What do you think?
Rate this book
Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals
To observe a dog's guilty look.
to witness a gorilla's self-sacrifice for a wounded mate, to watch an elephant herd's communal effort on behalf of a stranded calf--to catch animals in certain acts is to wonder what moves them. 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 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.
to witness a gorilla's self-sacrifice for a wounded mate, to watch an elephant herd's communal effort on behalf of a stranded calf--to catch animals in certain acts is to wonder what moves them. 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 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.
368 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1996
42 people are currently reading
1388 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 36 reviews
November 21, 2010
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 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.
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 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.
January 31, 2011
"Good Natured" is easily among the top three nonfiction books I've read. 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 to increase genetic fitness.
In 1976, 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. Simply because genes causing/allowing mothers to care for their young have been favored by selection does not mean that a mother comforting her crying child is thinking about maximizing her genetic fitness when she does so. The mother's caring for her child is a genuine altruistic emotion, even if the behavior of caring has persisted or increased due to selection of genes causing/allowing it.
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." Sympathy has its roots in the emotions that motivate mothers to care for their young - a behavior with obvious reproductive value. 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." Chimpanzees who take but don't share are shunned much as humans shun "cheaters."
Chimpanzees also form specific alliances with others of their species. 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.
At their best, dominant chimps act as impartial arbitrators of disputes between other chimpanzees and can break up fights that are detrimental to the group. Chimps who always favor stronger or more dominant chimps in altercations (presumably to curry favor with the strongest allies) usually are overthrown in the dominance hierarchy. It's that concept of fairness coming into play again at a much more complex level. Chimpanzees even have their own complex system of making amends to bring a conflict to an end.
In some of his most daring and successful experiments, de Waal showed that a species of monkey that is typically very hierarchical and aggressive can actually learn to be more tolerant and relaxed if members of the aggressive species are raised with slightly older members of the tolerant species.
De Waal is consistently articulate; he identifies high-level trends in behavior among different species without ever making over-generalizations. And he always illustrates his theories with examples and counter-examples which may account for his ability to avoid "painting with a broad brush."
As you can probably tell if you have continued reading to this point, I was completely floored by this book in the best possible way. I hope you get a chance to read it sometime.
In 1976, 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. Simply because genes causing/allowing mothers to care for their young have been favored by selection does not mean that a mother comforting her crying child is thinking about maximizing her genetic fitness when she does so. The mother's caring for her child is a genuine altruistic emotion, even if the behavior of caring has persisted or increased due to selection of genes causing/allowing it.
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." Sympathy has its roots in the emotions that motivate mothers to care for their young - a behavior with obvious reproductive value. 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." Chimpanzees who take but don't share are shunned much as humans shun "cheaters."
Chimpanzees also form specific alliances with others of their species. 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.
At their best, dominant chimps act as impartial arbitrators of disputes between other chimpanzees and can break up fights that are detrimental to the group. Chimps who always favor stronger or more dominant chimps in altercations (presumably to curry favor with the strongest allies) usually are overthrown in the dominance hierarchy. It's that concept of fairness coming into play again at a much more complex level. Chimpanzees even have their own complex system of making amends to bring a conflict to an end.
In some of his most daring and successful experiments, de Waal showed that a species of monkey that is typically very hierarchical and aggressive can actually learn to be more tolerant and relaxed if members of the aggressive species are raised with slightly older members of the tolerant species.
De Waal is consistently articulate; he identifies high-level trends in behavior among different species without ever making over-generalizations. And he always illustrates his theories with examples and counter-examples which may account for his ability to avoid "painting with a broad brush."
As you can probably tell if you have continued reading to this point, I was completely floored by this book in the best possible way. I hope you get a chance to read it sometime.
January 11, 2012
If you're going to read about animal intelligence - animal emotion - and onwards to animal ethics - oh, do start with Frans de Waal. He's so sensible. He's certainly not over-excitable (he's a trifle under-excited for me) and you can trust him. Explore further, but drop your anchor in Frans de Waal, that's my philosophy.
And if you're like me, the fact that animals, yes, have ethics, which are built out of emotion, changes how you see the world.
And if you're like me, the fact that animals, yes, have ethics, which are built out of emotion, changes how you see the world.
