Transcript: Frans De Waal on Moral Systems Among Primates | Apr 24, 2004

A quote reads “Good Nature: Animal Origins of Human Morality.”

Frans de Waal appears in a classroom. He has grey curly hair and a grey
moustache. He wears glasses a grey blazer with a black bowtie and a white and
black striped shirt.

He stands in front of a lecture hall filled with people sitting and listening.

Frans says I WILL
TALKING TONIGHT ABOUT AN ISSUE
THAT IS USUALLY RESERVED FOR
PHILOSOPHY AND THEOLOGY, WHICH
IS MORALITY IN RELATION TO
ANIMALS.
THERE'S A CHALLENGE HERE I
THINK FOR THE PHILOSOPHERS.
BUT THERE'S CERTAINLY ALSO A
CHALLENGE FOR BIOLOGY, AND I
WILL BE ACTUALLY BE MORE
TALKING ABOUT THE CHALLENGE TO
BIOLOGY THAN ANYWHERE ELSE.
AND THE REASON FOR THAT IS THAT
IN BIOLOGY WE HAVE --

A caption appears and it reads “Frans de Waal. Emory University. ‘Good Nature:
Animal Origins of Human Morality.’.”

Frans continues TRADITIONALLY
DEPICTED ANIMALS AS COMPETITIVE
AND FAIRLY NASTY.
THIS IS PARTLY DUE TO
DARWINISM.
NOT DUE TO
DARWIN HIMSELF, BUT DUE TO
DARWINISM IN GENERAL AND PEOPLE
HAVE BECOME VERY CYNICAL ABOUT
NATURE.
NATURE IS A PLACE WHERE
COMPETITION TAKES PLACE.
WE DESCRIBE WALL STREET AS A
DARWINIAN JUNGLE, AND SO
BASICALLY THE BUSINESS WORLD
MODELS ITSELF AFTER HOW WE
THINK NATURE WORKS.
BUT IT'S NOT NECESSARILY THE,
THE WAY IT REALLY WORKS.
CAN I HAVE THE FIRST SLIDE, AND
THE LIGHTS TURNED OFF?

The lights are turned off and a projector shows a photo Jurkish holding a
chimpanzee and Benoble as they sit on his lap in the jungle.

Frans says THIS IS ROBERT JURKISH.
THIS IS THE FOUNDER OF THE
JURKISH PRIMATE CENTRE.
AND JURISH ALREADY IN 1925, HE
WROTE A BOOK, HE WROTE MANY
BOOKS ABOUT PRIMATES.
HE TALKED ABOUT HIS TWO
BONOBOS.
IT'S HIS TWO BONOBOS.
ONE IS A BENOBLE AND THE OTHER
ONE IS A CHIMPANZEE.
LET ME POINT THAT OUT.
THIS ONE IS A CHIMPANZEE NAMED
PANSY AND THIS IS A BENOBLE
NAMED PRINCE CHIMP.
YOU SEE THE WORK LAYED HERE.
PRINCE CHIMP.
AND PRINCE CHIMP, JURKISH
DIDN'T KNOW IT WAS A BENOBLE,
BECAUSE AT THAT TIME IN 1925
THE BENOBLE WAS NOT YET
DISTINGUISHED AS A SEPARATE
SPECIES.
NOW IN THE TIME THAT HE WORKED
WITH THEM PANSY GOT VERY SICK
AND ACTUALLY DIED OF
TUBERCULOSIS, AND HE DESCRIBED
HOW PANSY, HOW PRINCE CHIMP WAS
EXTREMELY PROTECTIVE AND
TENDER, AND, AND WOULD SHARE
FOOD WITH HER AND, AND IN THE
TIME SHE WAS SICK HE WAS WHAT,
WHAT JURKISH CALLED ALTRUISTIC
WITH PANSY.
AND HE SAID LITERALLY, UM, THAT
IF HE WERE TO DESCRIBE, IF HE
WERE TO DESCRIBE THE BEHAVIOUR
OF PRINCE CHIMP IN A SCIENTIFIC
ARTICLE PEOPLE WOULD LAUGH AT
HIM AND WOULD SAY THAT HE, HE
WAS COMPLETELY WRONG.
THAT IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO
SHOW SYMPATHETIC TENDENCIES
TOWARDS ANOTHER.
THIS WAS NOT POSSIBLE FOR
ANIMALS.
SO THIS IS 1925, AND ACTUALLY A
PSYCHOLOGIST WHO YOU WOULD
THINK WOULD BE ALLOWED TO TALK
IN PSYCHOLOGICAL TERMS ABOUT
HIS ANIMALS, BUT HE UNDERSTOOD
ALREADY AT THAT TIME THE GREAT
INHIBITIONS UNDER WHICH HE
LIVED.
AND SO TO DESCRIBE GENTLE
BEHAVIOUR WAS ALMOST
IMPOSSIBLE.
TO DESCRIBE NASTY BEHAVIOUR HAS
NEVER BEEN A PROBLEM, SO IF I,
I HAVE LOTS OF EXPERIENCE WITH,
AS IF I WERE TO DESCRIBE A
PRIMATE SOCIETY AND SAY THESE
TWO MALES ARE RIVALS FINE.
IF I SAY THESE TWO MALES ARE
COMPETING OVER THE TOP POSITION
OR COMPETING OVER FEMALES, OR
THESE FEMALES ARE COMPETING
OVER ACCESS TO MALES OR
WHATEVER IT IS THAT WOULD ALL
BE FINE.
BUT WHEN BARBARA SMUTS IN THE,
IN THE 80S, WROTE A BOOK,
“FRIENDSHIP IN BABOONS,” WHICH
WAS ABOUT AFFILIATIVE TIES
BETWEEN BABOONS SHE WAS
ATTACKED BECAUSE OF THE WORD
FRIENDSHIP AND EVERYONE HAD
LOTS OF QUESTIONS ABOUT
FRIENDSHIP.
IS FRIENDSHIP POSSIBLE IN
ANIMALS?
THAT SORT OF QUESTIONS.
SO RIVALRY IS CERTAINLY AN
ACCEPTED TERM, BUT FRIENDSHIP
WAS NOT.
WHEN HARRY HARLOW STARTED TO
TALKING ABOUT LOVE BETWEEN
MOTHER AND OFFSPRING IN
PRIMATES HE WAS ATTACKED.
ACTUALLY HARLOW GAVE ONE OF THE
FIRST, OF MAYBE THE FIRST
SNYDER LECTURE HERE AND GOT
EVERYONE PRETTY MUCH AROUSED
FOR DIFFERENT REASONS ACTUALLY
THAN THESE REASONS.

[Audience laughs]

Frans says SO THE
SITUATION HAS BEEN IN BIOLOGY
THAT YOU CAN MENTION THE
NEGATIVE CHARACTERISTICS AND
THE COMPETITIVENESS OF ANIMALS
VERY EASILY.
THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM.
AS SOON AS YOU GET INTO A
DOMAIN OF MORE FRIENDLY
TENDENCIES, THAT'S DIFFERENT.
THE SAME IS TRUE FOR YOU AND
NATURE BY THE WAY.
IF, IF PEOPLE KILL EACH OTHER
IN RWANDA OR IN BOSNIA, WE SAY
THEY'RE ACTING LIKE ANIMALS.
IF PEOPLE DO NICE AND WONDERFUL
THINGS, THAT'S OUR NOBLE, HUMAN
CHARACTERISTIC THAT DRIVES US
DOING THAT, AND WE'RE CERTAINLY
NOT BEING COMPARED TO ANIMALS
AT THAT PARTICULAR, LEVEL.
AND SO THERE'S AN ENORMOUS
SCHIZO, SCHIZOPHRENIA SORT OF
IN, IN THE WAY WE TREAT THE
ANIMAL WORLD.
THE ANIMAL WORLD CAN ONLY BE
USED IN COMPETITIVE TERMS.
CAN I HAVE THE NEXT ONE?

A slide under the title “First signs of Moral Decency.” It reads “Shanidar 1.
Romito 2. Windover Boy. Creb.”

Frans says NOW, WHEN PEOPLE STARTED
SPECULATING ABOUT THE ORIGINS
OF MORALITY THERE WERE
IMMEDIATELY ALL SORTS OF
PROBLEMS.
AND THIS RELATES TO THIS WHOLE
ISSUE OF HOW BIOLOGY HAS
DEPICTED NATURE.
AND SO FOR EXAMPLE THESE ARE
PALEONTOLOGISTS WHO SAW THE
FIRST SIGNS OF MORAL DECENCY IN
THEIR FOSSIL RECORD.
THE FOSSIL RECORD IS
NOTORIOUSLY INCOMPLETE.
PEOPLE MAKE UP LOTS OF STORIES,
BUT AT LEAST THEY FOUND A
NEANDERTHAL WHO COULD NOT
MASTICATE.
THEY FOUND A CRIPPLED
INDIVIDUAL, A DWARF.
AN INDIVIDUAL, A HANDICAPPED
INDIVIDUAL.
THIS IS A FICTIONAL CHARACTER
BASED ON THOSE FOUNDS.
AND BASICALLY WHAT THEY ARGUE
IS THAT IF YOU HAVE AN
INDIVIDUAL WHO'S SEVERELY
HANDICAPPED AND HE SURVIVES
INTO ADULTHOOD YOU MUST HAVE A
MORAL SYSTEM.
BECAUSE OTHERWISE HOW COULD
THIS HAPPEN?
SO YOU MUST HAVE A SUPPORT
SYSTEM AND THE SUPPORT SYSTEM
MEANS A MORAL SYSTEM.
AND SO THEY TRANSLATED FINDING
CRIPPLED INDIVIDUALS INTO SIGNS
OF MORALITY.
NOW IF THAT'S EVIDENCE FOR
MORALITY WE HAVE LOTS OF IT IN
THE ANIMAL WORLD.
LET ME GET THE NEXT ONE.
I'LL GIVE YOU TWO EXAMPLES.
ONE, AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT I
AGREE WITH THAT CRITERION.
I DON'T THINK THIS IS A GOOD
CRITERION NECESSARILY OF MORAL
SYSTEMS.
BUT ANYWAY THAT'S WHAT THEY
CHOSE FOR THEIR EVIDENCE.

A close-up of a picture shows two rhesus monkeys hugging one another with a
stone fence in the background.

