Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Baby Shaker App Outrage - ABC Front Page Story
- Thread starter gibbz
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No, there are studies that show animals may be as capable of knowing the difference between right and wrong as we are. Humans always give themselves too much credit, and animals too little. For some reason people always assume that all of our morality, art, language, etc. magically manifested from nothing when the human brain evolved, when it was simply built on top of similar, albeit less advanced, foundations that have existed for eons.
Link? doesnt seem like many animals care about murder, rape, etc etc.
How does an animal distinguish between "right" and "wrong" when the two concepts are 100% man made?
...when the two concepts are 100% man made?
Complete assumption.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1145886/Monkeys-apes-know-right-wrong-scientists-say.html
Ridiculous!
Ha! Your statement is ridiculous! I can barely type because I'm smiling so hard! Thanks for that...
I think I know what you're trying to say though. Human observers see some analogs in lesser intelligent animals that SEEM like animal culture. I get it.
There are INFINITE differences among perceptions of ethics and morality within human minds. These differences increase exponentially when you start talking about a chimpanzee's perception of right/wrong Vs. a human's. As yet, we have no way to measure a chimp's perception of right/wrong--much less measure it in a way that would not be completely biased by the perceptions of the human observer. (at this point, impossible--though interesting).
My advice: Turn OFF the "Discovery Channel" and read some scholarly literature on the subject...
Back to the subject: Chimps still do not entertain themselves by creating software games for the iPhone that mimic murdering infant chimpanzees. From my perspective, that makes them more sapient than the creators of the 'baby shake' app.
Ha! Your statement is ridiculous! I can barely type because I'm smiling so hard!
Thanks for that...I think I know what you're trying to say though. Human observers see some analogs in lesser intelligent animals that SEEM like animal culture. I get it.
There are INFINITE differences among perceptions of ethics and morality within human minds. These differences increase exponentially when you start talking about a chimpanzee's perception of right/wrong Vs. a human's. As yet, we have no way to measure a chimp's perception of right/wrong--much less measure it in a way that would not be completely biased by the perceptions of the human observer. (at this point, impossible--though interesting).
My advice: Turn OFF the "Discovery Channel" and read some scholarly literature on the subject...
Back to the subject: Chimps still do not entertain themselves by creating software games for the iPhone that mimic murdering infant chimpanzees. From my perspective, that makes them more sapient than the creators of the 'baby shake' app.
Yeah, like what? You didn't understand anything I said. I never said that human and animal senses of morality were identical, just comparable, and that our brains have evolved from more primitive foundations, so you can find analogues in our cousins in the animal world. Animals must have at least SOME sense of culture -- ours didn't spring from nothing. Don't be so pedantic.
$3 words, etc.
"Pedantic:" nice $3 word. I take it as a compliment.
I DO get what you're saying, and I agree--"ours didn't spring from nothing." (It certainly wasn't handed down from Jehova.) However, the link you assume from hypothetical culture in primates to human culture is too simplistic. Postmodernists might say that assumption is specio-centric. Primates are unable to comprehend culture.
Most importantly, Culture is a human concept to define a set of human social phenomena. Can or should we impose that definition upon seemingly similar phenomena exhibited by lesser-intelligent animals? We see a little of ourselves in the great apes, and our evolutionary origins from apes is a widely-accepted hypothesis. However, keep it all in perspective. Without direct evidence, as Science demands, everything remains uncertain. The mechanisms of natural selection are still in play. Humans are technically superior to all other known animals because of our potential for intelligence and adaptability. (That doesn't necessarily mean we have more worth--I think it means we have greater responsibility as stewards.) The problem is, like the creators of the "baby shake" APP, we choose NOT to realize our potential. This is the point I was trying to make. The motives behind creating this APP are evolutionarily inefficient because they are socially irresponsible (morally BAD in the De Waal definition).
I respect your personal belief that human morality sprang from primate behavior as your own. However, though interesting, is not pivotal to my original argument.
We are way off-topic here.
This thread is about a sinister iPhone APP. I simply presented a generalized opinion about chimpanzees valuing life more than the creators of this APP. Despite our disagreement about the details, your statements greatly support my original argument.
I emailed Dr. Frans De Waal of Emory University and he sent this link on his research: http://www.amazon.com/Primates-Philosophers-Morality-Evolved-Princeton/dp/0691124477
"Pedantic:" nice $3 word. I take it as a compliment.
I DO get what you're saying, and I agree--"ours didn't spring from nothing." (It certainly wasn't handed down from Jehova.) However, the link you assume from hypothetical culture in primates to human culture is too simplistic. Postmodernists might say that assumption is specio-centric. Primates are unable to comprehend culture.