Currently reading
September 28, 2008A good friend of mine, a scary-smart sciency type who worked at the Yerkes Primate Research Center, sent me this book because she knew -- before I did -- that I don't actually believe in evolutionary theory when it comes to explaining human behavior. (I'm much more Marxist -- you're a bastard because of the unequal distribution of goods and your privileged position in the class struggle.) So this is proving to be an interesting, and challenging, read.
Read
August 2, 2011Good stuff!
June 29, 2022
Fascinating work; emphasizes increased need for science to influence philosophy when it comes to morality and its origins.
September 20, 2025
Well, that was a fascinating read.
I now know more about primates than I ever knew before, and most of it was presented in extremely interesting vignettes.
I learned, for instance, that I was incorrect when explaining the differences between humans and animals I referenced the mirror test, because, well, primates have passed the mirror test. They are aware enough of themselves that they know that they are looking at themselves in the mirror, and they can use it as a tool.
I learned also that they have enough of a memory to remember slights, plan for revenge, execute revenge, and to remember favors and return them. That's pretty impressive.
On the other hand, I don't agree with the premise of the book. I don't think that primate behavior shows us how human morality evolved. I think that it can give us great insights into primate behavior, and that it can give us insights into our own behavior, much as studying the moral system of another culture can give you insight into your own. But, I don't think that human morality evolved from primate behavior, and that is because, much like physical evolution, there are no intermediary steps. How do we go from a monkey petting another monkey that they have bitten because they recognize that they are in pain, to a human who opens their mouth to bite the person they are frustrated with, remembers the time that they were bitten, and then decides not to inflict that bite on the person, to a human who is being irritated, imagines biting the other person but never goes beyond imagination because they recognize that they shouldn't cause pain to other people by biting them?
Toward the end of the book de Waal says "a chimpanzee stroking and patting a victim of attack or sharing her food with a hungry companion shows attitudes that are hard to distinguish from those of a person picking up a crying child or doing volunteer work in a soup kitchen." That to me seems a gross overstatement of the fact. If you take an injured chimpanzee from troupe A, and place them in troupe B, it is unlikely that the chimpanzees from troupe A are going to stroke and pat the injured chimpanzee. If you take a child from group A, and place it in group B and have it start crying, it is very likely that someone will stop and pick them up and try to help them, because humans don't require social proximity to a person who is hurting in order to help them. Granted, not every human will help in this instance, but many will. I'm not even sure this falls under morality. Is it 'right' to soothe a crying child? What if the child is crying because they just punched their sister and in discipline their mother took away their favorite toy? Is it moral to pick up and soothe that child? Is comforting those that are hurting an aspect of morality at all? Not inflicting pain on another can be argued to be moral, but what if you yank on the arm of a child to prevent them from falling off of a cliff? You have caused pain to them, but you have done so in order to save them from imminent death. Is the causing of pain immoral in such a situation?
The idea of comparing a chimpanzee sharing food with another chimp that they have lived with their entire lives, in the case of captive troupes that he is studying, to a person volunteering at a soup kitchen, serving people that they have never met before and will never meet again seems to me to be so far separated from each other as to be ludicrous. All I have to do is the same thing, take a chimpanzee from troupe A, put it in troupe B, and see if food gets shared with them. Actually an even better scenario would be to give Troup A chimp a bunch of food, and then place them in troupe B, and see what happens. Somehow, I don't think the chimps of troupe B are going to line up and receive food in an orderly fashion.
That's because the chimp is not being motivated by morality, or by a feeling of sympathy for her kind in general, which is what is happening in the cases of a human picking up a child or serving in a soup kitchen, they are motivated by maintaining behavioral codes that they have been raised in, that are limited to those that they are familiar with. They do not know that those codes exist, they cannot explain them, they cannot alter them; if they fail to act in accordance with them, they face ostracization, and even death in some cases, the motivation to follow these codes is external and not consciously followed. It isn't so with the soup kitchen or the child. No one is going to be socially ostracized because they don't work at a soup kitchen, indeed, most people don't. The people who work there are motivated by something else, something inside of them, and we admire them because of that internal motivation.
It seems to me that fantasy writers have a better grasp on morality than scientists do sometimes. Doing what is right is hard. It doesn't make your life easier in the immediate sense, sometimes it makes it harder in the immediate future and in the far future, but we admire the people who do what is right because we recognize that it's difficult to do.