THIS IS A RHESUS NAMED AZALIA
WHO IS TRISOMIC.
TRISOMIC, MEANING THAT SHE HAS
THREE CHROMOSONES OF ONE KIND.
IT'S THE SAME SORT OF CONDITION
AS DOWN SYNDROME IN HUMANS, AND
SHE'S A RETARDED MONKEY.
AH, SHE, SHE COULDN'T WALK AND
CLIMB VERY WELL.
SHE COULDN'T MASTICATE FOOD
VERY WELL.
BUT SHE SURVIVED QUITE WELL IN
A GROUP OF RHESUS MONKEYS.
AND RHESUS MONKEYS ARE NOT
PARTICULARLY KNOWN FOR BEING
NICE MONKEYS.
THEY'RE VERY COMPETITIVE
ACTUALLY IN MANY WAYS.
BUT SHE SURVIVED AND SHE GOT A
LOT OF SUPPORT FROM HER FAMILY,
AND ACTUALLY HER FAMILY MADE AN
EXCEPTION FOR HER IN THE SENSE
THAT SHE MADE A LOT OF SOCIAL
MISTAKES BECAUSE SHE WAS SO TO
SPEAK STUPID, AND SO SHE, SHE
WOULD, IF HER, IF HER MOM
ATTACKED SOMEONE SHE WOULD
THINK SHE COULD DO THE SAME.
AND THIS INDIVIDUAL WAS NOT
NECESSARILY AGREEING WITH THAT,
AND SO SHE WOULD GET INTO,
GETTING INTO A LOT OF TROUBLE.
UM, BUT IT WAS ALMOST AS IF THE
GROUP DID NOT PUNISH HER THE
WAY THEY WOULD PUNISH NORMAL
JUVENILES.
CAN I HAVE THE NEXT ONE?

A close-up of Azalia shows her face.

Frans says SO SHE SURVIVED INTO THE AGE OF
THREE OR FOUR, AFTER WHICH WE
HAD TO PUT HER TO SLEEP BECAUSE
SHE, SHE DEVELOPED SOME OTHER
SYNDROMES THAT WERE NOT VERY,
WERE REALLY LIFE THREATENING,
AND IN THE WILD SHE WOULD
CERTAINLY NOT HAVE SURVIVED SO
MANY YEARS ANYWAY.
NEXT ONE.

A close-up shows Mozu the Japanese monkey that has a small baboon like face and
white fur.

Frans says THIS IS AN EVEN MORE STRIKING
CASE.
THIS IS MOZU.
MOZU IS A FEMALE JAPANESE
MONKEY WHO LIVES IN THE, IN THE
WILD.
SHE LIVES IN JAPAN, NEAR
NAGANO.
YOU KNOW, WHERE THE OLYMPICS,
THE WINTER OLYMPICS WERE HELD?
SO IN THE, IN THE JAPANESE
ALPS, AS THEY ARE CALLED.
A VERY COLD CLIMATE AND SHE
SURVIVED TILL THE AGE OF I
THINK 25.
SHE RAISED FIVE OFFSPRING, AND
SHE HAS NO HANDS AND NO FEET.
CAN I HAVE THE NEXT ONE?

A close-up of a picture shows Mozu without any hands or feet.

Frans says SO HERE'S MOZU, NO HANDS, NO
FEET, WHICH MEANS THAT IN THE
WINTERTIME WHEN ALL HER FELLOW
MONKEYS TRAVEL THROUGH THE
CANOPY OF THE TREES, AND AVOID
THE ICE AND SNOW LAYER THAT'S
ON THE GROUND SHE HAS TO PLOW
THROUGH THE SNOW WITH A KID ON
HER BACK USUALLY, AND SO
CERTAINLY VERY STRONG SURVIVAL
TENDENCIES.
AND, AND IN THIS CASE AGAIN
EVEN THOUGH THE JAPANESE MONKEY
AGAIN IS NOT KNOWN AS A
PARTICULARLY FRIENDLY MONKEY

Frans says UM, THEY MADE
AN EXCEPTION FOR HER IN THE
TROOP.
BECAUSE WHEN THE TROOP SPLIT
THE DOMINANT ONE OF THE TWO
WHO, WHO WAS CLOSEST TO THE
FOOD, TO THE FOOD SOURCES
LET HER PICK
HER POSITION IN THE TROOP EVEN
THOUGH SHE BELONGED TO FAMILIES
THAT WENT WITH THE OTHER TROOP.
SO IT'S ALMOST AS IF THEY MADE
AN EXCEPTION FOR HER.
CAN I HAVE THE NEXT ONE?

A close-up shows Mozu walking as she drags her feet and hands.

Frans says THIS IS MOZU WALKING.
NOW I'M NOT SAYING THAT THIS IS
IN ANYWAY IS EVIDENCE THAT
JAPANESE MONKEYS HAVE A MORAL
SYSTEM.
CERTAINLY IF SHE HAD BEEN FOUND
BY PALEONTOLOGISTS AND IT WAS A
HUMAN SKELETON THAT THEY HAD
FOUND OR A HUMAN FOSSIL, THEY
WOULD HAVE CONCLUDED THAT SHE
IS, IS PART OF A MORAL SYSTEM
BECAUSE THIS IS A SEVERLY
HANDICAPPED INDIVIDUAL WHO
SURVIVES INTO ADULTHOOD.
SO THAT'S, IT PUTS A QUESTION
MARK BEHIND THE PARTICULAR
CRITERION THAT'S AT USE.
BUT ALL THAT THIS SHOWS I THINK
IS THAT YOU HAVE A LOT OF
SPECIES, NOT A FEW, YOU HAVE
LOTS OF ANIMAL SPECIES, THAT
HAVE VERY HIGH LEVELS OF SOCIAL
TOLERANCE AND ARE ACTUALLY LESS
COMPETITIVE THAN OFTEN
DEPICTED, AND HAVE A PLACE FOR
THESE SORT OF INDIVIDUALS.
YOU OFTEN READ THAT INDIVIDUALS
WHO ARE NOT FIT WILL PERISH
AUTOMATICALLY, AND UM, SO THEIR
GENES ARE THROWN OUT OF THE
GENE POOL SO TO SPEAK.
SO HERE YOU HAVE AN INDIVIDUAL
WHO'S NOT FIT DEFINITELY AND
SHE DIDN'T PERISH.
AND THIS IS PARTLY DUE TO THE
HIGH LEVEL OF TOLERANCE IN THE
SOCIAL SYSTEM, IN WHICH SHE
LIVES, BECAUSE ON HER OWN OF
COURSE SHE COULD NEVER MAKE IT.
JUST AS MANY ANIMALS BUT EVEN
IF THEY'RE COMPLETELY HEALTHY
ON THEIR OWN CAN NEVER MAKE IT.
CAN I HAVE THE NEXT ONE?

A photo shows a group of monkeys huddled in a circle.

Frans says NOW WE'LL BE TALKING A LITTLE
BIT MORE ABOUT SOCIAL
TOLERANCE.
WHEN I TALK ABOUT FOOD SHARING
IN CHIMPANZEES, OF COURSE IN
THIS CASE THE, THE LEVEL OF
TOLERANCE IS A LOT HIGHER THAN
JUST TOLERATING THE PRESENCE OF
SOMEONE.
IN THIS CASE THEY'RE ACTUALLY
SHARING RESOURCES WITH SOMEONE.
SO NOW, IF NATURAL SELECTION
UM, AS WE OFTEN SAY FAVOURS THE
STRONG AND THROWS OUT THE WEAK,
HOW COULD MORAL SYSTEMS EVER
HAVE EVOLVED?
BECAUSE MORAL SYSTEMS TRY TO
AVOID THAT.
IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT DOESN'T
HAPPEN AND DOESN'T MEAN THAT
IT'S NOT APPROVED UNDER CERTAIN
CIRCUMSTANCES.
BUT UM, SOCIAL SYSTEMS BASED ON
MORALITY ARE SYSTEMS THAT OFTEN
PLACE THE COMMUNITY ACTUALLY
ABOVE THE INDIVIDUAL.
AND THAT'S SO CONTRADICTORY IN
THE MINDS OF THE DARWINIST
BECAUSE OF COURSE WE USUALLY
TALK ABOUT INDIVIDUALS MORE
THAN ABOUT THE COMMUNITY.
UM, THE USUAL PHRASE THAT WAS
USED IS THAT NATURE IS LENT IN
TOOTH AND CLAW.
THIS COMES FROM TENNYSON, A
POET, NOT FROM DARWIN HIMSELF,
AND I'LL, I'LL JUST GIVE YOU
ONE ILLUSTRATION.
CAN I HAVE THE NEXT ONE?

A photo shows a statue of a fight between an eagle and a tiger.

Frans says THIS IS A STATUE THAT I FOUND
IN A ZOO IN THAILAND THAT SORT
OF DEPICTS THE NATURAL WORLD AS
PEOPLE OFTEN TRIED TO DEPICT
IT.
IT'S A FIGHT BETWEEN AN EAGLE
AND A TIGER.
IT'S A VERY UNLIKELY FIGHT.
IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN OF COURSE.
BUT THAT'S THE WAY WE LOOK AT
NATURE.
NATURE, NATURE'S LENT IN TOOTH
AND CLAW.
AND THAT'S HOW IT HAS BEEN
DEPICTED BY MANY PEOPLE
INCLUDING THOMAS HENRY HUXLEY,
WHO WAS DARWIN'S BULLDOG AND
WHO DEFENDED THE DARWINISM VERY
STRONGLY, BUT HAD VERY CYNICAL
VIEWS ABOUT THE NATURAL WORLD,
AND SAW NO ROOM FOR MORALITY IN
HIS SCHEME OF NATURE.
AND SO HE, HE TOOK ACTUALLY THE
METAPHOR STRUGGLE FOR LIFE, HE
TOOK FAR TOO SERIOUSLY.
DARWIN HIMSELF WARNED AGAINST
THE METAPHOR.
BUT BASICALLY HUXLEY SAID LIFE
IS A STRUGGLE, AND, AND THAT'S
WHAT IT ALL IS, AND THAT'S WHY
THERE IS NO ROOM FOR THE
EVOLUTION OF MORALITY.
CAN I HAVE THE NEXT ONE?
SO HERE WE HAVE A QUOTE FROM
HUXLEY.
THIS, THIS GOES BACK MORE THAN
A HUNDRED YEARS.

A slide shows a quote under the title “Thomas Henry Huxley, 1894.” The quote
reads “The ethical progress of society depends, not on imitating the cosmic
process, still less in running away from it, but in combating it.”

Frans says AND YOU SEE THIS DEBATE ABOUT
THE ORIGINS OF MORALITY GOES
BACK A LONG TIME IN BIOLOGY.
I'M NOT EVEN TALKING ABOUT
OUTSIDE OF BIOLOGY, AND HE
CONCLUDED THE ETHICAL PROGRESS
OF SOCIETY DEPENDS NOT ON
IMITATING THE COSMIC PROCESS,
WHICH IS NATURE, STILL LESS IN
RUNNING AWAY FROM IT, BUT IN
COMBATING IT.
NOW HUXLEY HAS ALWAYS BEEN
DESCRIBED AS A VERY COMBATIVE
PERSON HIMSELF.
HE WAS REALLY ALWAYS VERY
UNFRIENDLY WITH HIS OPPONENTS,
AND SO HERE WE HAVE A VIEW OF
NATURE WHERE YOU HAVE, I'VE
CALLED IT THE SORT OF
CALVINISTIC SOCIAL BIOLOGY, IN
THE SENSE THAT WE ARE
INHERENTLY BAD, BUT WE STRUGGLE
VERY HARD TO BE GOOD.
I WAS RAISED CATHOLIC, SO I
DON'T HAVE THAT PROBLEM.
[Audience laughs]

Frans says BUT THIS IS
THE SORT OF CALVINIST SOCIAL
BIOLOGY.
CAN I HAVE THE NEXT ONE?
NOW JUST TO SHOW THAT, THAT
VIEW IS STILL VERY MUCH WITH US
THIS IS GEORGE WILLIAMS.
A VERY HIGHLY RESPECTED
EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGIST OF
TODAY, WHO HAS AN EVEN MORE
ASTOUNDING STATEMENT THAT I, I
COULDN'T BELIEVE WHEN I READ
IT.

