In Darwin’s The
Descent of Man, he refers to “higher” and “lower” animals,
clearly referencing the Chain of Being.
Through morality, a process that he believes to occur through nature—natural and physical mental processes, Darwin ranks man as the highest of all “higher
beings.” Darwin notes that man’s moral
sense stems from his ability to reflect upon past events and consequently, act
differently in the future (236). He writes that man differs from lower
animals as a result of “his mental faculties being highly active and his
impressions of past events extremely vivid…” (235). Seemingly, Darwin attributes the physical
faculty of memory to man’s ascent over all other lower and higher beings. However, his evidence is not convincing. When I think of animals, they have memory
too. How birds remember where they’ve
built there nests and how squirrels remember where they’ve buried their acorns
for subsistence during the winter months is certainly a function of memory. Considering the fallacy of the ephemeral, how
is Darwin to say that the memory, and thus morality, of animals aside from
humans does not exist? Simply because we
as humans cannot recognize that animals have memory in the same way that humans
have memory does not mean it does not exist.
Darwin says himself that “we really know very little about the minds of
the lower animals” (239). If morality
raises man above all other creatures, but man knows little about the minds of
lower animals, how do we know they do not have the capacity to be moral beings? And furthermore, how do we know that other animals rank lower on the Chain than humans?
Additionally,
Naden quotes in her poem, “Solomon Redivius” (1886): “Long ages passed - our
wishes/ Were fetterless and free…The memory and the moral/Had vanished quite
away” (lines 41-42; 47-48). She presents
an important idea of how our minds, and memory, deteriorate with age. Neuroscience today has shown that
degeneration of neurons, the basic units in our brains that are responsible for
cognitive function, diminishes both human and animal memory. Aging, therefore, deteriorates the mind,
memory, and morality. Considering
aging’s influence on memory and Darwin’s proposition that morality is
responsible for man’s ascent, as human beings age, do other animals whose “mental
powers… are capable of advancement” (Darwin, 235) have the capacity to overtake
aging humans on the Chain of Being?
This is a really interesting question, Emma. It is true that we know little about the minds of lower animals, so we cannot explicitly say that they do not have the capacity for morality. There are numerous instances of animals in the wild that express emotions and display social behaviors very similar to man, and I agree with you that this complicates their rank on the Chain. That being said, however, I do not think that these animals have the capacity to overtake aging humans on the Chain of Being. You raise an interesting point in suggesting that our place on the Chain of Being is transient depending on age and mental capacity, but I do not think our place can be taken over by “lower” animals at any point in our lives. I’m not a huge proponent of the Chain of Being idea in general, but I imagine that humans are placed much, much higher than the lower animals. While many of their actions are similar to ours, the cognitive ability of animals is not nearly as advanced as ours and could not overtake us later in life.
ReplyDeleteQuite frequently during the Darwin reading I found myself thinking along these same lines regarding man's ability to know the mental capacity of other species, which I also found problematic. I think that Darwin's reasoning can be attributed to the era in which he was doing research and writing, and the assertions he made were generally accepted. But at the same time, this does not excuse his theory from criticism today. I agree with Emily in that I think we need to discard the concept of the Chain of Being, and possibly even idea of ranking species at all. As we have seen, no matter how we try to compare organisms, problems always seem to arise, and I am still unsure of any benefit we get from being able to say that one species is better or worse than another.
ReplyDeleteEmma poses some very intriguing questions in her post. Her first question regarding how can we know that lower animals do not have capacity for morality reminded me of a study that we discussed in my philosophy class where results suggest that mice are capable of making what may be deemed moral choices. In this case, mice were shown to put forth great deals of effort to free another mice from an entrapment. Through a variety of control experiments, this impulse was shown not to be the result of mating behavior, the promise of a reward or many other possible incentives that may not suggest moral behavior. Darwin said “we really know very little about the minds of the lower animals” more than a century ago but this is still very much an accurate statement and this experiment and others like it do seem to suggest that morality may extend beyond humanity. Still, we may distinguish between the intricacy and extent of morality found in different species.
ReplyDeleteThe second part of Emma’s post ponders whether aging can influence morality and status on the chain of being. I find this interesting as I don’t think we’ve really discussed how status on the chain of being could change amidst the life of a creature. We usually address broad species classifications over time so to discuss how morality may change throughout life is thoughtful.
The question of morality in lower organisms is really interesting and the study you mention Chris sounds really intriguing! I know there’s debate about an evolutionary basis for altruism, putting the survival of the species over that of the individual. I think it’s hard to parse out where this biological drive to survive as a whole ends and morality really begins, and in humans social and cultural forces dictate our interactions to such a large extent. I think morality is just an idea that’s come out of language as a way to describe this push to put the good of the whole above the individual. In this way, the mice and lower organisms are making ‘moral’ choices when acting in such a fashion as freeing another mouse with no intentions of reward. But ultimately, I think the fallacy of the ephemeral is a good tie in here; it’s easy to speculate on whether or not ‘lower organisms’ make moral decisions, but we don’t know for sure. Like Miles, I think taking the side saying these beings clearly lack morality reinforces a damaging chain of being that should really be discarded.
ReplyDeleteI agree with all of you. The Chain of Being was created when we really didn't know anything about phylogenetics and is, therefore, quite antiquated. As for the question on morality, I think we've all seen or heard of dogs that steal food or do something bad that as soon as they see us come crawling up to us cowering and whimpering, even before we've actually seen the damage. Because of this sense of wrong and impending punishment, I would argue that dogs, or rather well trained dogs, are moral animals because, as Darwin stated, morals come from a sense of right and wrong and associated rewards and punishments, respectively. However, this characteristic is not quite as distinct in the wild, probably due to the "survival of the fittest" environment. Consequently, I would argue that morals come from societies, human or otherwise, that have a code of right or wrong, and that any animals such as dogs or mice (but only those animals) that live in such environments will have some sense of morality, even if its not equivalent to human morality.
ReplyDelete