Researchers at yale tought some monkeys to use money. They traded with humans for food (trained) and with other monkeys for sex (untrained). Doesn't this disprove the assertion that non-human animals aren't rational. "But these facts remain: When taught to use money, a group of capuchin monkeys responded quite rationally to simple incentives; responded irrationally to risky gambles; failed to save; stole when they could; used money for food and, on occasion, sex. In other words, they behaved a good bit like the creature that most of Chen's more traditional colleagues study: Homo sapiens."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/05/magazine/05FREAK.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
So people aren't trained by other people to use money? And people always act rationally?
Yes, you've finally proved it. Animals really are just like people.
Clayton -
LOL It is a continuum, or a least a graduation. A dolphin is more like a human than a grasshopper, or a rock.
From the article:
"but do the capuchins actually understand money? Or is Chen simply exploiting their endless appetites to make them perform neat tricks?
Several facts suggest the former. During a recent capuchin experiment that used cucumbers as treats, a research assistant happened to slice the cucumber into discs instead of cubes, as was typical. One capuchin picked up a slice, started to eat it and then ran over to a researcher to see if he could ''buy'' something sweeter with it. To the capuchin, a round slice of cucumber bore enough resemblance to Chen's silver tokens to seem like another piece of currency."
So the monkey using a piece of cucumber that resembled something it was trained to use is evidence? Would it have used the cucumber slice had it not been trained to make an exchange? Do monkeys in the wild, without human conditioning, perform this behavior?
Do monkeys in the wild, without human conditioning, perform this behavior?
I don't really see the importance of the cucumber either, other than the fact that it is triavily interesting. But primates in the wild do exchange food for sex (direct exchange). And in this case they traded money for sex (indirect exchange).
@Johnny Doe
Yes some people are trained to use money by other people. I don't see your point. Action is always rational. http://mises.org/daily/2249
It is a continuum, or a least a graduation. A dolphin is more like a human than a grasshopper, or a rock.
OK, I can grant you that... but so what? No one ever denied that animals are living things (rocks are not) or that they have animal cells (plants do not) or that the have central nervous systems (single-celled organisms do not) or that none of them have conscious awareness (again, plants and presumably very simple animal creatures do not), etc. etc. So, what is the point, here, or is this just a general discussion of behavioral studies of animals?
So, what is the point, here, or is this just a general discussion of behavioral studies of animals?
The point is that some animals are rational. These monkeys have spontaneously engaged in voluntary indirect exchange with one another. That is rational behavior. That has significance with regard to rights. If a dolphin does a trick to avoid some negative human action, isn't that a rational act? And if a dolphin does a trick to gain some human favor, isn't that exchange? We cannot deny that we presuppose the dolphins self-ownership without contradiction, else a treat would not be offered to get a given response. We cannot simply decree that the animal will obey our commands. The offering of a treat is an argument. The dolphin can refuse the offer, and it sometime does. A rock or a single-cell animal cannot accept or reject an offer to do a trick. They cannot differ gratification. Here is an example of dolphins spontaneously assisting fishermen. In this case, the offer of cooperation originates with the dolphin, not with the humans. http://news.discovery.com/animals/whales-dolphins/helpful-dolphins-120502.htm
But who ever claimed that animals are irrational? After all, the whole idea is that hyper-rationality (selfishness) is the rule of Nature - red in tooth and claw - with the exception of man - the tabula rasa - who is the exception precisely in this regard.
in other contexts this irrationality is called "sin"
Yeah, look at all those great Capuchin monkey civilizations. They're totally on par with humans, brah.
dude6935: Clayton: So, what is the point, here, or is this just a general discussion of behavioral studies of animals? The point is that some animals are rational. These monkeys have spontaneously engaged in voluntary indirect exchange with one another. That is rational behavior. That has significance with regard to rights.
Clayton: So, what is the point, here, or is this just a general discussion of behavioral studies of animals?
Would it be "irrational" of me to predict that the statists of the future will no longer need human slaves? These rational monkeys can go work in sweat-shops and oil rigs and diamond mines!! Heck, the military can train them as soldiers!!
Our taxes will go down!!!
We're all capitalists here: there's a simple solution to this question. 1. Buy a factory and train these monkeys to operate it in exchange for food. 2. Become rich via the competitive advantage their low labour cost gives you. 3. $$$ 4. Profit!