A slide appears under the title “George Williams, 1988.” The quote reads “I
account for morality as an accidental capability produced, in its boundless
stupidity, by biological process that is normally opposed to the expression of
such a capability.”

Frans says I ACCOUNT FOR MORALITY AS AN
ACCIDENTAL CAPABILITY.
ACCIDENTAL.
PRODUCED IN ITS BOUNDLESS
STUPIDITY, BY A BIOLOGICAL
PROCESS THAT IS NORMALLY
OPPOSED TO THE EXPRESSION OF
SUCH A CAPABILITY.
SO EITHER MORALITY IS SOMETHING
THAT WE IMPOSE UPON NATURE.
UM, THE WAY HUXLEY SAID IT IS
THAT NATURE IS LIKE AN UNRULY
GARDEN AND WE ARE THE
GARDENERS.
WE KEEP NATURE UNDER CONTROL
AND THAT'S WHAT MORALITY REALLY
DOES.
OR EVEN WORSE, IF MORALITY IS
PRODUCED BY NATURE IT'S A
STUPID MISTAKE OF MOTHER
NATURE.
AND SO WILLIAMS WENT AROUND THE
COUNTRY GIVING LECTURES ABOUT
HOW MODERN NATURE WAS ACTUALLY
A WICKED, OLD WITCH.
SO THAT'S HIS VIEW.
IT'S A VERY PESSIMISTIC VIEW
BECAUSE IT BASICALLY MEANS THAT
MORALITY IF IT IS AT ALL
EXISTING IN OUR SPECIES, IT IS
A SORT OF SUPERFICIAL OVERLAY.
WE ARE NOT NATURALLY MORAL
BEINGS, NOT AT ALL.
THAT ALL HUMAN SOCIETIES HAVE
MORAL SYSTEMS IS OF COURSE HARD
TO EXPLAIN THIS WAY, BECAUSE
THAT WOULD INDICATE THAT WE
HAVE SOME SORT OF UNIVERSAL
TENDENCY TO CREATE MORAL
SYSTEMS.
BUT BASICALLY IN THIS VIEW, IT
IS SOMETHING THAT WE CAME UP
WITH AND THAT COULD DISAPPEAR
TOMORROW VERY EASILY.
SO IT'S NOT DEEPLY INGRAINED IN
HUMAN NATURE.
AND I CONSIDER IT AN EXTREMELY
PESSIMISTIC VIEW.
AND THE, THE REASON THIS VIEW
WAS HELD BY EVOLUTIONARY
BIOLOGISTS SUCH AS THESE PEOPLE
IS THAT THEY HAD DEPICTED
NATURE SO COMPETITIVE, SUCH AS,
AS SO RED IN TOOTH AND CLAW
THAT IN ORDER TO BRING IN
MORALITY WOULD UNDERMINE THOSE
VIEWS.
WOULD UNDERMINE THAT PICTURE OF
NATURE THAT THEY HAD CREATED IN
THE MINDS OF PEOPLE, AND THEY
WERE NOT ABLE TO RECONCILE
THESE TWO VIEWS AND SO THEIR
SOLUTION WAS TO KICK OUT
MORALITY AND SAY WELL LET'S, WE
DON'T WANT TO DEAL WITH IT.
IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH
EVOLUTION.
IT'S NOT THE VIEW OF DARWIN.
DARWIN HIMSELF WROTE IN “THE
DISSENT OF MAN,” IF YOU READ
THAT BOOK IT'S VERY OBVIOUS.
HE, HE ARGUED THAT ANY ANIMAL
WHO HAS AFFILIATIVE AND
AFFECTIONATE TENDENCIES, WHO
WOULD BE AS SMART AS US WOULD
HAVE A MORAL SYSTEM.
AND, AND OBVIOUSLY HE WAS
RIGHT.
BECAUSE MORAL SYSTEMS ARE
GROUNDED IN AFFECTIONATE
BEHAVIOUR, THAT'S WHERE THEY
COME FROM.
AND I'LL GET TO THAT.
SO DARWIN HAD A MUCH BROADER
VIEW.
AND WHAT
HUXLEY BASICALLY DID IS HE HAD,
HE HAD ALL HIS LIFE HE HAD
DEFENDED DARWIN BUT IN, ON THIS
PARTICULAR TOPIC HE COULDN'T,
UM, AND HE WAS NOT ABLE TO DO
THAT.
CAN I HAVE THE NEXT ONE?

A photo shows the open water with white pelicans swimming in half circular
shapes and floating in huddles.

Frans says NOW SINCE
THOSE DAYS A LOT OF THINGS HAVE
HAPPENED.
IN THE TIME OF HUXLEY HIMSELF,
THERE WAS PETER KROPOTKIN AN
ANARCHIST FROM RUSSIA WHO HAD
ALREADY WRITTEN A BOOK CALLED
“MUTUAL AID,” IN WHICH HE
ARGUED THAT A LOT OF ANIMALS
SURVIVED BY HELPING EACH OTHER,
WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY TRUE.
THERE'S A LOT OF ANIMALS WHO
COULD NOT SURVIVE IF THEY
DIDN'T LIVE TOGETHER AND
SOMEHOW COLLABORATED.
AND SO HUXLEY SAID ALREADY AT
THE TIME, THIS IS IN THE
BEGINNING OF THE LAST CENTURY
THAT THE, THE STRUGGLE FOR LIFE
METAPHOR HAD BEEN TAKEN FAR TOO
LITERALLY BY SOME OF DARWIN'S
FOLLOWERS.
AND, AND HE ALSO ACCENTED
DARWIN BECAUSE DARWIN HIMSELF
CLEARLY DIDN'T THINK THIS WAY.
AND SINCE THAT TIME WE HAVE, WE
KNOW A LOT OF EXAMPLES OF
COOPERATION AND ALTRUISM IN
ANIMALS, MUCH MORE THAN IN, IN
THE DAYS OF HUXLEY.
AND I'LL JUST GIVE YOU ONE
EXAMPLE, JUST ONE VERY SIMPLE
EXAMPLE.
THIS IS CALLED MUTUALISM.
WE'LL GET LATER TO RECIPROCITY.
AT THE END OF MY TALK I'LL BE
TALKING ABOUT RECIPROCITY,
WHICH IS A MUCH MORE COMPLEX
FORM OF COOPERATION, WHERE I DO
SOMETHING FOR YOU, YOU DO
SOMETHING FOR ME.
MUTUALISM, ARE SITUATIONS WHERE
YOU COOPERATE BUT YOU ALL GET
BENEFITS AT THE SAME TIME.
SO IT DOESN'T TAKE A LOT OF
MENTAL POWERS TO ACHIEVE THIS
SORT OF COOPERATION AND IT'S
FOUND IN MANY, MANY DIFFERENT
ANIMALS.
HERE WE HAVE PELICANS, WHITE
PELICANS IN A VERY SHALLOW LAKE
IN KENYA, WHO SWIM IN A HALF
CIRCLE AND THEY PEDDLE THEIR
FEET TOGETHER, AND SO THEY
DRIVE THE FISH TOGETHER,
BECAUSE THE FISH CAN'T ESCAPE
BECAUSE IT'S SO SHALLOW.
CAN I HAVE THE NEXT ONE?
AND THEN THEY SCOOP THEM UP
TOGETHER.

[Audience laughs]

A close-up shows pelicans together trapping fish.

Frans says THIS IS
TYPICAL MUTUALISM.
AH, WHAT IT DOES IS IT'S, IT'S
A LEVEL OF COOPERATION WHERE
EACH BIRD GETS A LOT MORE FISH
THIS WAY THAN HE COULD EVER GET
ON HIS OWN SO THEY HAVE A
BENEFIT FROM WORKING TOGETHER.
UM, IT IS STILL STRUGGLE FOR
LIFE OBVIOUSLY, THEY'RE STILL
STRUGGLING TO SURVIVE, BUT THEY
DO IT IN THIS CASE BY HELPING
EACH OTHER, AND SO THERE'S TONS
OF EXAMPLES.
THERE'S THE EXAMPLE OF, OF
COURSE KIN SELECTED ALTRUISM IN
MANY INSECT SOCIETIES AND MANY
BIRD SOCIETIES AND SO ON.
I DON'T WANT TO REVIEW ALL THE
LITERATURE THAT EXISTS ON THIS,
BUT BASICALLY WE HAVE BECOME
VERY INTERESTED ACTUALLY IN
ALTRUISTIC BEHAVIOUR.
AND THE, THE BIG PUSH IN SOCIAL
BIOLOGY WHICH OCCURRED IN THE
MID 70S CAME ACTUALLY OUT OF
NEW THEORIES THAT WERE
DEVELOPED TO EXPLAIN ALTRUISTIC
BEHAVIOUR.
AND THAT SORT OF RESEARCH FORMS
THE BASIS I THINK TO BUILD NEW
THEORIES OF THE EVOLUTION OF
MORALITY THAT WERE NOT PRESENT
AT THAT TIME.
NOW IRONICALLY AT THE SAME TIME
THAT ALL THIS WAS HAPPENING A
SECOND METAPHOR CAME ALONG THAT
DISTURBED ALL OF THIS.
AND THIS METAPHOR IS AGAIN A
VERY GOOD ONE.
JUST LIKE STRUGGLE FOR LIFE IS
A VERY GOOD METAPHOR.
THIS ONE IS THE SELFISH GENE
METAPHOR IS VERY APT AND VERY I
THINK VERY ILLUMINATING, BUT
ALSO AS ALL METAPHORS IT HAS
ITS DOWNSIDE.
CAN I HAVE THE NEXT ONE?

A slide under the title “Richard Dawkins, 1976.” It reads, “Let us try to teach
generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish.”