Anyway, it was an interesting book, but the last thing that struck me is how carefully de Wall thinks when he is designing his experiments. He delineates things very carefully and considers all possible conflicting factors and is scrupulous in explaining how the results could be misleading because of this or that factor that no one considered. This care immediately goes out of the window when he starts discussing linguistics. I can only assume this is because his expertise isn't in language. Associative learning of symbols and sounds to stimuli is not language. Just because your dog knows that 'walk' means go outside and get to pee on stuff doesn't mean that your dog knows language. He can recognize a cue in response to a stimuli. It may very well be that primates can recognize an exponentially larger number of cues than a dog can, but that doesn't mean that they have language.
I now know more about primates than I ever knew before, and most of it was presented in extremely interesting vignettes.
I learned, for instance, that I was incorrect when explaining the differences between humans and animals I referenced the mirror test, because, well, primates have passed the mirror test. They are aware enough of themselves that they know that they are looking at themselves in the mirror, and they can use it as a tool.
I learned also that they have enough of a memory to remember slights, plan for revenge, execute revenge, and to remember favors and return them. That's pretty impressive.
On the other hand, I don't agree with the premise of the book. I don't think that primate behavior shows us how human morality evolved. I think that it can give us great insights into primate behavior, and that it can give us insights into our own behavior, much as studying the moral system of another culture can give you insight into your own. But, I don't think that human morality evolved from primate behavior, and that is because, much like physical evolution, there are no intermediary steps. How do we go from a monkey petting another monkey that they have bitten because they recognize that they are in pain, to a human who opens their mouth to bite the person they are frustrated with, remembers the time that they were bitten, and then decides not to inflict that bite on the person, to a human who is being irritated, imagines biting the other person but never goes beyond imagination because they recognize that they shouldn't cause pain to other people by biting them?
Toward the end of the book de Waal says "a chimpanzee stroking and patting a victim of attack or sharing her food with a hungry companion shows attitudes that are hard to distinguish from those of a person picking up a crying child or doing volunteer work in a soup kitchen." That to me seems a gross overstatement of the fact. If you take an injured chimpanzee from troupe A, and place them in troupe B, it is unlikely that the chimpanzees from troupe A are going to stroke and pat the injured chimpanzee. If you take a child from group A, and place it in group B and have it start crying, it is very likely that someone will stop and pick them up and try to help them, because humans don't require social proximity to a person who is hurting in order to help them. Granted, not every human will help in this instance, but many will. I'm not even sure this falls under morality. Is it 'right' to soothe a crying child? What if the child is crying because they just punched their sister and in discipline their mother took away their favorite toy? Is it moral to pick up and soothe that child? Is comforting those that are hurting an aspect of morality at all? Not inflicting pain on another can be argued to be moral, but what if you yank on the arm of a child to prevent them from falling off of a cliff? You have caused pain to them, but you have done so in order to save them from imminent death. Is the causing of pain immoral in such a situation?
The idea of comparing a chimpanzee sharing food with another chimp that they have lived with their entire lives, in the case of captive troupes that he is studying, to a person volunteering at a soup kitchen, serving people that they have never met before and will never meet again seems to me to be so far separated from each other as to be ludicrous. All I have to do is the same thing, take a chimpanzee from troupe A, put it in troupe B, and see if food gets shared with them. Actually an even better scenario would be to give Troup A chimp a bunch of food, and then place them in troupe B, and see what happens. Somehow, I don't think the chimps of troupe B are going to line up and receive food in an orderly fashion.
That's because the chimp is not being motivated by morality, or by a feeling of sympathy for her kind in general, which is what is happening in the cases of a human picking up a child or serving in a soup kitchen, they are motivated by maintaining behavioral codes that they have been raised in, that are limited to those that they are familiar with. They do not know that those codes exist, they cannot explain them, they cannot alter them; if they fail to act in accordance with them, they face ostracization, and even death in some cases, the motivation to follow these codes is external and not consciously followed. It isn't so with the soup kitchen or the child. No one is going to be socially ostracized because they don't work at a soup kitchen, indeed, most people don't. The people who work there are motivated by something else, something inside of them, and we admire them because of that internal motivation.
It seems to me that fantasy writers have a better grasp on morality than scientists do sometimes. Doing what is right is hard. It doesn't make your life easier in the immediate sense, sometimes it makes it harder in the immediate future and in the far future, but we admire the people who do what is right because we recognize that it's difficult to do.
