Researchers at yale tought some monkeys to use money. They traded with humans for food (trained) and with other monkeys for sex (untrained). Doesn’t this disprove the assertion that non-human animals aren’t rational.
“But these facts remain: When taught to use money, a group of capuchin monkeys responded quite rationally to simple incentives; responded irrationally to risky gambles; failed to save; stole when they could; used money for food and, on occasion, sex. In other words, they behaved a good bit like the creature that most of Chen’s more traditional colleagues study: Homo sapiens.”
"but do the capuchins actually understand money? Or is Chen simply exploiting their endless appetites to make them perform neat tricks?
Several facts suggest the former. During a recent capuchin experiment that used cucumbers as treats, a research assistant happened to slice the cucumber into discs instead of cubes, as was typical. One capuchin picked up a slice, started to eat it and then ran over to a researcher to see if he could ‘‘buy’’ something sweeter with it. To the capuchin, a round slice of cucumber bore enough resemblance to Chen’s silver tokens to seem like another piece of currency."
So the monkey using a piece of cucumber that resembled something it was trained to use is evidence? Would it have used the cucumber slice had it not been trained to make an exchange? Do monkeys in the wild, without human conditioning, perform this behavior?
OK, I can grant you that… but so what? No one ever denied that animals are living things (rocks are not) or that they have animal cells (plants do not) or that the have central nervous systems (single-celled organisms do not) or that none of them have conscious awareness (again, plants and presumably very simple animal creatures do not), etc. etc. So, what is the point, here, or is this just a general discussion of behavioral studies of animals?
So, what is the point, here, or is this just a general discussion of behavioral studies of animals?
The point is that some animals are rational. These monkeys have spontaneously engaged in voluntary indirect exchange with one another. That is rational behavior. That has significance with regard to rights.
If a dolphin does a trick to avoid some negative human action, isn’t that a rational act? And if a dolphin does a trick to gain some human favor, isn’t that exchange? We cannot deny that we presuppose the dolphins self-ownership without contradiction, else a treat would not be offered to get a given response. We cannot simply decree that the animal will obey our commands. The offering of a treat is an argument. The dolphin can refuse the offer, and it sometime does. A rock or a single-cell animal cannot accept or reject an offer to do a trick. They cannot differ gratification.
But who ever claimed that animals are irrational? After all, the whole idea is that hyper-rationality (selfishness) is the rule of Nature - red in tooth and claw - with the exception of man - the tabula rasa - who is the exception precisely in this regard.
Well, 99% of the general population are statists one way or an other.
Would it be “irrational” of me to predict that the statists of the future will no longer need human slaves? These rational monkeys can go work in sweat-shops and oil rigs and diamond mines!! Heck, the military can train them as soldiers!!
I once saw a cat named “Mr Meowzers” wear a hat on youtube and dance around to funny music - he’s just like a real person!
The fact remains: there is no inherent reason to care what is or is not “rational” (whatever the heck that may mean),- unless maybe you’re some liberal stuck in the early 1800’s. Nor is there any reason to care about what a few scientists doing some tests on monkeys have to say when thinking about anything sociological (unless you are a liberal stuck in the late 1800’s).
If you’re asking if animales are subject to praxeology, maybe - but that’s really not for me to speculate about.
In short, man is a rational and social animal. No other animals or beings possess this ability to reason, to make conscious choices, to transform their environment in order to prosper, or to collaborate consciously in society and the division of labor.
OK, looks like we’re using the two different senses of rationality at odds, here.
Meaning 1: Capable of planning, not acting against own interests. Rocks are not rational, plants are not rational. Somewhere along the scale between micro-organisms and organisms, we perceive a shift between a complete absence of planning (pure action-reaction) to some capacity to plan - construction of a spider-web is an act of (instict-programmed) planning, for example.
Meaning 2: Reasonable, capable of extended argument and discussion, capable of chaining together many inferences in order to anticipate facts that otherwise escape any immediate observation. Evidenced by sohpisticated verbal ability. Severe schizophrenics are not rational (reasonable). Some mentally retarded are not rational. Anyone that is vegetative or in a coma, etc. is not rational. Many senile and Alzheimer’s patients are not rational, etc. Dogs, cats, apes, dolphins and any other lower animal is not rational.
But some animals are capable of discussion. They are able to use symbols (numerals, pictures, lexigrams, sign language) to communicate information. They know that their knowledge differs from the knowledge of others. They learn that they must repeat themselves if the listener is not paying attention. Surly that is the basis for forming an argument. I suspect apes or dolphins would complain if researches chose to harm them after teaching them some form of language suitable for forming a complaint.
Has this has ever been tested? It might be a trivial matter or a forgone conclusion to any researcher unconcerned with complaints.
But “communicate information” is not a sufficient condition for being reasonable - no one ever denied that animals communicate information, even complex infromation. The probem is that animals simply don’t have the hardwiring for the necessary conceptual categories that, taken together, constitute justice-language (moral language). There is no chance they can “develop” the missing pieces, either, once you understand that human language does not emerge from a blank slate… human beings are born with buit-in language modules that permit them to engage in the various kinds of language they use.
In other words, animals cannot make agreements because they lack the language to do so. That is the whole point of law after all - to make agreements. How do you know that animals cannot make agreements? Isn’t this directly contradicted by the OP, by animal use of money in exchange?
I don’t understand this huge motivation to try to argue that animals are almost human. Humans are animals… but lower animals are not human. It’s really that simple. Lower animals will never have rights per se at law for the same that human beings will never fly by flapping their arms. That doesn’t make humans “better than” animals any more than birds being able to fly unaided makes them “better than” humans.
Can someone explain to me clearly and succinctly what the remaining confusion is, here?