Frans says AND SO DAWKINS IN 76 TOOK HIS
OWN METAPHOR TOO LITERALLY.
HE SAID LET US TRY TO TEACH
GENEROSITY AND ALTRUISM,
BECAUSE WE ARE OUR BORN
SELFISH.
NOW, THAT'S INTERESTING.
WE'RE A HIGHLY SOCIAL SPECIES,
JUST LIKE WOLVES ARE AND
DOLPHINS ARE AND ELEPHANTS ARE.
WE'RE, WE'RE EXTREMELY
SOCIABLE, SOLIDARY, LOYAL IN
MANY WAYS.
NOT ALWAYS OF COURSE BUT IN
MANY WAYS.
TO SAY THAT WE'RE BORN SELFISH
ELIMINATES A LOT OF OUR
BEHAVIOUR.
AND BASICALLY WHAT HE'S DOING
IS BECAUSE HE'S INTRODUCING THE
SELFISH GENE CONCEPT, HE'S SORT
OF EXPANDING FROM SELFISH GENES
TO OUR PSYCHOLOGY, WHICH HE
COULD NEVER DO.
CAUSE GENES HAVE NO SELF, SO
HOW COULD THEY POSSIBLY BE
SELFISH?
SO GENES ARE JUST A BUNCH OF
MOLECULES THAT WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT AND THAT WE'RE SORT OF
DESCRIBING IN PSYCHOLOGICAL
TERMS, BUT IT HAS NO MEANING
EXCEPT THAT WE COULD SAY THAT
GENES PROMOTE THEMSELVES.
CAN I HAVE THE NEXT ONE?
SO THIS IS SORT OF THE MISTAKE
THAT IS BEING MADE.

A slide shows a box with the word “Genes are selfish” and an arrow pointing to
another box that says, “We must be selfish.”

Frans says GENES ARE SELFISH SO WE MUST BE
SELFISH.
CAN I HAVE THE NEXT ONE?

A photo under the title “In Reality...” shows three boxes with arrows leading to
the next one: genes, traits, and genes. It reads” Genes have no intentions, no
self, and no knowledge of the future: Their multiplication is blind, passive,
and dependent on the traits they produce. I.e. successful genes promote
themselves.

Frans says BUT BASICALLY WHAT GENES DO,
GENES PRODUCE TRAITS, IF THE
TRAITS ARE SUCCESSFUL THEY
COULD USE MORE GENES.
IN THE SENSE THAT IF GENES
PRODUCE AN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS
SUCCESSFUL THAN THAT INDIVIDUAL
WILL REPRODUCE AND PRODUCE MORE
OF THOSE SAME GENES.
SO GENES HAVE NO INTENTIONS.
THEY HAVE NO SELF.
THEY HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF THE
FUTURE.
THEY MULTIPLY IN A BLIND WAY,
PASSIVELY, DEPENDENT ON THE
TRAITS THAT THEY PRODUCE.
SO YOU COULD, ALL, ALL YOU
COULD SAY IS THAT SUCCESSFUL
GENES COME OUT THEMSELVES, AND
THAT'S ENTIRELY CORRECT.
CAN I HAVE THE NEXT ONE?

Photos under the title “Bad-Selling Title” and two boxes with an arrow leading
from “The Selfish Game” to the “The Self-promoting Game.”

Frans says
SO THIS IS AN IMPROVEMENT OF
THE TITLE HERE.
THE SELFISH GENE SHOULD BE
ACTUALLY THE SELF-PROMOTING
GENE.
THAT WOULD BE THE CORRECT WAY
OF PUTTING IT, AND WE WOULDN'T
FALL IN THE TRAP OF SAYING THAT
BECAUSE WE HAVE SELFISH GENES
WE MUST HAVE SELFISH
PSYCHOLOGY.
AND BECAUSE BASICALLY GENES CAN
PRODUCE ANY PSYCHOLOGY THEY
WANT, AS LONG AS IT HELPS
PROMOTE THE GENE.
SO LET'S SAY UM, THE TIGER IS A
VERY COMPETITIVE CREATURE.
IT DOESN'T TOLERATE OTHER
TIGERS.
LIVES ON HIS OWN.
IF IT FINDS ANOTHER TIGER, THE
MALE TIGER AT LEAST WILL KILL
THE OTHER MALE IF HE CAN, SO
TIGERS ARE EXTREMELY
COMPETITIVE.
BUT THE SAME GENES THAT ARE
SITTING IN THE TIGER, ALMOST
THE SAME GENES ARE SITTING IN
THE LION.
NOW THEY HAVE PRODUCED IN THE
LION VERY DIFFERENT BEHAVIOUR.
SO IN THE LION MALES COOPERATE,
FEMALES COOPERATE.
THEY LIVE IN GROUPS.
IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THEY'RE
NOT COMPETITIVE, BUT THERE'S A
VERY DIFFERENT SOCIAL
BEHAVIOUR.
SO THE SAME SORT OF
EVOLUTIONARY MECHANISMS THAT
HAVE BEEN WORKING IN THE TIGER
UNDER PARTICULAR ECOLOGICAL
CONDITIONS HAVE CREATED A VERY
COMPETITIVE CREATURE.
AND THEY HAVE BEEN WORKING IN
THE LION, AND THEY HAVE CREATED
A MUCH MORE SOCIABLE CREATURE,
AND GENES CAN PRODUCE ALL SORTS
OF PSYCHOLOGY.
THEY CAN PRODUCE STINGY AND
SELFISH AND NASTY, AND BRUTISH
INDIVIDUALS INDEED THEY CAN DO
ALL THAT.
BUT THEY CAN ALSO CREATE
INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE VERY
SOCIABLE, COOPERATIVE, HELP
EACH OTHER WHEN THEY ARE IN
NEED AND GET THEIR FOOD
TOGETHER AND SO ON.
ALL OF THIS IS POSSIBLE, AND SO
GENES CAN BE CALLED SELFISH IN
A VERY SORT OF SHALLOW WAY BUT
THEY CAN PRODUCE LOTS OF
THINGS.
AND DARWIN KNEW ALL THIS AND
DARWIN NEVER FELL INTO THE TRAP
OF DESCRIBING ANIMALS AS PURELY
SELFISH AND ACTUALLY TALKED
QUITE A BIT ABOUT WHAT HE
CALLED SYMPATHY IN ANIMALS, AND
NOW WE'LL GET TO THAT ISSUE
MYSELF ALSO.
CAN I HAVE THE NEXT ONE?

A photo appears of Frans de Waal’s book cover “Good-natured” with one monkey
touching the face of another monkey.

Franz de Waal says SO WHERE HE HAD DESCRIBED ALL
OF THESE PROBLEMS WITH WHAT YOU
COULD CALL ONE-SIDED BIOLOGICAL
THINKING WHERE THE COMPETITIVE
SIDE OF NATURE IS EMPHASIZED
MORE THAN THE COOPERATIVE SIDE,
IN MY BOOK “GOODNATURED,” WHERE
THE FOLLOWING THING HAPPENED.
CAN I HAVE THE NEXT ONE?
WELL THIS HAPPENED IN THE SAME
YEAR I BELIEVE AT CHICAGO ZOO.
YOU, YOU PROBABLY ALL KNOW
ABOUT THE EXAMPLE.

A close up of a photo shows a gorilla cradling a blonde boy wearing tennis shows
while sitting on a tree stump.

Frans says THIS IS A LITTLE BOY WHO FELL
INTO A GORILLA ENCLOSURE AT THE
BROOKVILLE ZOO, AND BINTIJUA,
THE FEMALE GORILLA PICKED UP
THE BOY AND BROUGHT HIM TO A
PLACE WHERE CARETAKERS COULD
GET ACCESS TO HIM AND ACTUALLY
SAVED HIS LIFE, AND HE WAS
PICKED UP AND BROUGHT TO THE
HOSPITAL AND SURVIVED.
UM, I THINK AT ABOUT THE SAME
TIME THERE WAS THE DEMOCRATIC
CONVENTION IN TOWN AND BILL
CLINTON AND OTHERS THEY USED
BINTI AS AN EXAMPLE OF HOW WE
ACTUALLY SHOULD BEHAVE.
I, I WISH SOME OF THEM HAD
BEHAVED LIKE BINTI.
[Audience laughs]

Frans says AH, SO BINTI
BECAME VERY FAMOUS AS AN
EXAMPLE OF SYMPATHY AND EMPATHY
IN AN ANIMAL, THERE WERE PEOPLE
HAD NOT EXPECTED IT.
AND A LOT OF DEBATES TOOK
PLACE, ACTUALLY I WAS ON A LOT
OF THE TALK SHOWS BECAUSE THERE
WERE OTHER PEOPLE WHO HAD VERY
DIFFERENT OPINIONS ABOUT THIS.
THE, THE MOST OF THE PEOPLE WHO
WENT TO THE BROOKVILLE ZOO FOR
EXAMPLE, 20,000 VISITORS A DAY
THEY HAD FOR MANY WEEKS TO SEE
BINTI.
THE BOY WAS TAKEN OUT ALREADY.
[Audience laughing]

Frans says BUT BINTI WAS
STILL VISIBLE.
AH, SO BINTI BECAME VERY
POPULAR AND, AND MOST PEOPLE
INTERPRETED THIS INDEED AS AN
ACT OF SYMPATHY ON HER PART.
BUT THERE WERE ALTERNATIVE
VIEWS, MAINLY BY PSYCHOLOGISTS
WHO WORK ON RATS WHO HAD VERY
DIFFERENT VIEWS OF ANIMALS.
AND THEY WOULD GO ON THE RADIO
AND EXPLAIN THAT ALL THAT BINTI
HAD DONE WAS UM, PERFORM SOME
SORT OF TRAINED BEHAVIOUR.
ALTHOUGH NO ONE HAD
SPECIFICALLY EVER TRAINED HER
ON THIS PARTICULAR BEHAVIOUR,
BUT HAD PERFORMED SOME SORT OF
TRAINED ACTS.
AND, AND THE MOST COMMON
EXPLANATION THAT THEY GAVE WAS
THAT BINTI HAD A CONFUSED,
MATERNAL INSTINCT.
NOW I FOUND THAT VERY AMUSING
IN A WAY BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO
IMAGINE YOURSELF.
YOU'RE A GORILLA.
YOU'RE SITTING IN AN ENCLOSURE
A BIT LIKE THIS ROOM, AND HIGH
LIKE THIS ROOM ACTUALLY.
YOU HAVE YOUR OWN BABY ON YOU
BECAUSE SHE HAD A 17 MONTH OLD
BABY, WHICH WAS SITTING ON HER,
AND OUT OF THE SKY FALLS A
BLONDE BOY WITH A RED T-SHIRT
AND SNEAKERS.
[Audience laughs]

Frans de Waal continues SO INTO YOUR,
AND YOU HAVE THIS CONFUSED
MATERNAL INSTINCT.
[Audience laughs]

Frans says THAT I'VE
SORT OF TRIED TO IMAGINE HOW
THIS WOULD WORK, AND MADE FUN
OF THESE PEOPLE.
[Audience laughing]

Frans says BUT UM,
PEOPLE WHO WORKED WITH THE
GREAT APES ACTUALLY --

Frans says MOST OF US,
WE, WE DIDN'T FEEL THIS WAS
ANYTHING SPECIAL, ACTUALLY,
BECAUSE WHAT WAS SPECIAL IS
THAT SHE PERFORMED THIS ACTION
TOWARDS A MEMBER OF OUR
SPECIES.