I once saw a cat named "Mr Meowzers" wear a hat on youtube and dance around to funny music - he's just like a real person!
The fact remains: there is no inherent reason to care what is or is not "rational" (whatever the heck that may mean),- unless maybe you're some liberal stuck in the early 1800's. Nor is there any reason to care about what a few scientists doing some tests on monkeys have to say when thinking about anything sociological (unless you are a liberal stuck in the late 1800's).
If you're asking if animales are subject to praxeology, maybe - but that's really not for me to speculate about.
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
But who ever claimed that animals are irrational?
Rothbard did.
In short, man is a rational and social animal. No other animals or beings possess this ability to reason, to make conscious choices, to transform their environment in order to prosper, or to collaborate consciously in society and the division of labor. http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/twentyone.asp
OK, looks like we're using the two different senses of rationality at odds, here.
Meaning 1: Capable of planning, not acting against own interests. Rocks are not rational, plants are not rational. Somewhere along the scale between micro-organisms and organisms, we perceive a shift between a complete absence of planning (pure action-reaction) to some capacity to plan - construction of a spider-web is an act of (instict-programmed) planning, for example.
Meaning 2: Reasonable, capable of extended argument and discussion, capable of chaining together many inferences in order to anticipate facts that otherwise escape any immediate observation. Evidenced by sohpisticated verbal ability. Severe schizophrenics are not rational (reasonable). Some mentally retarded are not rational. Anyone that is vegetative or in a coma, etc. is not rational. Many senile and Alzheimer's patients are not rational, etc. Dogs, cats, apes, dolphins and any other lower animal is not rational.
But some animals are capable of discussion. They are able to use symbols (numerals, pictures, lexigrams, sign language) to communicate information. They know that their knowledge differs from the knowledge of others. They learn that they must repeat themselves if the listener is not paying attention. Surly that is the basis for forming an argument. I suspect apes or dolphins would complain if researches chose to harm them after teaching them some form of language suitable for forming a complaint.
Has this has ever been tested? It might be a trivial matter or a forgone conclusion to any researcher unconcerned with complaints.
But some animals are capable of discussion. They are able to use symbols (numerals, pictures, lexigrams, sign language) to communicate information. They know that their knowledge differs from the knowledge of others. They learn that they must repeat themselves if the listener is not paying attention. Surly that is the basis for forming an argument. I suspect apes or dolphins would complain if researches chose to harm them after teaching them some form of language suitable for forming a complaint. Has this has ever been tested? It might be a trivial matter or a forgone conclusion to any researcher unconcerned with complaints.
But "communicate information" is not a sufficient condition for being reasonable - no one ever denied that animals communicate information, even complex infromation. The probem is that animals simply don't have the hardwiring for the necessary conceptual categories that, taken together, constitute justice-language (moral language). There is no chance they can "develop" the missing pieces, either, once you understand that human language does not emerge from a blank slate... human beings are born with buit-in language modules that permit them to engage in the various kinds of language they use.
In other words, animals cannot make agreements because they lack the language to do so. That is the whole point of law after all - to make agreements. How do you know that animals cannot make agreements? Isn't this directly contradicted by the OP, by animal use of money in exchange?
I don't understand this huge motivation to try to argue that animals are almost human. Humans are animals... but lower animals are not human. It's really that simple. Lower animals will never have rights per se at law for the same that human beings will never fly by flapping their arms. That doesn't make humans "better than" animals any more than birds being able to fly unaided makes them "better than" humans.
Can someone explain to me clearly and succinctly what the remaining confusion is, here?
What's the point of this thread?
That some animals can display a pale immitation of human-like behavior? I know from the book "Where Mathematics Comes From" that pigeons can perform small arithmetical computation (e.g. 3 - 1 = 2) about as well as infants do.
In any case, it seems animals do not form markets on their own or integrate as market participants in mankind's economies. Catallactics is of little use in understanding their behavior.
Maybe you are hoping for something like this?
http://www.orionsarm.com/eg-topic/45bbfdbc381f4
"Provolution is a term for the use of technology to enhance or augment the intelligence of a subsophont species to full sophonce. The word is a shortened form of the Old Anglish term "pro-active evolution". Sometimes "provolution" is also used to describe further enhancements, such as the creation of bright or superbright versions of humans from baseline stock. Most restrict the term to the act of increasing the intelligence of an animal (or sometimes plant) species, but sometimes robots which have been boosted in intelligence to become vecs are also known as provolves."