Anyway, it was an interesting book, but the last thing that struck me is how carefully de Wall thinks when he is designing his experiments. He delineates things very carefully and considers all possible conflicting factors and is scrupulous in explaining how the results could be misleading because of this or that factor that no one considered. This care immediately goes out of the window when he starts discussing linguistics. I can only assume this is because his expertise isn't in language. Associative learning of symbols and sounds to stimuli is not language. Just because your dog knows that 'walk' means go outside and get to pee on stuff doesn't mean that your dog knows language. He can recognize a cue in response to a stimuli. It may very well be that primates can recognize an exponentially larger number of cues than a dog can, but that doesn't mean that they have language.
April 3, 2008
This is my favorite primate-ish book to recommend to non primatologists. Easy read and fascinating way to envision more than science can tell us about how similar we are or are not to monkeys and apes. Some folks find it depressing to imagine generosity and love as somehow biologically based, but I think its pretty darn interesting.
March 27, 2025
This book examines the building blocks of morality found in other animal species, most notably nonhuman primates. After doing so, the author concludes that morality is best described a product of evolution and is not unique to humans which has ramifications for our worldviews and societies. All in all, interesting stuff!
July 19, 2007
5*. this is one of the most important books i have read. he is a primatologist who uses his observations to make brilliant insights into the nature of apes. he narrates about social behavior, conflict, altruism, and natural morality. a must read.
Want to read
October 18, 2007Recommended in Government 72: Human Nature and Politics taught by Professor Roger Masters.
January 3, 2011
This well-written and accessible science book offers evidence of morality and compassion in the animal kingdom.
June 22, 2022
This book was a dream. Actually, I didn’t expect lots of interesting new facts. I prepared myself for another book with the same experiments on and on and I read them over and over like an addict. But this book was full of new facts, never discussed before in previous books. Of course, there were 1 or 2 facts discussed in previous books, but not too many. I am so glad I could read this book. I think Frans de Waal is one of the smartest men alive.
Now...
Not gonna lie, my whole life humans have annoyed me... They still do... I hate gossip and yelling and in life, if you’ve ever lived in communities you know that there will be gossip. Now I do not try to degrade gossiping, I know that it helps people make the difference between the moral and immoral ones of us, but you must agree with me that gossip about the way one looks, or mean things about their private intimate lives, like slut shaming, is completely appalling. And everyone can agree that there is no utility in those. Because of that, I had a bad impression of people, well, that and all the other crimes and theft and prostitution, child pornography, and domestic abuse were the reason why when I was a teen I was a firm believer in the satanic occult elite, who want to put a million-dollar chip (sophisticated highly intelligent chip) in a poor countryside lass who worths 2 cents. We can all agree no one would do that. But Frans always educates me, and he’s the best role model and teacher I could ever have. I loved this passage which filled my heart with warmth.
“Survival of the Unfittest
My first reaction to Mozu was one of awe: "What a will to live!" The
connection with morality came later, when I heard how much paleontologists
were making of the occasional survival into adulthood of
Neanderthals and early humans afflicted with dwarfism, paralysis of
the limbs, or inability to chew. With exotic names such as Shanidar I,
Romito 2, the Windover Boy, and the Old Man of La Chapelle-Aux-
Saints, the fossil remains of a handful of cripples were taken to mean
that our ancestors supported individuals who could contribute little
to the community. Survival of the weak, the handicapped, the mentally
retarded, and others who must have posed a burden was depicted
as the first appearance on the evolutionary scene of compassion
and moral decency. Cavemen turned out to be communitarians under
the skin.”
It seems that we were never the barbarians popular culture loves to portray us when we were cavemen.
I am glad I am not eating mammals…I hope I will never do something like that… They do have emotions, and I know because I live with cats.
“Animals, particularly those close to us, show an enormous spectrum
of emotions and different kinds of relationships. It is only fair
to reflect this fact in a broad array of terms. If animals can have
enemies they can have friends; if they can cheat they can be honest,
and if they can be spiteful they can also be kind and altruistic.
Semantic distinctions between animal and human behavior often obscure
fundamental similarities; a discussion of morality will be pointless
if we allow our language to be distorted by a denial of benign
motives and emotions in animals.”
“And yes, apes do show remarkable empathy,
but no, they are not the only animals sensitive to the needs of others.
We only need think of the incredible assistance elephants, dolphins,
and lemurs offer each other to realize how widespread and well
developed these tendencies are. Caring responses go back much further
in evolutionary history than the ape-human lineage.”