Frans says AND THAT'S
ALSO WHY IT GOT SO MUCH
ATTENTION AND THIS IS
UNDERSTANDABLE, BECAUSE BINTI
WAS FAMILIAR WITH PEOPLE AND
WAS FAMILIAR WITH CHILDREN
ACTUALLY.
HAD BEEN RAISED I BELIEVE WITH
CHILDREN.
AH, BUT IF THIS HAD BEEN A
YOUNG GORILLA, WE WOULD HAVE
CONSIDERED THIS PERFECTLY
NORMAL BEHAVIOUR FOR A FEMALE
GORILLA IF ONE OF THE YOUNG IS
BEING DISTRESSED YOU KNOW, OF
COURSE THEY COME OVER AND THEY
HELP IT OUT AND SO ON.
THEY DO THIS ALL THE TIME.
SO NONE OF US CONSIDERED THIS A
PARTICULARLY UNUSUAL BEHAVIOUR
ON HER PART AND THE ONLY REASON
IT GOT SO MUCH ATTENTION IS WAS
IT CONCERNED ONE OF US.
CAN I HAVE THE NEXT ONE?
SO BINTI BECAME ONE OF THE BEST
PEOPLE OF 1996.
[Audience laughing]

A photo shows a large photo of a gorilla and then four smaller photos arranged
in a square of people’s photos.

Frans says AND IN MY
WAY, IN MY VIEW IT ILLUSTRATED
BASICALLY A POINT THAT I WAS
MAKING IN THE BOOK
“GOODNATURED,” WHICH IS THAT
APES HAVE A CAPACITY FOR
SYMPATHY.
AND NOT JUST A VERY SIMPLE
CAPACITY FOR SYMPATHY, THAT
THEY REACT TO THE DISTRESS OF
SOMEONE ELSE.
BUT THEY ALSO HAVE SOME LEVEL
OF PERSPECTIVE THINKING AND
UNDERSTANDING.
NOW, HERE WE'RE GETTING INTO
SOME INTERESTING AREA, BECAUSE
PERSPECTIVE THINKING OUR GOLDEN
RULE, THE GOLDEN MORAL RULE UM
IS ACTUALLY A PERSPECTIVE
THINKING RULE.
AND SO PERSPECTIVE THINKING IS
VERY IMPORTANT IN DEBATES ABOUT
MORALITY.
AND AT THE SAME TIME THAT THIS
HAPPENED AT THE BROOKVILLE ZOO
AT ABOUT THE SAME TIME, I WAS
VISITING A DIFFERENT ZOO, THE
MILWAUKEE ZOO WHERE THEY HAVE
BONOBOS.
AND I'LL TELL YOU A LITTLE
STORY.
THIS IS, THEY HAD A BLIND,
FEMALE BENOBLE, WHICH ACTUALLY
CAME FROM THE JURKISH PRIMATE
CENTRE, AN OLD FEMALE WHO THEY
WERE TRYING TO INTRODUCE TO
THEIR GROUP.
AND IN THE, IN THE BUILDING
THAT THEY HAVE, THEY HAVE MANY
CORRIDORS AND DOORS AND IT'S A
VERY COMPLEX BUILDING.
AND SO THE CARETAKER SAID THAT
IN THE BEGINNING IF THEY CALLED
THE NAME OF THIS FEMALE SHE WAS
WILLING TO COME BUT SHE DIDN'T
KNOW HOW TO GET THERE.
SO, SO IT WAS TOO COMPLICATED
FOR HER.
AND AFTER A COUPLE OF FAILED
ATTEMPTS, WHAT HAPPENED IS THAT
THE OLDEST MALE OF THE GROUP
WHO WAS A WELL-ESTABLISHED
MALE, WOULD GO OVER TO HER,
TAKE HER HAND AND LEAD HER TO
THE PLACE WHERE THE CARETAKERS
WANTED HER TO BE.
THIS IS INTERESTING BECAUSE
WHAT THIS MEANS IS THAT THIS
MALE, I'M NOT SURE THAT HE KNEW
THAT SHE WAS BLIND.
BUT HE MUST HAVE FIGURED OUT
THAT THERE WAS SOMETHING WRONG
WITH HER THAT SHE WAS NOT
RESPONDING RIGHT TO THE SIGNALS
THAT SHE WAS GETTING AND WAS
HELPING HER OUT.
AND THIS IS THE SORT OF
PERSPECTIVE THINKING THAT I'M
TALKING ABOUT, WHICH REQUIRES
THAT YOU SORT OF PUT YOURSELF
IN THE SHOES OF SOMEONE ELSE
AND LOOK AT THE WORLD FROM
THEIR PERPECTIVE AND THEN GEAR
YOUR ACTIONS TOWARDS THIS.
THIS IS USUALLY HOW WE, WE
DEFINE HIGHER FORMS OF
COGNITIVE EMPATHY.
AND I THINK THE GREAT APES ARE
CAPABLE OF THIS, AND THIS IS
ALSO WHAT BINTI HAD DONE I
THINK WITH THE BOY WHO FELL
INTO HER ENCLOSURE.
CAN I HAVE THE NEXT ONE?

A photo shows a male and female gorilla facing each other, with the male in
attack stances. In the jungle with a forest behind them and in a green pasture.

Frans says NOW JUST TO EXPLAIN HOW I GOT
INTERESTED IN THESE ISSUES,
THIS IS, IT'S NOT BECAUSE I
HAVE A ROSY VIEW OF ANIMAL
NATURE.
I, I WROTE A BOOK “CHIMPANZEE
POLITICS” LONG AGO ABOUT POWER
STRUGGLES AMONG MALE
CHIMPANZEES AND CERTAINLY I, I
HAVE SEEN A LOT OF BLOOD AND
FIGHTING AND STUFF LIKE THAT.
AND SO THIS IS AN AGGRESSIVE
ACT BY A MALE CHIMPANZEE TO A
FEMALE AND I STARTED MY STUDIES
ON AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOUR.
SO I DON'T HAVE THIS ILLUSION
THAT EVERYTHING IS NICE AND
DANDY AMONG ANIMALS ALL THE
TIME.
BUT WHEN I STUDIED AGGRESSION
WHAT I FOUND IS THAT NOT ONLY
DO THEY HAVE AGGRESSIVE
INTERACTIONS THEY HAVE
PEACEMAKING INTERACTIONS
AFTERWARDS.
AND SO I GOT ACTUALLY MORE
INTERESTED IN THE, LET'S SAY
THE REPAIR FUNCTIONS OR THE
SOCIAL REPAIR AFTER
CONFRONTATIONS, THAN IN THE
CONFRONTATIONS THEMSELVES, AND
THAT'S WHAT PUT ME ON TRACK OF
GETTING INTERESTED IN MORALITY.
CAN I HAVE THE NEXT ONE?

A photo shows two chimpanzees hanging in the trees as one gives a hand out to
another.

Frans says AND SO HERE YOU HAVE AS AN
EXAMPLE YOU HAVE TWO MALE
CHIMPANZEES WHO HAVE BEEN IN A
FIGHT.
THIS IS AT THE ZOO WHERE I USED
TO WORK.
THIS MALE HOLDS OUT HIS HAND TO
HIS PARTNER, SO HE INVITES HIM
FOR A CONTACT.
AND ABOUT A SECOND LATER THEY
EMBRACE AND KISS EACH OTHER,
WHICH IS A RECONCILIATION AND
THEN THEY CLIMB TO THE GROUND
AND THEY GROOM EACH OTHER.
SO THAT'S THE PROCESS THAT WE
TALK ABOUT.
CAN I HAVE THE NEXT ONE?

A photo shows a female and male chimpanzee reconciling in the jungle.

Frans says The next photo shows a female offering her hand to kiss the
male.
THIS IS THE FIRST OF A SERIES
OF PICTURES SHOWING THE SAME
THING, NOW BETWEEN A FEMALE
HERE AND A MALE WHO HAS JUST
BEATEN HER AND SHE COMES BACK
TO HIM.
CAN I HAVE THE NEXT ONE?
AND SHE OFFERS HER HAND FOR A
HAND KISS TO THE MALE.
THAT'S WHERE OUR HAND KISS
COMES FROM.
NO, I'M JUST KIDDING.
[Audience laughing]

Frans says OFFERS HER
HAND FOR A HAND KISS.
THIS IS SORT OF IT'S A WAY OF
TESTING THE MALE AFTER, TESTING
IN WHAT KIND OF MOOD HE IS.
CAN I HAVE THE NEXT ONE?
AND THEN THEY PROCEED TO A
MOUTH TO MOUTH, A KISS, WHICH
IS THE TYPICAL WAY THAT
CHIMPANZEES RECONCILE AFTER
FIGHTS.
AND THIS IS THE OLDEST FEMALE
OF THE GROUP WHO IS WATCHING
ALL THIS.
AND THE NEXT ONE.
AND THE YOUNG FEMALE ALSO GOES
TO HER AND SORT OF COMPLAINS TO
HER.
[Audience laughs]

A photo shows an older female and younger female chimpanzee communicating.

Frans says CAN I HAVE
THE NEXT ONE?
AND THE OLD FEMALE TAPS HER ON
THE SHOULDER AND CALMS HER
DOWN.
NOW THE SECOND CONTACT WE CALL
A CONSOLATION.
CAN I HAVE THE NEXT ONE?

A blue slate under the title “Reconciliation in post-conflict context” It shows
a graph with “reconciliation and conciliation” on the horizontal and “kiss and
embrace” on the parallel.

Frans says SO WE HAVE RECONCILIATION IS
MORE TYPIFIED BY KISSING THAN
BY EMBRACING AND CONSOLATION'S
MORE TYPICAL EMBRACING OR HAND
CONTACT THAN KISSING.
SO THEY'RE BEHAVIOURLY
DIFFERENT.
THEIR DEFINITIONS ARE FAIRLY
SIMPLE.
FOR EXAMPLE CONSOLATION,
RECONCILIATION IS DEFINED AS A
FRIENDLY CONTACT BETWEEN TWO
FORMER OPPONENTS, NOT LONG
AFTER THEIR FIGHT.
THAT'S USUALLY HOW WE DEFINE
IT.
AND AT THE TIME THIS WAS A
TOPIC THAT WAS NEW.
UM, THIS IS LIKE 25 YEARS AGO.
AT THE MOMENT THERE HAVE BEEN
TONS OF STUDIES, AND THERE'S
ACTUALLY MAYBE 100 SCIENTISTS
WORKING IN THE AREA OF
CONFLICT, RESOLUTION IN ANIMALS
AT THE MOMENT, AH, WE ALSO DO
IT ON CHILDREN.
WE HAVE ALSO FOUND
RECONCILIATION OUTSIDE OF THE
PRIMATE ORDER IN GOATS, IN
DOLPHINS, IN HYENAS.
AND ACTUALLY IF YOU THINK OF IT
RECONCILIATON, WE USUALLY LOOK
AT IT NOW AS A PROCESS THAT
REPAIRS RELATIONSHIPS THAT ARE
NEEDED FOR COOPERATION, SO
BASICALLY YOU HAVE
RELATIONSHIPS THAT ARE
COOPERATIVE BUT WITHIN WHICH,
CONFLICTS ARE INEVITABLE.
AND SO IT IS IN THOSE
RELATIONSHIPS THAT REPAIR NEED
TO OCCUR.
IT'S LIKE MARITAL RELATIONSHIPS
BELONG TO THE SAME CATEGORY.
SO RECONICLIATION IS AN
ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL PROCESS TO
GUARANTEE COOPERATION AMONG
POTENTIAL COMPETITORS.
AND AS A RESULT WE ARE NOT
SURPRISED TO FIND IT IN SPECIES
OTHER THAN CHIMPANZEES.
IT'S, IT'S PROBABLY VERY WIDE
SPREAD IN THE ANIMAL KINGDOM.
UM, AND, AND SO THAT WAS THE
FIRST EVIDENCE FOR IT.
AND CONSOLATION WAS IGNORED FOR
A LONG TIME FOR ABOUT 20 YEARS,
AND RECENTLY WE GOT INTERESTED
IN CONSOLATION, AND I'LL SAY A
FEW THINGS ABOUT IT, BECAUSE
CONSOLATION'S ACTUALLY A VERY
INTERESTING BEHAVIOUR.