I'd certainly like to talk about animal rights since I am myself unclear on the subject, but it seems unconnected to animal's ability to make limited use of money.
>Lower animals will never have rights per se at law
Clayton, suppose a neighbor badly beats his dog and the animal runs on to your property and you accept it into your home.
The neighbor demands you give the dog back, but you refuse.
Have you committed a tort?
In other words, can a dog be some kind of limited self-owner that can seek out a new guardian as a child might?
@baxter: Perhaps. I think that it would have more to do with norms against depravity... namely, that a depraved man would not be recognized as someone who can make a property rights claim over animals because he has been known to act with depravity against them. This is where we get into a very murky realm that probably has more to do with community norms than with law-without-adjectives. The point is that animals per se cannot be granted rights precisely because they cannot stand at law... this isn't because we are "discriminating" against animals or anyone who cannot stand at law (even if they are sentient, even if they are a human person)... rather, it has to do with saying that you cannot allow the creation and use of legal sock-puppets because the legally savvy will then use these sock-puppets to aggrandize their legal rights vis-a-vis the less legally conniving. In many ways, this is precisely what the State does. It speaks on behalf of "society". It speaks on behalf of children. It speaks on behalf of ideas. It speaks on behalf of animals. It speaks on behalf of culture and race. It speaks on behalf of the environment. And so on. These are all legal non-entities and their use in the hands of the State is merely to fabricate fictitious legal rights for itself, in order to better aggrandize its effective rights vis-a-vis all other private citizens.
Human-ness is irrelevant. Any creature of sufficient capabilities would have rights. Any creature capable of argumentation has rights. This should not be in dispute. What is in dispute is the minimum threshold needed to secure some minimum rights. Can one kill an incompetent with legal immunity? Say a man becomes injured in such a way that his mental faculties resembled a child. Say he becomes homeless without guardians. If this man is murdered, would I have standing to bring suit against the killer? If so, why can I not bring suit against the murder of a relatively intelligent animal, like dolphin, which is at least as mentally capable as the injured man? Both are intelligent to some degree. Both can find food to survive. Both might be able to engage in exchange. Would one have the protection of the law, while the other does not? If so, why?
Human-ness is irrelevant. Any creature of sufficient capabilities would have rights. Any creature capable of argumentation has rights. This should not be in dispute. What is in dispute is the minimum threshold needed to secure some minimum rights.
Yes, and among the conditions of that minimum threshold is being human. You don't get it. You can't get an iPod to act like an iPhone not becuase the iPod "just doesn't have the right software"... it just doesn't have the required radio circuitry to communicate with the cell tower. Animals "maybe becoming lingual" is like "iPods maybe becoming cell phones" - it simply can't happen. Please - find one biologist who says that lower animals have the required brain circuitry for human language.
Can one kill an incompetent with legal immunity?
I think you meant "impunity", not "immunity". Anyway, yes, you can kill an incompetent without legal consequence! That's the whole point! Cf the Terry Schiavo case.
Say a man becomes injured in such a way that his mental faculties resembled a child. Say he becomes homeless without guardians. If this man is murdered, would I have standing to bring suit against the killer?
If he was your relative, yes. If you had established any kind of guardianship-like relationship with him, yes. Otherwise, my view is that the law would not automatically grant you standing to take action against the killer. You need to show how it matters to you.
If so, why can I not bring suit against the murder of a relatively intelligent animal, like dolphin, which is at least as mentally capable as the injured man? Both are intelligent to some degree. Both can find food to survive. Both might be able to engage in exchange. Would one have the protection of the law, while the other does not? If so, why?
As I explained, the State utilizes this logic prolifically to aggrandize its rights... really, to fabricate imaginary rights. This should give you the basic idea why we should be skeptical of the supposedly "good-hearted" individual who humbly seeks to protect the innocent. Maybe you really are so good-hearted, maybe not. The key issue is whether you are an interested party in the dispute... what property of yours was harmed, etc.? If you are not an interested party, then your involvement is not automatically justifiable.