Most importantly, Culture is a human concept to define a set of human social phenomena. Can or should we impose that definition upon seemingly similar phenomena exhibited by lesser-intelligent animals? We see a little of ourselves in the great apes, and our evolutionary origins from apes is a widely-accepted hypothesis. However, keep it all in perspective. Without direct evidence, as Science demands, everything remains uncertain. The mechanisms of natural selection are still in play. Humans are technically superior to all other known animals because of our potential for intelligence and adaptability. (That doesn't necessarily mean we have more worth--I think it means we have greater responsibility as stewards.) The problem is, like the creators of the "baby shake" APP, we choose NOT to realize our potential. This is the point I was trying to make. The motives behind creating this APP are evolutionarily inefficient because they are socially irresponsible (morally BAD in the De Waal definition).
I respect your personal belief that human morality sprang from primate behavior as your own. However, though interesting, is not pivotal to my original argument.
We are way off-topic here.
This thread is about a sinister iPhone APP. I simply presented a generalized opinion about chimpanzees valuing life more than the creators of this APP. Despite our disagreement about the details, your statements greatly support my original argument.
I emailed Dr. Frans De Waal of Emory University and he sent this link on his research: http://www.amazon.com/Primates-Philosophers-Morality-Evolved-Princeton/dp/0691124477
small bbc interview
two opinions from people directly involved with the phenomenon, regarding "baby shake" APP.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8015876.stm
two opinions from people directly involved with the phenomenon, regarding "baby shake" APP.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8015876.stm
...and that is different or supposedly a "more informed" stance than anyone else's? Shaking a baby is an expression of frustration. It's analogous to when people kick their computer, throw their phone, slam a drawer, punch a wall, or break something, they obviously know that it's not going to fix the problem. Their emotion overcomes their reason and they act out. When someone shakes a baby, they don't think the baby is crying because it wants to be shaken. If anything, they may underestimate the damage shaking a baby can cause. In such a case, this app could have only proved to be educational as the virtual baby does in fact die.
It is a stupid app and I'm glad it was rejected simply on the basis that, like 90% or more of apps on the app store, it is useless. I love how Apple claims that it was a "mistake" that it got approved, as if it was decided to be rejected and someone accidentally hit the "approve" button, oops! oh well, can't fix it now!
Furthermore, I am just laughing at all of you talking about chimpanzees and morals/ethics/empathy, etc. The fact is we can not know what goes on inside the minds of other creatures. We don't know what or how they think, therefore any discussion on whether or not they can comprehend what you call "human concepts" is completely meaningless. All we can do is observe behavior and try to deduce the mental constructs the animal is capable of. Double J actually gave an example of research that did just that whose results suggest animals have concepts we would call "human". You haven't shown anything that researches apparently altruistic behavior and whether or not that shows chimps have a concept of empathy.
In one sentence you say there are (exponentially) infinite differences between human and animal perception. In the next sentence you say there is no way to measure an animal's perception. This contradiction pretty much sums up your entire argument on the subject - totally meaningless. By the way, if there differences of perception in human minds was really INFINITE, the differences of perception between human and chimp minds can't be exponentially greater as they would still be INFINITE.
That is a silly argument since chimpanzees are unable to program iPhone apps. In actuallity, they don't mimic murdering infant chimpanzees, they do it for real. Young chimpanzees that successfully fights off the alpha male of a pack will murder all the male infants of the troop (often by shaking and slamming them against trees, ironically).
meaningless arguments
Eso,
You say the argument is meaningless, yet you do your best to join in.
I'm done with this subject. I've said all I feel I want to say. Your attempt to argue semantics doesn't motivate me to clarify anything for you. You clearly "don't get it." If you're really interested, re-read.
You're actually directly quoting things I wrote, but completely misinterpreting and rearranging simple sentence modifiers. Seriously, have you been tested for dyslexia? Relax, you've just got your hackles up by some of the things I said--that's all. Put away your hacksaw, this is work for a scalpel (or at least an xacto-knife).
p.s. Though possible, I'm not sure your claims about alpha male behavior are correct. (I think you're making it up.) If you have scientific evidence to back up your claims that doesn't originate on the Discovery Channel, I'd be surprised. Regardless of origin, if you claims are correct, they only support my original argument.
Eso,
You say the argument is meaningless, yet you do your best to join in.
I'm done with this subject. I've said all I feel I want to say. Your attempt to argue semantics doesn't motivate me to clarify anything for you. You clearly "don't get it." If you're really interested, re-read.
You're actually directly quoting things I wrote, but completely misinterpreting and rearranging simple sentence modifiers. Seriously, have you been tested for dyslexia? Relax, you've just got your hackles up by some of the things I said--that's all. Put away your hacksaw, this is work for a scalpel (or at least an xacto-knife).
p.s. Though possible, I'm not sure your claims about alpha male behavior are correct. (I think you're making it up.) If you have scientific evidence to back up your claims that doesn't originate on the Discovery Channel, I'd be surprised. Regardless of origin, if you claims are correct, they only support my original argument.