A photo shows two chimpanzees sitting in the forest across from one another.

Frans says CAN I HAVE THE NEXT ONE?
SO JUST TO SHOW YOU HOW COMPLEX
THESE THINGS GET AND ALSO TO
GIVE YOU A GLIMPSE OF THE
SOCIAL AWARENESS OF THE
CHIMPANZEE, WE HAVE MEDIATION
IN CHIMPANZEES.
AND CHIMPANZEES ARE THE ONLY
ANIMAL FOR WHICH WE HAVE THAT
EVIDENCE.
IS MEDIATION MEANING THAT IT IS
A THIRD PARTY WHO CREATES THE
CONSUL, THE RECONCILIATION.
IT'S A TASK UM, YOU KNOW, THE
JUDICIAL SYSTEM IN THIS COUNTRY
WILL FOR EXAMPLE DO THAT.
LAWYERS ARE SUPPOSED TO DO IT,
AND ACTUALLY CREATE MORE
TROUBLE IN MY MIND OFTEN THAN
THEY FIX.
[Audience laughs]

Frans says BUT HERE WE
HAVE FOR EXAMPLE TWO MALE
CHIMPANZEES WHO ARE SITTING
OPPOSITE EACH OTHER AFTER A
FIGHT.
THEY HAVE AN ENORMOUS ISLAND ON
WHICH THEY COULD EASILY AVOID
EACH OTHER.
BUT WHAT THEY'RE DOING IS
THEY'RE ACTUALLY SITTING
ORIENTED TO EACH OTHER,
AVOIDING EYE CONTACT.
IF THIS ONE LOOKS UP THIS ONE
WILL LOOK AT THE SKY.
AND IF THIS ONE LOOKS UP, THIS
ONE WILL PICK UP SOME GRASS AND
INSPECT THE GRASS AND STUFF
LIKE THAT.
[Audience laughs]

Frans says AND SO
THEY'RE IN A SORT OF DEADLOCKED
SITUATION.
AND IN THIS SITUATION AN OLD
FEMALE MAY COME OVER AND
APPROACH THIS MALE AND GROOM
HIM FOR A WHILE, AND SO SHE
GROOMS HIM FOR A FEW MINUTES.
THEN SHE WALKS OVER VERY SLOWLY
FROM HIM TO HIM, AND HE WILL
WALK, WALK RIGHT BEHIND HER, SO
HE DOESN'T NEED TO MAKE EYE
CONTACT WITH THE OPPONENT.
AND IF HE DOESN'T FOLLOW, WE'VE
SEEN FEMALES TURN AROUND AND
GRAB HIS ARM AND MAKE HIM
FOLLOW.
[Audience laughing]

Frans says AND SO IT
SEEMS AN INTENTIONAL ACT OF THE
PART OF THE FEMALE AND SHE
BRINGS, SHE THEN GROOMS THIS
MALE AND THIS MALE WILL SIT ON
THE OTHER SIDE, SEEING A SWEET,
CHIMP WOMAN, AND THEN AFTER A
WHILE THE FEMALE MAY LEAVE AND
THE GROOMING THEN BETWEEN THOSE
TWO CONTINUES, AND SO SHE HAS
BROUGHT THE TWO PARTIES
TOGETHER.
NOW THE INTERESTING THING OF
THIS IS SORT OF TWO LEVELS.
ONE LEVEL IS THE SOCIAL
AWARENESS OF THE FEMALE WHO
DOES THIS.
SHE NEEDS TO UNDERSTAND THAT A
PROBLEM OCCURRED BETWEEN THE
MALES AND HOW TO FIX THAT
PROBLEM.
SO SHE, SHE NEEDS TO HAVE AN
AWARENESS OF RELATIONSHIPS NOT
ONLY THAT INVOLVE HER, MY
RELATION WITH EVERY ONE OF YOU,
BUT ALSO RELATIONS BETWEEN
OTHERS.
THERE'S LOTS OF EXPERIMENTAL
EVIDENCE NOW FOR THIS, SO
ACTUALLY PEOPLE ARE DOING LOTS
OF INTERESTING TESTS,
EXPERIMENTAL TESTS ON PRIMATES
TO SEE --
WHAT THEIR
UNDERSTANDING IS OF
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN OTHERS.
SO THAT'S ONE ASPECT AND I
THINK IT'S BETTER DEVELOPED IN
CHIMPS THAN IN MOST OTHER
ANIMALS.
THE MOTIVATION OF THE FEMALE --
IF YOU THINK
OF IT WHAT'S SHE DOING IS SHE'S
FIXING A PROBLEM IN HER OWN
SOCIETY.
SEE, HER OWN SOCIETY IS WHERE
SHE LIVES AND SO I'M NOT SAYING
THAT THIS IS NOT A SELFISH
MOTIVATION THAT SHE HAS.
SHE OBVIOUSLY WILL SUFFER IF
TENSIONS REMAIN WITHIN HER
PARTICULAR SOCIETY.
UM, BUT SHE'S SEEING A PROBLEM
IN HER SOCIETY AND FIXING IT,
AND THAT'S CALLED THIS
COMMUNITY CONCERN.
THERE'S A CERTAIN CONCERN ABOUT
THE VALUES THAT EXIST AND THE,
AND THE ATMOSPHERE THAT EXISTS
IN HER COMMUNITY.
AND IF YOU THINK OF IT MORAL
SYSTEMS, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT
THEY DO.
MORAL SYSTEMS ARE BASED ON
COMMUNITY CONCERN.
THEY ARE BASED ON A SORT OF
CONCERN ABOUT HOW YOUR
COMMUNITY FUNCTIONS OR HOW IT
AT LEAST SHOULD FUNCTION.
CAN I HAVE THE NEXT ONE?

A photo shows a group of chimpanzees huddled around branches and one alpha male
gesticulating and making large gestures.

Frans says SO HERE YOU HAVE THE SAME BY A
MALE CHIMPANZEE BUT IN A VERY
DIFFERENT WAY, BUT THE SAME
SORT OF INTERACTION TAKES
PLACE.
THERE'S A FIGHT BETWEEN TWO
FEMALES.
THIS IS THE ALPHA MALE WHO
COMES OVER.
THE FEMALES ARE SCREAMING AT
EACH OTHER AND THE MALE STANDS
BETWEEN THEM AND STOPS THEM,
STOPS THE FIGHT.
AGAIN YOU HAVE SOMEONE WHO
FIXES A PROBLEM IN THE
COMMUNITY.
IT'S A PROBLEM THAT HE COULD
EASILY STAY OUT OF.
HE DOESN'T NEED TO BE INVOLVED
IN THIS AND HE CAN LET THESE
FEMALES KILL EACH OTHER SO TO
SPEAK, BUT HE STOPS THE FIGHT.
AND GOOD ALPHA MALES WILL
ACTUALLY DO THIS IN ALL
CIRCUMSTANCES, EVEN WHEN
THERE'S THE SMALLEST FIGHT
BETWEEN THE YOUNGEST JUVENILES,
HE WILL COME OVER AND STOP THE
WHOLE THING.
AND AGAIN I THINK THIS HAS
SOMETHING TO DO WITH COMMUNITY
LEVEL INTEREST, WHERE HE'S
INTERESTED IN THE PEACE AND
HARMONY WITHIN THE COMMUNITY
AND AGAIN I'M NOT SAYING THAT
THERE'S SOME SELF-INTEREST
MIXED INTO IT.
BUT IT IS THE SORT OF COMMUNITY
INTEREST AND ALSO IN THE LINES
OF OUR MORAL SYSTEMS.
CAN I HAVE THE NEXT ONE?

A photo shows a tree graph that displays a branch for each specie of monkey.


Frans says SO AFTER STUDIES OF
RECONCILIATION IN CHIMPANZEES
WE STARTED LOOKING AT LOTS OF
OTHER ANIMALS.
AS I SAID, THERE'S, THERE'S
LIKE 25 DIFFERENT PRIMATE
SPECIES IN WHICH THEIR
BEHAVIOUR HAS BEEN STUDIED, AND
WE DID IT RECENTLY IN BONOBOS.
BONOBOS ARE CLOSE RELATIVES OF
THE CHIMPANZEE.
THIS IS A, AN EVOLUTIONARY TREE
BASED ON DNA EVIDENCE.
UM, AND AS YOU SEE THESE, THESE
PRONGS HERE THE APES AND HUMANS
IS VERY TIGHT, AND VERY SMALL
ACTUALLY.
AND THIS IS, IS A MUCH BIGGER
BRANCH OF THE PRIMATE ORDER,
WHICH IS BABOONS AND MACAQUES
AND SO ON.
AND SO, CHIMPS AND BONOBOS ARE
VERY CLOSELY RELATED, AND THE
LAST COMMON ANCESTOR IS PUT
HERE AT 8,000,000.
ACTUALLY WE NOW USUALLY SAY
IT'S FIVE, 6,000,000 YEARS AGO
THAT WE HAD A COMMON ANCESTOR,
THESE CHIMPS AND BONOBOS.
AND SO WE'RE RIGHT IN THERE AND
FROM THE BIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE
WE ARE BASICALLY APES.
YOU MAY LOOK AT YOURSELF AS
SOMETHING ELSE THAN AN APE, BUT
YOU'RE BASICALLY AN APE.

A photo shows two bonobos huddled next to one another.

Frans says CAN I HAVE THE NEXT ONE?
AND BONOBOS ARE VERY CUTE AS
YOU CAN SEE.
VERY HANDSOME SPECIES, THEY ALL
HAVE THE SAME BARBER.
[Audience laughing]

A photo shows two bonobos making love face to face with the male bonobo on top.
There faces are similar to a chimpanzee but finer features.