I think I am a cat, a solitary cat. I need to stay alone most of the time. Hm… Maybe I am mad.
“If group life is based on a social contract, it is drawn up and signed
not by individual parties, but by Mother Nature. And she signs only
if fitness increases through association with others, that is, if sociable
individuals leave more progeny than do solitary individuals. We are
seeing how social tendencies came into existence—via a genetic calculus
rather than a rational choice. Even in our species, which prides
itself on free will, we may find an occasional hermit who has opted
for reclusion; yet we never encounter someone who has consciously
decided to become social. One cannot decide to become what one
already is.”
Thank you Frans...for everything you've taught me and you will teach me. You are a great mind, and I am so sorry I am not you...
Now...
Not gonna lie, my whole life humans have annoyed me... They still do... I hate gossip and yelling and in life, if you’ve ever lived in communities you know that there will be gossip. Now I do not try to degrade gossiping, I know that it helps people make the difference between the moral and immoral ones of us, but you must agree with me that gossip about the way one looks, or mean things about their private intimate lives, like slut shaming, is completely appalling. And everyone can agree that there is no utility in those. Because of that, I had a bad impression of people, well, that and all the other crimes and theft and prostitution, child pornography, and domestic abuse were the reason why when I was a teen I was a firm believer in the satanic occult elite, who want to put a million-dollar chip (sophisticated highly intelligent chip) in a poor countryside lass who worths 2 cents. We can all agree no one would do that. But Frans always educates me, and he’s the best role model and teacher I could ever have. I loved this passage which filled my heart with warmth.
“Survival of the Unfittest
My first reaction to Mozu was one of awe: "What a will to live!" The
connection with morality came later, when I heard how much paleontologists
were making of the occasional survival into adulthood of
Neanderthals and early humans afflicted with dwarfism, paralysis of
the limbs, or inability to chew. With exotic names such as Shanidar I,
Romito 2, the Windover Boy, and the Old Man of La Chapelle-Aux-
Saints, the fossil remains of a handful of cripples were taken to mean
that our ancestors supported individuals who could contribute little
to the community. Survival of the weak, the handicapped, the mentally
retarded, and others who must have posed a burden was depicted
as the first appearance on the evolutionary scene of compassion
and moral decency. Cavemen turned out to be communitarians under
the skin.”
It seems that we were never the barbarians popular culture loves to portray us when we were cavemen.
I am glad I am not eating mammals…I hope I will never do something like that… They do have emotions, and I know because I live with cats.
“Animals, particularly those close to us, show an enormous spectrum
of emotions and different kinds of relationships. It is only fair
to reflect this fact in a broad array of terms. If animals can have
enemies they can have friends; if they can cheat they can be honest,
and if they can be spiteful they can also be kind and altruistic.
Semantic distinctions between animal and human behavior often obscure
fundamental similarities; a discussion of morality will be pointless
if we allow our language to be distorted by a denial of benign
motives and emotions in animals.”
“And yes, apes do show remarkable empathy,
but no, they are not the only animals sensitive to the needs of others.
We only need think of the incredible assistance elephants, dolphins,
and lemurs offer each other to realize how widespread and well
developed these tendencies are. Caring responses go back much further
in evolutionary history than the ape-human lineage.”
I think I am a cat, a solitary cat. I need to stay alone most of the time. Hm… Maybe I am mad.
“If group life is based on a social contract, it is drawn up and signed
not by individual parties, but by Mother Nature. And she signs only
if fitness increases through association with others, that is, if sociable
individuals leave more progeny than do solitary individuals. We are
seeing how social tendencies came into existence—via a genetic calculus
rather than a rational choice. Even in our species, which prides
itself on free will, we may find an occasional hermit who has opted
for reclusion; yet we never encounter someone who has consciously
decided to become social. One cannot decide to become what one
already is.”
Thank you Frans...for everything you've taught me and you will teach me. You are a great mind, and I am so sorry I am not you...
December 18, 2023
DeWaal introduces the concept of animal sociality, challenging the prevailing view of selfishness as the driving force behind survival. Krotopkin counters this view, emphasizing Darwin's observations in conditions of abundance. Trivers introduces kin selection, sparking debates about its originality. DeWaal disputes Dawkins' definition of "selfish" and argues against the idea that morality is solely cultural, highlighting its roots in lower animals.
