Kategorien
Archiv Archiv > Soziales

Nicht-reziproker Altruismus im Tierreich?

„[…“> Even without claiming other primates as moral beings, the pillars of morality can easily be recognized in their behavior. These are summed up in our golden rule, which transcends the world’s cultures and religions. „Do unto others as you would have them do unto you“ joins empathy (attention to the feelings of others) and reciprocity (if others follow the same rule, you will be treated well, too). Human morality could not exist without empathy and reciprocity, tendencies that have been found in our fellow primates. After one chimpanzee has been attacked by another, for example, a bystander will go over to gently embrace the victim until he or she stops yelping. […“> Our primate relatives also exhibit pro-social tendencies and a sense of fairness. In experiments, chimpanzees voluntarily opened a door to provide a companion with access to food, and capuchin monkeys seek rewards for others even if they themselves gain nothing out of it. Perhaps helping others is self-rewarding in the same way that humans feel good when doing good. […“> These primates show hints of a moral order, and yet most people still prefer to view nature as „red in tooth and claw.“ We never seem to doubt that there is continuity between humans and other animals with respect to negative behavior – when humans maim and kill each other, we instantly call them „animals“ – but we prefer to claim noble traits exclusively for ourselves. When it comes to the study of human nature, this is a losing strategy, however, because it excludes about half of our background. Short of appealing to divine intervention as an explanation, this more attractive half is also the product of evolution, a view now increasingly supported by animal research. […“>“

(Frans de Waal, Zoologe und Verhaltensforscher, zitiert nach diepresse.com[/url:1ttu6spf“> vom 6.6.2009)

Vergleiche hierzu auch diese etwas ältere, ähnliche wissenschaftliche Meinung auf Deutsch[/url:1ttu6spf“> und diese dazupassende Meinung zum in den letzten Jahren vor allem, aber nicht nur in biologischen Kreisen heiß diskutierten Thema „(Natürliche) Evolution vs. (Göttliche) Kreation“:

„[…“> Regrettably, much of the current culture in the United States sees evolution as an affront to belief in God. But the 40 percent of working scientists who are believers have a different view. Most of us are theistic evolutionists. We see evolution as God’s method for creation – and what an elegant method it is! […“> We see science as the way to understand the awesome nature of God’s creation and as a powerful method for answering the „how“-questions about our universe. But we also see that science is powerless to answer the fundamental „why“-questions, such as „Why is there something instead of nothing?“, „Why am I here?“, and „Why should good and evil matter?“. […“>“

(Francis Collins, Mediziner und Genetiker, zitiert nach diepresse.com[/url:1ttu6spf“> vom 6.6.2009)

Schreiben Sie einen Kommentar

Ihre E-Mail-Adresse wird nicht veröffentlicht. Erforderliche Felder sind mit * markiert.

fifteen − ten =