Final-Fan said:
Smidlee said:
Final-Fan said:
Food is really almost the only commodity available to animals, so obviously that's what they're going to focus on. Just because we have created money to embody wealth in a more abstract way doesn't make it fundamentally different from if there was an orange worth $5000 in that wallet. Or for a more realistic example, think back to the 1500s in Europe when spices were ridiculously expensive.
And remember that the monkey was actually trading a white chip for food. Another monkey trading the same chip got way better food; the monkey felt the researcher himself was being "immoral", or unfair, in his trading.
Also, if I saw someone handing out bread to the homeless, and one guy got a big cake for no reason, I would wonder why, and I would ask if I could think of a good excuse to insert myself into the situation. Including if I was one of the guys who didn't get cake. |
(1) Mankind does many things that has nothing to do with food (or sex) , like sending man to the moon. And the monkey trade the chip only because time and time again they are rewarded for food. (2) This again doesn't mean an ape understand the concept of wealth/money. This is man trying to imply something human onto an ape.
(3) The ape was not only unthankful but eventually force the grapes out of the man's hand. Obviously the ape does not understand the concept of stealing and had no problem taking the grapes from the man's hand. Also the other ape which was giving the grapes didn't really care to share his grape to the other ape.
(4) Watching these apes reminds me of some selfish children fighting of their parent inheritance that just passed away, afraid one will get more than the other. There is nothing moral about this kind of action.
|
1. Look, no one is denying that humans have a more advanced intellect than those monkeys, so naturally we have more advanced ideas of what we value; we can for instance value things like going to the moon that are not directly related to food or sex or death.
2. But even though something as abstact as "money" (a universal trade good that has no use in and of itself) is probably beyond those monkeys, they can certainly understand "wealth". And relative wealth, and barter, etc.
For instance, when one monkey gives another one a tool it needs to get some nuts, and then gets paid a share of the nuts, that's actually a pretty sophisticated transaction, which relies on the other monkey being MORAL and giving the first monkey the share it deserves for the, shall we say, capital investment.
3. On the contrary, the monkey's poor behavior is actually the direct RESULT of its ability to recognize fair (and unfair) treatment to itself, because it was getting screwed in trading compared to the other one. (And we already know that it is not sociopathic, i.e. only recognizing/caring about its own treatment, because of its fair treatment of the other monkey in the earlier experiment.) If it was more stupid, it would not have recognized that it was getting less in trade and would have stayed blissfully ignorant.
4. That is a bad analogy, becuase it did not resent the other monkey who got a better deal, nor tried to Itake its grape. It just wanted to get a trade equally valuable for an equal investment.
|
