Scan barcode
uhambe_nami's review against another edition
4.0
Are we basically selfish and hard-wired for competition? Are our morals just a thin layer on an essentially amoral human nature? Or is morality and cooperative behaviour a natural trait, something that we need in order to survive as a social species? How about apes and other animals, do they have morals? De Waal discusses these and other questions in Primates and Philosophers. The book is based on a number of lectures he gave at Princeton, and then there are four philosophers reacting to his arguments in part 2, after which he responds to these critics in the final part. There is an interesting discussion on animal rights, with good arguments for and against granting rights to apes. It's always a pleasure listening in on intelligent people discussing an interesting topic, and the topic of this book, the origins of morality, is an issue very close to my heart. Recommended.
uderecife's review against another edition
4.0
Primates and Philosophers, or how you should think of morality on the 21st century. This could as well be the title of this book. For, as de Waal states in the conclusion of this work "The debate with my colleagues made me think of Wilson’s (1975: 562) recommendation three decades ago that 'the time has come for ethics to be removed temporarily from the hands of philosophers and biologicized.'" (2006) So there you have. You can either go by the moralists who believe that morality is only a human affair, or go the biological way and realize that as with everything else, in what concerns morality, we are again the tip of the iceberg in evolutionary terms.
If you are interested in delving deeper into these kind of debates, you'll definitely love this book. There's plenty of academic nitty-picking inside, so you have to measure how much committed you are to these issues before opening the book. Again, quoting de Waal, "While making for good academic fights, semantics are mostly a waste of time. Are animals moral? Let us simply conclude that they occupy several floors of the tower of morality. Rejection of even this modest proposal can only result in an impoverished view of the structure as a whole" (2006).
In any case, de Waal's essays are rich and insightful as everything he has written thus far. So you won't waste your time if you just read his contributions to the volume.
If you are interested in delving deeper into these kind of debates, you'll definitely love this book. There's plenty of academic nitty-picking inside, so you have to measure how much committed you are to these issues before opening the book. Again, quoting de Waal, "While making for good academic fights, semantics are mostly a waste of time. Are animals moral? Let us simply conclude that they occupy several floors of the tower of morality. Rejection of even this modest proposal can only result in an impoverished view of the structure as a whole" (2006).
In any case, de Waal's essays are rich and insightful as everything he has written thus far. So you won't waste your time if you just read his contributions to the volume.
touchsomegrass's review against another edition
3.0
interesting discussion on whether humans have morality because of cultural reasons (de Waal calls this veneer theory), or if morality is a part of human nature that we inherited from primates. de Waal argues for the latter, listing several behavioural experiments with and observations of primates, while essays from other scientists/philosphers also included in this book take different standpoints. i definitely learned something reading this book, but also found it a bit repetitive.
wouter_pieterse's review against another edition
4.0
I love much of Frans de Waal’s work. His observations and explanations of primate behavior are impressive and convincing e.g. when he argues against the total rejection of anthropomorphism.
The way he clarifies the fallacious reasoning behind the ‘selfish’ gene that would lead to selfish people with at best a veneer of morality should be required reading in biology classes.
I reread this particular book of his with a special interest in his debate with Peter Singer. Like de Waal I don’t believe in animal rights, but in human responsibilities. However de Waal’s reasoning why didn’t really convince me. I might find a better grounding in Næss’ deep ecology.
Recommended reading, for sure.
The way he clarifies the fallacious reasoning behind the ‘selfish’ gene that would lead to selfish people with at best a veneer of morality should be required reading in biology classes.
I reread this particular book of his with a special interest in his debate with Peter Singer. Like de Waal I don’t believe in animal rights, but in human responsibilities. However de Waal’s reasoning why didn’t really convince me. I might find a better grounding in Næss’ deep ecology.
Recommended reading, for sure.
More...