People are unused to thinking this way in the modern world of nosy-nanny law. "Everybody" supposedly owns justice. This is why we're supposed to snitch on each other to the police, etc. But the fact is that when you make justice a public good like this, it turns into a tragedy of the commons, just like any other public property. The State twists the whole structure to its own ends.
Again, human-ness and human language are irrelevant. If a UFO lands in your back yard, you can't justifiably kill its intelligent inhabitants because they don't speak any human language. They may not be able to communicate very effectively with you at that time, but they can communicate effectively among their own people, and they might be able to communicate by the time of arbitration.
Anyway, yes, you can kill an incompetent without legal consequence! That's the whole point! Cf the Terry Schiavo case.
Terry Schuavo is not analogous to this discussion. An animal has more mental capability than she did.
Otherwise, my view is that the law would not automatically grant you standing to take action against the killer. You need to show how it matters to you.
It doesn't seem right to kill incompetents who are capable of independent survival. I think even incompetents have the right not to be murdered, especially if they are capable of communicating that desire. Side issue: Your logic also indicates that one can kill a hermit without any legal repercussions. I have a problem with that too, especially if I am the hermit. Why should I have to authorize people to bring justice to my killer? Anyone should be able to seek justice for me. I think anyone has standing in a murder case, because the only person who had standing is dead. Why can't I homestead the right to seek justice by bringing suit? I also don't see any material loss inherent in close kinship that a stranger cannot claim. I am not harmed by the death of an estranged family member.
If a UFO lands in your back yard, you can't
a) We're not talking about ETs, we're talking about real beings (animals)
b) If you mean to make a gedankenexperiment, please specify the conditions... just invoking ETs doesn't wave away anything I've said
It doesn't seem right to kill incompetents who are capable of independent survival. I think even incompetents have the right not to be murdered, especially if they are capable of communicating that desire.
If an individual is able to communicate rationally (even if requiring the aid of a translator, etc.), then he or she is not incompetent.
Your logic also indicates that one can kill a hermit without any legal repercussions.
Well, you can kill anyone without legal repercussions if you can managed to pull it off. The real question here is who bears the costs of investigating crimes, apprehending perpetrators and prosecuting them. Don't try to put words in my mouth to create red herrings and false dichotomies.
I have a problem with that too, especially if I am the hermit. Why should I have to authorize people to bring justice to my killer?
Again, why are you putting words in my mouth? I never said "a hermit has to authorize someone to bring justice to his killer". It's just that you don't automatically have standing to sue any particular legal issue. Perhaps the hermit had committed a violent crime, refused to come to law for the resolution of that crime and finally had been taken out by a bounty hunter when the victim or victim's family had exhausted all peaceable alternatives. You don't know the circumstances of his death. And if you do, then odds are that you can explain your interest in his death.
Anyone should be able to seek justice for me.
But your taking a myopic and prejudicial view of the matter. A human death is not automatically a tragedy. A great deal of the "murders" in US crime stats are actually just gangland hits. These are not human tragedies like those perpetrated by the psychopath hiding in the shower with a meat cleaver. It is crucial not to confuse categories.
I think anyone has standing in a murder case, because the only person who had standing is dead. Why can't I homestead the right to seek justice by bringing suit?
As I said, you may be able to. It's just that you don't automatically have standing just because "something bad happened."
I also don't see any material loss inherent in close kinship that a stranger cannot claim. I am not harmed by the death of an estranged family member.
OK, well, you don't see it. What can I say.
Not making much progress here so I'll be brief.
I think some animals are capable of rational communication. Around we go.
But your taking a myopic and prejudicial view of the matter. A human death is not automatically a tragedy.
If you mean to make a gedankenexperiment, please specify the conditions...
The real question here is who bears the costs of investigating crimes, apprehending perpetrators and prosecuting them.
And if you do, then odds are that you can explain your interest in his death.
Sounds like a low bar. If so, there is little practical difference between our positions.
I'm not sure how high or low the bar would be, in practice. But as with most pillars of statism, it turns out that even a very small wedge suffices to eventually build a very solid foundation.
The point is this: no legal sock-puppets allowed. If you're going to sue someone, you have to explain how it concerns you. If it doesn't even concern you, the dispute can simply be dismissed as not a dispute. If the matter doesn't concern you yet you decide you're going to make threats regarding it anyway, then you may be committing a tort yourself. That's hardly a matter of "little practical difference"... it entirely changes the equation in regard to who is the aggressor and who is the victim.
