is naturally moral.

Who knows. Maybe some people just deserve to get poo flung at them.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2012 1:02:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
that video is hilarious. the dog saving another dog video is really touching though. wait what? touching... gay. *hides*
signature