Frans says AND THEY,
THEY HAVE REDDISH LIPS.
THEY HAVE OPEN FACES BECAUSE
THEY DON'T HAVE THESE ENORMOUS
EYEBROW REACHES THAT THE
CHIMPANZEE HAS.
AND SO BONOBOS ARE CLOSELY
RELATED TO CHIMPANZEES BUT IN
MANY WAYS QUITE DIFFERENT.
CAN I HAVE THE NEXT ONE?
SO BONOBOS DO ALL THESE THINGS
THAT CHIMPANZEES DO WITH, WITH
GROOMING AND KISSING AND
EMBRACING, THE BONOBOS DO WITH
SEXUAL BEHAVIOUR.
AND SO THEY HAVE FACE TO FACE
COPULATIONS, SOMETIMES CALLED
THE MISSIONARY POSITION.
[Audience laughs]

Frans says THIS IS A
SORT OF INTERESTING HISTORY TO
THE MISSIONARY POSITION, AS, AS
AN ASIDE HERE.
[Audience laughs]

Frans says THERE'S,
THERE'S AN INTERESTING
LITERATURE.
IN THE 1950S AN ANTHROPOLOGIST
SPECULATED ABOUT TWO UNIQUE
FEATURES OF OUR HUMAN
SEXUALITY, WHICH I THINK WAS
ALL AN EFFORT.
SEXUALITY'S ONE OF THOSE
DOMAINS IN, WHICH WE RESEMBLE
ANIMALS SO MUCH THAT YOU CAN'T
DENY IT.
YOU KNOW, COPULATING FROGS SO
TO SPEAK AND COPULATING PEOPLE
ARE NOT FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT
IN THE MINDS OF A BIOLOGIST,
AND IN THE MINDS OF NOBODY I
THINK.
BUT ANTHROPOLOGISTS WANTED TO
FIND THESE THINGS WHERE WE WERE
ABSOLUTELY DIFFERENT.
AND THE TWO THINGS THAT THEY
MENTIONED WAS FEMALE ORGASM AND
FACE TO FACE, COPULATION.
AND FEMALE ORGASM HAS BEEN
DISPROVEN AT LEAST THE
PHYSIOLOGICAL PART HAS BEEN
DISPROVEN IN ANIMAL
EXPERIMENTS.
EXPERIMENTS WERE DONE IN
ROTTERDAM UNIVERSITY FOR
EXAMPLE ON STEM CELL MACAQUES, WHERE
THEY MEASURED UTERINE
CONTRACTIONS AND HEART RATE
INCREASES.
VERY SIMILAR TO THE HUMAN
FEMALE DURING SEX, AND SO
PHYSIOLOGICALLY ORGASM-LIKE
RESPONSES ARE NOT LIMITED TO US
AT ALL.
AND I WOULD THINK THAT BONOBOS
HAVE LOTS OF ORGASMS ACTUALLY.
SECOND, SECOND PART, THE FACE
TO FACE, COPULATION WAS
CONSIDERED A HUMAN INVENTION.
IT WAS ACTUALLY CONSIDERED A
WESTERN INVENTION.
AND SO THAT'S WHY THE
MISSIONARIES CAME IN BECAUSE
THERE WERE OTHER, OTHER POOR
PEOPLE OUT THERE IN THE WORLD
WHO DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THIS
INVENTION.
[Audience laughing]

Frans says SO, NEEDED TO
BE TOLD ABOUT IT.
[Audience laughing]

Frans says SO YEAH, NO,
BONOBOS HAVE, MAYBE THEY'VE
SEEN MORE OF THE MISSIONARIES.
THAT'S POSSIBLE.
[Audience laughing]

A white rhesus monkey scratches her face as fangs hang out of her mouth glaring
at the camera.

Frans says SO NOW HERE
WE HAVE A SPECIES THE RHESUS
MONKEY, WHO HAS A REPUTATION OF
BEING VERY NASTY AND
AGGRESSIVE, AND, AND I THINK
RIGHTFULLY SO.
AND SO WHEN I STARTED MY
STUDIES, WHEN I CAME TO THE
U.S. ABOUT 20 YEARS AGO, AND I
STARTED RESEARCH IN WISCONSIN,
I STARTED WORKING WITH RHESUS
MONKEYS AND FOUND THAT EVEN
THEY RECONCILE AFTER FIGHTS.

Two rhesus monkeys groom each other on a rock.

Frans says CAN I HAVE THE NEXT ONE?
AND SO WHAT THEY DO AFTER FIGHT
IS THEY GROOM EACH OTHER AND SO
IT'S NOT NEARLY AS INTENSE.
IT'S NOT SEX AS IN THE BONOBO,
OR KISSING AS IN THE
CHIMPANZEE.
THEY JUST GROOM EACH OTHER.
AND THE NEXT ONE.

A slate appears under the title “Learning.” It reads, “Peacemaking (like
aggressiveness) is influenced by the social environment.”

Frans says AND I GOT INTERESTED IN THIS
PARTICULAR ISSUE, IN WHETHER
PEACEMAKING IS INFLUENCED BY
THE SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT.
AND THE REASON I GOT INTERESTED
IN THAT IS IT'S, IT'S A BIT
STRANGE.
BECAUSE WHAT HAPPENED IS THAT I
GAVE A TALK TO A GROUP OF CHILD
PSYCHOLOGISTS, AND THIS WAS AT
THE TIME THAT WE HAD ALREADY
QUITE A BIT EVIDENCE OF
PEACEMAKING IN ALL SORTS OF
PRIMATES.
AND I SAID WHY IS IT THAT WE
KNOW MORE ABOUT RECONCILIATION
IN PRIMATES THAN WE DO IN
CHILDREN?
WHICH IS, WHICH IS STILL THE
CASE.
WE STILL, AT THE MOMENT I WOULD
SAY WE KNOW MORE ABOUT
PEACEMAKING IN LOTS OF ANIMALS
THAN WE DO IN OUR OWN SPECIES.
IF YOU GO TO THE LIBRARY AND
YOU LOOK UP BOOKS, YOU LOOK UP
FOR A RECONCILIATION OF
PEACEMAKING OR CONFLICT
RESOLUTION.
CONFLICT RESOLUTION YOU WILL
FIND A FEW BOOKS NOWADAYS,
WHICH HAVE TO DO WITH HOW YOU
TEACH CONFLICT RESOLUTION.
BUT BASIC DATA DIDN'T EXIST AND
STILL DOESN'T EXIST, REALLY IN
CHILDREN.
SO I MENTIONED THIS TO THE
CHILD PSYCHOLOGISTS AND ONE OF
THEM STOOD UP AND TO DEFEND HIS
FIELD, AND SAID WELL, THE
REASON THAT WE DON'T HAVE THAT
DATA IS BECAUSE IN MONKEYS IT'S
ALL VERY SIMPLE, IT'S
BIOLOGICAL AND INSTINCTIVE.
BUT IN CHILDREN IT'S VERY
COMPLEX BECAUSE THEY HAVE
CULTURE AND LANGUAGE AND IT
MAKES IT AWFULLY COMPLICATED.
AND, AND I WOULD SAY THAT'S A
GOOD ARGUMENT TO STUDY IT
ACTUALLY IN CHILDREN.
IF IT IS COMPLICATED IT MAKES
IT MUCH MORE INTERESTING I
THINK.
BUT ALSO WHAT STUCK IN MY MIND
IS THE WORD INSTINCTIVE, WHICH
WE REALLY DON'T USE IN RELATION
TO ANIMALS ANYMORE.
AND THE
REASON WE DON'T USE IT EVEN,
EVEN WITH INSECTS WE WOULD BE
VERY RELUCTANT TO USE THAT SORT
OF TERMINOLOGY.
BUT CERTAINLY WITH A LOT OF
BIRDS AND MAMMALS WE --

A close up of several of the constituents faces as they listen to the lecture.

Frans says DON'T USE THE
TERMINOLOGY BECAUSE WE KNOW HOW
HEAVILY INFLUENCED EVERYTHING
THAT THEY DO IS BY THE
ENVIRONMENT.
THERE IS NO ANIMAL WHO IS A
PURE GENE MACHINE.
THEY DON'T REALLY EXIST.
EVERYTHING IS AFFECTED BY WHAT
THEY LEARN AND WHAT THEY SEE
AROUND THEM AND WHAT THEY EAT
AND WHAT, WHAT SORT OF
CHALLENGES THEY ENCOUNTER IN
THEIR LIFE.
AND SO THE WORD INSTINCT STUCK
IN MY MIND AND I THOUGHT WELL
RECONCILIATION'S DEFINITELY FAR
TOO COMPLEX TO BE COMPLETELY
PRE-PROGRAMMED BEHAVIOUR.
SO I'M INTERESTED IN HOW THEY
ACQUIRE IT ACTUALLY AND THAT'S
WHY I DID AN EXPERIMENT.

A photo shows a close up of a Stunttailed monkey that has light black fur, small
build, and white face.

Frans says CAN I HAVE THE NEXT ONE?
SO I TOOK A BUNCH OF YOUNG
STUNT TAILED MONKEYS.
STUNT TAILED MONKEYS ARE MUCH
NICER THAN RHESUS.
SO STUNT TAILS HAVE A VERY
FRIEND TEMPERAMENT.
THEY RECONCILE MUCH MORE OFTEN
THAN THE RHESUS MONKEYS AFTER
FIGHTS.
THEIR FIGHTS ARE MUCH LESS
VIOLENT.
IF YOU PROVIDE THEM WITH A
WATER RESOURCE THAT THEY CAN
COMPETE OVER THEY ACTUALLY
SHARE IT, WHEREAS THE RHESUS
WILL COMPETE OVER IT.
SO THEY HAVE A VERY DIFFERENT
TEMPERAMENT THAN THE RHESUS BUT
THEIR VERY CLOSE RELATIVES OF
THE RHESUS MONKEY.
AND SO WE MIX THEM WITH THE
RHESUS.

A photo explains the experiment in details. On the left side puts each week,
separated by 3 weeks (Pre-phase) with 8 RH subjects then two arrows points to 5
months (Co-housing) with 3 ST tutors and 4 RH-subjects and another arrow at 3
ST-tutors 4 RH-Subjects, 6 weeks (Post-phase) with 8 RH-Subjects and 6 St-
Tutors.