In the section on Sympathy, DeWaal explores empathy in animals, citing examples like young children comforting others. He discusses the rare occurrence of such acts in monkey societies, drawing parallels to human cognitive empathy. DeWaal touches on the recognition of distress in lemurs and the principle of parsimony in behavioral explanations.
Under the theme of Rank and Order, DeWaal delves into the significance of dominance in monkey and ape societies, exploring the conflicting strategies within group life. He explores the internalization of rules in dogs and suggests its evolutionary implications. The importance of social rules and alliances in primates is discussed, emphasizing reciprocity and its parallels in human politics.
In Quid Pro Quo, DeWaal examines food-sharing and coalition formation in primates, highlighting the role of generosity and reciprocity. He contrasts the behavior of macaques and chimpanzees when sharing food, underscoring the social implications of these actions.
The section on Getting Along explores aggression and reconciliation in animals, emphasizing the importance of social bonds. DeWaal discusses various peacemaking rituals in different species, drawing parallels to human behavior in marriages. He challenges the assumption that aggression reflects poor relationships, citing examples of strong relationships with occasional conflicts.
Conclusions highlight the complexity of human behavior, influenced by both intellect and emotions. DeWaal acknowledges variations among primates and emphasizes shared tendencies such as sympathy-related traits, norm-related characteristics, and getting along. He defends the centrality of human morality, rooted in evolutionary history, and rejects extreme animal rights views that undermine human life's core importance.
In the section on Sympathy, DeWaal explores empathy in animals, citing examples like young children comforting others. He discusses the rare occurrence of such acts in monkey societies, drawing parallels to human cognitive empathy. DeWaal touches on the recognition of distress in lemurs and the principle of parsimony in behavioral explanations.
Under the theme of Rank and Order, DeWaal delves into the significance of dominance in monkey and ape societies, exploring the conflicting strategies within group life. He explores the internalization of rules in dogs and suggests its evolutionary implications. The importance of social rules and alliances in primates is discussed, emphasizing reciprocity and its parallels in human politics.
In Quid Pro Quo, DeWaal examines food-sharing and coalition formation in primates, highlighting the role of generosity and reciprocity. He contrasts the behavior of macaques and chimpanzees when sharing food, underscoring the social implications of these actions.
The section on Getting Along explores aggression and reconciliation in animals, emphasizing the importance of social bonds. DeWaal discusses various peacemaking rituals in different species, drawing parallels to human behavior in marriages. He challenges the assumption that aggression reflects poor relationships, citing examples of strong relationships with occasional conflicts.
Conclusions highlight the complexity of human behavior, influenced by both intellect and emotions. DeWaal acknowledges variations among primates and emphasizes shared tendencies such as sympathy-related traits, norm-related characteristics, and getting along. He defends the centrality of human morality, rooted in evolutionary history, and rejects extreme animal rights views that undermine human life's core importance.
May 2, 2020
Pernahkah kalian bertanya-tanya dari mana asal-muasal moral? Apakah hanya manusia yang memiliki simpati dan empati? Apakah hewan-hewan lain tidak memilikinya? Jika hewan lain tidak memilikinya, lalu kenapa hewan seperti simpanse bisa sedih jika ada temannya yang mati? Kenapa mereka juga mau berbagi makanan dengan gerombolan kawanan mereka? Nah, de Waal mencoba menjelaskannya melalui buku ini.
Dengan pengalamannya yang sudah puluhan tahun sebagai primatolog dan etolog — yang pekerjaannya sudah pasti mengamati perilaku hewan — de Waal menyajikan bukti-bukti bahwa perilaku moral juga bisa diamati di hewan, tidak hanya primata, tetapi juga anjing, gajah, lumba-lumba, dan lainnya. Intinya adalah bahwasanya moralitas itu universal di animal kingdom.
Jadi, jika kita berpikir bahwa agama, budaya, atau hukum mengatur moral kita, tidak ada salahnya untuk berpikir ulang. Kita adalah manusia modern merupakan produk evolusi. Otak kita berkembang dari yang berpikir sederhana hingga bisa berpikir kompleks dan abstrak, seperti yang de Waal bilang:The human brain is a product of evolution. Despite its larger volume and greater complexity, it is fundamentally similar to the central nervous system of other mammals.
Resensi lengkap ada di sini.
