具体描述
To observe a dog's guilty look. to witness a gorilla's self-sacrifice for a wounded mate, to watch an elephant herd's communal effort on behalf of a stranded calf--to catch animals in certain acts is to wonder what moves them. Might there he a code of ethics in the animal kingdom? Must an animal be human to he humane? In this provocative book, a renowned scientist takes on those who have declared ethics uniquely human Making a compelling case for a morality grounded in biology, he shows how ethical behavior is as much a matter of evolution as any other trait, in humans and animals alike. World famous for his brilliant descriptions of Machiavellian power plays among chimpanzees-the nastier side of animal life--Frans de Waal here contends that animals have a nice side as well. Making his case through vivid anecdotes drawn from his work with apes and monkeys and holstered by the intriguing, voluminous data from his and others' ongoing research, de Waal shows us that many of the building blocks of morality are natural: they can he observed in other animals. Through his eyes, we see how not just primates but all kinds of animals, from marine mammals to dogs, respond to social rules, help each other, share food, resolve conflict to mutual satisfaction, even develop a crude sense of justice and fairness. Natural selection may be harsh, but it has produced highly successful species that survive through cooperation and mutual assistance. De Waal identifies this paradox as the key to an evolutionary account of morality, and demonstrates that human morality could never have developed without the foundation of fellow feeling our species shares with other animals. As his work makes clear, a morality grounded in biology leads to an entirely different conception of what it means to he human--and humane.
作者简介
目录信息
读后感
评分
评分
评分
评分
用户评价
虽然作者也说不能用人的语言人的视角去定义动物的行为…可是试验不还是被人主观去描述的？那些对它们所谓的爱、仇恨、和好、内疚的行为的描述，难道说没有介入观察者的主观偏见吗？为什么硬要把人和动物的道德感放在一起讲呢…动物到底是直觉性地还是有认知能力地“道德”？根本不能讲清楚啊…不懂为什么动不动就把动物的研究搬到人的身上来…真的能这样推广吗…
评分虽然作者也说不能用人的语言人的视角去定义动物的行为…可是试验不还是被人主观去描述的？那些对它们所谓的爱、仇恨、和好、内疚的行为的描述，难道说没有介入观察者的主观偏见吗？为什么硬要把人和动物的道德感放在一起讲呢…动物到底是直觉性地还是有认知能力地“道德”？根本不能讲清楚啊…不懂为什么动不动就把动物的研究搬到人的身上来…真的能这样推广吗…
评分虽然作者也说不能用人的语言人的视角去定义动物的行为…可是试验不还是被人主观去描述的？那些对它们所谓的爱、仇恨、和好、内疚的行为的描述，难道说没有介入观察者的主观偏见吗？为什么硬要把人和动物的道德感放在一起讲呢…动物到底是直觉性地还是有认知能力地“道德”？根本不能讲清楚啊…不懂为什么动不动就把动物的研究搬到人的身上来…真的能这样推广吗…
评分虽然作者也说不能用人的语言人的视角去定义动物的行为…可是试验不还是被人主观去描述的？那些对它们所谓的爱、仇恨、和好、内疚的行为的描述，难道说没有介入观察者的主观偏见吗？为什么硬要把人和动物的道德感放在一起讲呢…动物到底是直觉性地还是有认知能力地“道德”？根本不能讲清楚啊…不懂为什么动不动就把动物的研究搬到人的身上来…真的能这样推广吗…
评分虽然作者也说不能用人的语言人的视角去定义动物的行为…可是试验不还是被人主观去描述的？那些对它们所谓的爱、仇恨、和好、内疚的行为的描述，难道说没有介入观察者的主观偏见吗？为什么硬要把人和动物的道德感放在一起讲呢…动物到底是直觉性地还是有认知能力地“道德”？根本不能讲清楚啊…不懂为什么动不动就把动物的研究搬到人的身上来…真的能这样推广吗…
相关图书
本站所有内容均为互联网搜索引擎提供的公开搜索信息，本站不存储任何数据与内容，任何内容与数据均与本站无关，如有需要请联系相关搜索引擎包括但不限于百度，google,bing,sogou 等
© 2026 onlinetoolsland.com All Rights Reserved. 本本书屋 版权所有