I mean, we can just take it to the extreme. Panentheists hold that the entire Universe is conscious (sentiently)... this includes your car. Let's say I videotape you slamming your car door every morning and that I believe that this is causing your car deep pain, suffering and anguish in its car soul. The car can't speak for itself but I can understand its rational pleas to not be harmed any longer. So, I sue you to have the car repossessed so I can properly care for it. The self-interestedness of this line of argument should be obvious to you. 100 years ago, disagreeing over what constitutes proper care for a horse would have just as much potential for self-interested argument.
it's the idea that higher order animals possess some level of intelligence or "rationality" that makes me sometimes question whether i should eat meat.
but then again i've learned not to think about it too much.
Ambition is a dream with a V8 engine - Elvis Presley
it's the idea that higher order animals possess some level of intelligence or "rationality" that makes me sometimes question whether i should eat meat. but then again i've learned not to think about it too much.
But when you think about it, you realize that there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. We co-evolved - as partial carnivores - with these other organisms. We were eating them, some of them were eating us back. Because of this, our digestive tracts and our cellular structures are adapted to a diet that consists at least in part of meat, particularly red meat (with the fat, organs and bone marrow).
Now, you can object "We're adapted to it, fine, but we're also adapted to tribal raiding, bride-capture, rape, etc... just because it's natural, doesn't mean it's good." True. However, there is a difference between these other kinds of dispositions and the disposition to eat meat: you're adapted to the possibility of such behaviors in the case of tribal raiding, etc. but in the case of meat, it is clear that your physiology is adapted to the assumption of at least some meat in the diet - I will stop short of calling it necessary since there may be ways to eat your way around the iron, protein, minerals etc. that you would normally derive from meat, but I think it's the "obvious" way to get these necessary nutrients.
As for the morality of killing animals, I think it's a symptom of a certain upbringing to concern oneself with such matters. For the urbanite, the category "animals" is a mental extension of the category "pet". Your direct experience of animals comes from cats, dogs and other housepets. Killing objects of affection such as a pet is unthinkable. So it seems questionable to kill other animals simply because they are a different species.
But the fact is that domesticated animals and livestock are already adapted to the conditions of confinement through many generations of selection. I grew up on a ranch and I can assure you, cattle have only a very slight interest in "escaping" and even when they do, it is only in search of green pasture and they don't travel far. In other words, they're not trying to get back to the wild. Furthermore, as long as they are executed cleanly, it is painless and they never even know it's coming. Here one moment, gone the next. Death is a fate we share with them, in any case, and as long as a proper attitude of respect for their sacrifice is maintained, I believe that every aspect of livestock farming and meat consumption is wholly ethical. This is one reason why the modern corporatized system irks me. Knowing the name of the goat whose stew you're now eating puts a whole new perspective on the delicacy, entanglement and preciousness of life.
I will stop short of calling it necessary since there may be ways to eat your way around the iron, protein, minerals etc. that you would normally derive from meat, but I think it's the "obvious" way to get these necessary nutrients.
If by "obvious" you mean meat is the most "convenient" way to get protein and other nice things that is probably true. But I don't think saying it is convenient to kill animals is a very compelling argument.
I also don't think the answer to the question of whether eating meat is moral will be found in a study of biology. It is one thing to say that evolution has shaped the human body so it is able to digest meat. It is a totally different thing to make the leap and say "therefore humans should eat meat". This is the essense of Hume's "is-ought" problem.
That being said, I am not the best person to be making the argument for or against eating meat. I have no real answers. So I don't want to get into a huge discussion about it. I just wanted to quickly relate my own personal struggle with this issue as it related to the OP.
Your direct experience of animals comes from cats, dogs and other housepets. Killing objects of affection such as a pet is unthinkable. So it seems questionable to kill other animals simply because they are a different species.
I just want to clarify I didn't grow up in the suburbs. My family raised and killed a hog every year. So I have had the experience of naming an animal, raising him, watching him killed, then helping clean his carcass and turning him into sausage/ham/etc. So my moral concerns about eating meat are not the result of being squimmish about the process.
We can argue until the end of time about what is moral behavior, but the fact is that we have to find a way to live together, and that is what law is for. Rational or not, animals do not partake in any system of law. Why is this so difficult to understand?