April 21, 2022
"Osim što nas krasi ime čovjek, dičimo se i time da smo čovječni. Sjajna li načina da se moral proglasi odlikom ljudske prirode - korištenjem imena vlastite vrste u milosrdne svrhe! Životinja očito ne može biti čovjek; kako bi onda mogla biti čovječna?"
Ovo je prva i udarna rečenica knjige koja se iz pozicije biologa bavi moralom, etikom i altruizmom kod životinja, koristeći pritom najviše primjere iz svijeta primata ali i drugih vrsta kao što su dupini, kitovi, šišmiši i sl. Knjiga razmatra brojne aspekte "ljudskog" ponašanja kod životinja, kao što su prijateljstvo, pomirenje, političnost, demokratičnost i briga za druge, pa potiče na zaključak da je ono prirođeno brojnim vrstama. Navodi kako je evolucija tih osobina genetski materijal koji nas povezuje s ostalim životinjskim vrstama jednako kao i niz "nečovječnih" osobitosti kao što su neprijateljstvo, agresivnost, sebičnost ili okrutnost. Knjiga je zanimljiva zbog informacija koje donosi ali je jako loše prevedena na Hrvatski jezik i ponekad je potrebno shvatiti koju frazu je prevoditelj krivo shvatio da bi se dosegnula originalna misao autora.
Ovo je prva i udarna rečenica knjige koja se iz pozicije biologa bavi moralom, etikom i altruizmom kod životinja, koristeći pritom najviše primjere iz svijeta primata ali i drugih vrsta kao što su dupini, kitovi, šišmiši i sl. Knjiga razmatra brojne aspekte "ljudskog" ponašanja kod životinja, kao što su prijateljstvo, pomirenje, političnost, demokratičnost i briga za druge, pa potiče na zaključak da je ono prirođeno brojnim vrstama. Navodi kako je evolucija tih osobina genetski materijal koji nas povezuje s ostalim životinjskim vrstama jednako kao i niz "nečovječnih" osobitosti kao što su neprijateljstvo, agresivnost, sebičnost ili okrutnost. Knjiga je zanimljiva zbog informacija koje donosi ali je jako loše prevedena na Hrvatski jezik i ponekad je potrebno shvatiti koju frazu je prevoditelj krivo shvatio da bi se dosegnula originalna misao autora.
September 13, 2019
Having read a few other books by Frans de Waal, I noticed a few patterns. First of all, the author frequently uses cross-references to his other works. Secondly, de Waal has a habit of straying from the premise of each book, wandering into the territory of intelligence and emotions in animals. This results in his books - at least those I've read thus far - feeling awfully familiar and even repetitive. Good Natured is an interesting book, although chaotic in structure, but I found it hard to stay interested when constantly coming across familiar anecdotes. For those unfamiliar with Frans de Waal, this is a fine book to start with.
August 27, 2022
Another great book by de Waal. He closes the gap between us and our primate brethren, and argues for our moral heritage and debt to our ancient ancestors. Primates and other animals are not Descartian machines with no sympathy or empathy but rather have similar concerns and needs as us: to balance individual and group interests using strategies that are proto-moral. The selfish gene needs to be kept in check and that’s where morality comes in. Highly recommended. Also his podcast interviews are very good.
March 27, 2021
Meraviglioso. Per gli amanti dell'ecologia questo libro è un must. Appassiona dalla prima all'ultima pagina. È anche ricco di molte foto scattate direttamente da lui nel suoi anni di ricerche con i primati. Scritto in maniera molto semplice, parla dei nostri antenati come pochi scrittori sanno fare. Consigliatissimo
September 6, 2017
Fascinating
Excellent research and presentation. Very informative and enlightening focusing in ethics and morality. While I have read many books that were decades long studies, this one helped me see much deeper. Thank you!
Excellent research and presentation. Very informative and enlightening focusing in ethics and morality. While I have read many books that were decades long studies, this one helped me see much deeper. Thank you!
October 14, 2018
To be honest I don't remember a whole lot about this book but I did enjoy it. Quite technical and philosophical, he draws on multiple case studies and tried to look into a range of taxa.
I do think he's written better novels.
I do think he's written better novels.
to-keep-reference
February 25, 2022Citado en Sin fines de lucro pág.63
March 14, 2021
Describes various examples of moral behavior in animals, predominantly chimpanzees and monkeys, and discusses the relationship with human morality.
March 8, 2014
Some years ago, my cousin and I watched snow monkeys at an outdoor enclosure at the Minneapolis Zoo. The enclosure had a small pond with a tree at its edge just the right height for the monkeys to jump into the pond from. A mother was taking a leisurely swim, an infant clinging to her back. From outside her range of vision, another monkey came running, scrambled up the tree and flew into the pond, splashing the mother and her baby. The mother turned and screamed at the other monkey who made himself scarce with all due haste.
Did the mischievous monkey really plan a sneak attack on the mother? Did her annoyance perhaps amuse him while it sent him scurrying away? I wondered at the time.
I still don't know with any certainty and realize it's easy to see human emotions and motivations in animals' actions. But seeing the offending monkey run for cover as quickly as he did amused me.
Please read the rest of the review here.
Did the mischievous monkey really plan a sneak attack on the mother? Did her annoyance perhaps amuse him while it sent him scurrying away? I wondered at the time.
I still don't know with any certainty and realize it's easy to see human emotions and motivations in animals' actions. But seeing the offending monkey run for cover as quickly as he did amused me.
Please read the rest of the review here.
March 26, 2023
Autor je zoológ a etológ. Hoci je kniha ešte z roku 1996, poznatky sú nadčasové. Sprevádza nás množstvom výskumov a citácií, ktoré sa týkajú morálky, altruizmu a etiky. Waal skúma mravnosť z perspektívy zvierat (predovšetkým primátov) a ich každodenného života, pričom vychádza z myšlienok Kropotkina, Triversa a Richarda Alexandra. Dozviete sa o morálnych súdoch, kognitívnej empatii, zmyslu pre poriadok, zvnútornení pravidiel a ďalšom správaní súvisiacom s morálkou u ľudí a podobných prvkoch tohto správania, ktoré bádatelia pozorovali u zvierat. Waal píše veľmi pútavo, knihu spestrujú tri série obrazových príloh. Mne to bolo blízke i vďaka tomu, že sa odvoláva na knihy, ktoré som už čítal (napr. Pôvod cnosti, Morálne zviera, Vzájomná pomoc pod.), tak som si hneď kúpil aj jeho Mámino poslední obětí.
May 15, 2008
Very interesting research on various natures: wolf nature, ape nature, monkey nature, and thereby, human nature. How unique are we? What elements of our personalities and social structures exist elsewhere in the animal kingdom? Is there hope for a better human world in the models of more primitive ones? And just what defines non-human animal societies? The more intriguing aspects are how different species can change their own behavior and those of others through symbosis and integreation, showing us change, mediation and peace aren’t wishful thinking, but features of the natural world. The emphasis on empirical research and analysis seriously helps the optimistic message. Exceptionally clearly written for science, too.
November 26, 2007
Compelling and well-written examination of the origins of human morality, mostly though our close primate relatives but also looking at other species.
I got this book for like $1 at this huge book sale and I'm so glad I did. It really changed my way of looking at the world. It really makes you believe (with reason!) that people are fundamentally good -- for the most part.
Another book tempered that view for me: The Sociopath Next Door. So now I think most people are basically good but a small minority are unredeemable.
I got this book for like $1 at this huge book sale and I'm so glad I did. It really changed my way of looking at the world. It really makes you believe (with reason!) that people are fundamentally good -- for the most part.
Another book tempered that view for me: The Sociopath Next Door. So now I think most people are basically good but a small minority are unredeemable.
February 11, 2016
Pop culture generally depicts human nature as violent and self serving. Morality is an aberration, a thin veneer over our grasping animal urges.
De Waal argues that it ain't necessarily so. If biology has made us what we are, then biology explains both our violence and our virtues. With stories that could only be gleaned from a lifetime observing apes and monkeys, he traces the origins of human morality back into the animal world.
A convincing book, old but still relevant.
De Waal argues that it ain't necessarily so. If biology has made us what we are, then biology explains both our violence and our virtues. With stories that could only be gleaned from a lifetime observing apes and monkeys, he traces the origins of human morality back into the animal world.
A convincing book, old but still relevant.
June 21, 2016
Fascinating look at various animals' survival mechanisms, primarily focusing on group dynamics. An especially close look at monkeys and apes that are closest to humans, as this opens the door to understanding our behaviors. Morality is examined.
February 2, 2009
Brilliant masterpiece on the origins of morality. A must read!
Displaying 1 - 30 of 36 reviews