Frans says CAN I HAVE THE NEXT ONE?
SO WE TOOK YOUNG RHESUS AND WE
MIXED THE TWO, NEXT ONE.
SO THE EXPERIMENT WAS AS
FOLLOWS.
WE TAKE, WE TOOK EIGHT YOUNG
RHESUS MONKEYS AND WE SPLIT
THEM IN TWO GROUPS OF FOUR.
WE MIXED THEM WITH THREE STUNT
TAILS.
THE STUNT TAILS WERE SELECTED
AS SLIGHTLY OLDER SO THAT THEY
WERE DOMINANT, ON THE
ASSUMPTION THAT THE RHESUS
WOULD LEARN MORE FROM DOMINANT,
OLDER STUNT TAILS THAN FROM
YOUNGER ONES, AND WE HAD THEM
TOGETHER FOR FIVE MONTHS, DAY
AND NIGHT.
IN THE BEGINNING, IF WE PUT
THEM TOGETHER UM, THE, THE
RHESUS MONKEYS WOULD SLEEP IN
ONE CORNER OF THE CAGE AND THE
STUNT TAILS WOULD SLEEP IN THE
OTHER CORNER AND THEY WOULDN'T
MEET.
BY THE END OF THE FIVE MONTHS
THEY WERE COMPLETELY BLENDED.
THEY SLEPT TOGETHER.
THEY PLAYED TOGETHER.
THEY GROOMED TOGETHER.
UM, FIVE MONTHS IS A VERY LONG
TIME.
I'VE COMPARED IT TO TAKING A
HUMAN CHILD AND PUTTING IT FOR
TWO YEARS IN MY CHIMPANZEE
COLONY.
I THINK YOU GET A VERY
DIFFERENT HUMAN CHILD BACK
AFTER THAT THEN BEFORE IT WENT
IN, SO IT'S VERY INFLUENTIAL,
PROBABLY.
AND THEN WE SPLIT THEM OUT
AGAIN, EIGHT RHESUS MONKEYS AND
SIX STUNT TAILS SEPARATE AREAS,
AND THEN THE CONTROLLED
PROCEDURE WAS ALL THE SAME AND
THE SAME SETTING ALSO.
BUT WE DIDN'T USE ANY STUNT
TAILS.
THIS WAS RHESUS MONKEYS WHO
WENT THROUGH THIS WHOLE
PROCEDURE, AND WHO ARE MATCHED
IN AGE AND SEX WITH THE
ORIGINAL RHESUS.

A photo shows a bar graph: white bars are the Rhesus controls, grey bars are the
Rhesus subjects and black bars are the Stumptails. As the time proceeds the
Rhesus monkey and Stun tails bars level out.

Frans says CAN I HAVE THE NEXT ONE?
NOW IF YOU LOOK AT THE RESULTS
IT'S REALLY ASTONISHING WHAT
HAPPENED.
THE RHESUS CONTROLS, THESE ARE
THE RIGHT BARS THEY STAY AT THE
SAME LEVEL OF RECONCILIATION
THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE THING.
SO THIS IS BEFORE.
THESE ARE THREE PARTS OF THE
CO-HOUSING BETWEEN THE TWO AND
THIS IS AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN
SEGREGATED AGAIN.
THIS IS AFTERWARDS.
SO THE, THE CONTROL RHESUS
DIDN'T CHANGE THEIR BEHAVIOUR.
THE STUNT TAILS, WE DIDN'T HAVE
DATA HERE, BUT THE STUNT TAILS
WERE HIGH IN RECONCILIATION AS
WE EXPECTED THROUGHOUT THE
STUDY.
SO THE STUNT TAILS WERE VERY
EASY IN THEIR RECONCILIATIONS.
THESE ARE THE EXPERIMENTAL
RHESUS MONKEYS.
THEY STARTED OUT AT THE SAME
LEVEL AS THE CONTROLS.
ALSO HERE THEY'RE STILL AT THE
SAME LEVEL.
HERE THEY GO UP AND THEY GO UP.
AND EVEN WHEN THEY'RE HOUSED
SEPARATE FROM THE STUNT TAILS,
SO NOW THEY'RE JUST LIVING WITH
OTHER RHESUS MONKEYS WHO HAD
THE SAME EXPERIENCE, THEY ARE
RECONCILING JUST AS MUCH AS THE
STUNT TAIL MONKEYS ARE, THREE
TIMES AS MUCH AS A NORMAL
RHESUS MONKEY.
SO WE HAVE CREATED A NEW AND
IMPROVED RHESUS MONKEY.
[Audience laughing]

Frans says AND, AND WE
HAVE DONE THIS BY SOCIAL MEANS.
IT SHOWS THE FLEXIBILITY OF
BEHAVIOUR IN A VERY NICE WAY.
IT SHOWS THAT THE SOCIAL
ENVIRONMENT CAN CHANGE
BEHAVIOUR.
IT ALSO CONTAINS A SORT OF
OPTIMISTIC MESSAGE ABOUT OUR
SPECIES AND OUR CHILDREN.
IF WE CAN TEACH PEACE,
PEACEMAKING TO RHESUS MONKEYS
WE CAN MAYBE DO IT TO HUMAN
CHILDREN.
MAYBE NOT BY HOUSING WITH THEM
STUNT TAILS, BUT MAYBE WE CAN
DO OTHER THINGS WITH THEM.
SO, IT SHOWS THAT IT'S A
SOCIABLY FLEXIBLE SKILL, IT'S
REALLY AN ACQUIRED SKILL AND
IT, IT CAN BE INFECTED,
AFFECTED BY THE ENVIRONMENT.
AND SO IT ARGUES VERY STRONGLY
AGAINST THIS GENETIC
PROGRAMMING VIEW OF ANIMAL
BEHAVIOUR, WHICH I NEVER AGREE
WITH ANYWAY, BECAUSE I WORK
WITH ANIMALS WHICH HAVE A VERY
LONG PERIOD OF JUVENESCENCE, IN
WHICH THEY LEARN A LOT OF
THINGS.

A photo shows pictures of screaming children.

Frans says CAN I HAVE THE NEXT ONE?
YEAH, THIS IS, I'M MOVING NOW
TO A DIFFERENT TOPIC.
WHICH IS THE TOPIC OF EMPATHY.
AND UM, EMPATHY IS SECOND
NATURE TO US.
AND IT'S SO MUCH SECOND NATURE
THAT WE DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT
IT, SO, THESE ARE, THESE ARE
KIDS WATCHING A PUPPET SHOW.
THEY'RE COMPLETELY INTO IT.
YOU SEE ALL THESE FACIAL
EXPRESSIONS.
WE HAVE ACTUALLY MORE FACIAL
MUSCULATURE WE HAVE MORE
MUSCLES IN THE FACE THAN ANY
OTHER ANIMAL.
SO WE HAVE VERY EXPRESSIVE
FACES, BUT ALSO VERY SUBTLE
FACIAL EXPRESSIONS OFTEN.
AND WE COMMUNICATE EMOTIONS
THIS WAY.
AND WE THERE'S, THERE'S SORT OF
TWO SIDES TO THIS ISSUE.
WE COMMUNICATE EMOTIONS VERY
STRONGLY, BUT WE ALSO PERCEIVE
EMOTIONS VERY STRONGLY, AND,
AND EMPATHY COMES INTO THAT.
AND SO IF YOU GO TO A MOVIE,
LET'S SAY YOU GO TO “TITANIC,”
AND YOU FEEL SAD FOR WHAT
HAPPENS TO THESE PEOPLE THAT'S
ALL EMPATHY, THAT'S PURE
EMPATHY.
YOU'RE NOT SITTING ON THE SHIP.
YOU COULDN'T CARE LESS.
YOU'RE NOT GONNA GO UNDER.
[Audience laughing]
YOU COULD BE
LAUGHING AT THE MOVIE BUT
YOU'RE NOT.
SO THAT'S, THAT'S EMPATHY.
WE, WE SORT OF PUT OURSELVES IN
THE SHOES OF SOMEONE ELSE AND
WE DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT IT.
AND SO THE QUESTION NOW IS CAN
ANIMALS DO THAT?
AND IT IS AN ESSENTIAL FEATURE
OF MORALITY.
YOU CAN, THERE'S SORT OF TWO
PILLARS TO MORALITY.
ONE IS SYMPATHY AND EMPATHY ON
THE ONE HAND, AND THE OTHER IS
RECIPROCITY.
AND THE PHILOSOPHERS THROUGH
THE AGES HAVE ALWAYS MENTIONED
THESE TWO AS THE TWO PILLARS OF
MORALITY.
AND YOU CAN TRY TO IMAGINE A
HUMAN MORAL SYSTEM WITHOUT
SYMPATHY AND YOU CAN'T.
IT IS JUST NOT POSSIBLE.
WITHOUT THE CAPACITY TO
SYMPATHIZE WITH SOMEONE WHO'S
IN NEED OR WHO'S DISTRESSED YOU
CANNOT HAVE A MORAL SYSTEM.
A black and white photo shows one man grasping another man to his chest.

Frans says CAN I HAVE THE NEXT ONE?
SO CONSOLATION IS A BEHAVIOUR I
BECAME INTERESTED IN, AND THIS
IS CONSOLATION BETWEEN
SOLDIERS.
CONSOLATION IS ALSO SECOND
NATURE TO US, WE DO THAT VERY
EASILY.
PEOPLE WHO HAVE YOUNG CHILDREN
ARE BASICALLY THE WHOLE DAY IN
THE CONSOLATION BUSINESS.
[Audience laughs]

A photo shows two chimpanzee in a line bearing their teeth. The smaller, younger
one has put his arm over the larger monkey.

Frans says CAN I HAVE
THE NEXT ONE?
AND IT COMES VERY EASILY TO
CHIMPANZEES.
HERE WE HAVE AN ADULT MALE
CHIMPANZEE, WHO HAS LOST A, A
BATTLE OVER DOMINANCE WITH A
RIVAL MALE AND SO HE'S
SCREAMING.
AND THIS JUVENILE COMES OVER
AND PUTS AN ARM AROUND HIM.
AND THIS SORT OF THING IS
VISIBLE IN CHIMPANZEES ALL THE
TIME.
NOW, ONCE WE HAD DESCRIBED THIS
AND DOCUMENTED IT, I, I THOUGHT
THAT WE COULD LOOK HOW OTHER
PRIMATES DID THIS, IN THE SAME
WAY THAT WE HAD DONE THIS
RECONCILIATION.
SO RECONCILIATION WE HAD FOUND
IN CHIMPANZEES --

Frans says IF YOU
APPLIED THE SAME OBSERVATION
TECHNIQUES AND THE SAME DATA
COLLECTION TO OTHER PRIMATES,
EVEN TO OTHER ANIMALS THAN
PRIMATES YOU'RE FINDING THE
SAME PHENOMENON.

Frans says AND SO AT
SOME POINT I THOUGHT THE SAME
WOULD BE POSSIBLE WITH
CONSOLATION, AND SO WE STARTED
STUDYING CONSOLATION IN OTHER
PRIMATES.
AND THERE A VERY INTERESTING
THING HAPPENED.
NONE OF THEM DID IT.
IT IS ABSOLUTELY ABSENT.
CAN I HAVE THE NEXT ONE?
A photo shows a title “Contacted by Bystander” and a bar graph: on the parallel
Mean Hourly rate per individual and the horizon minute’s incident. The graph is
separated into Recipient of Aggression and the other graph is Aggressor.

Frans says SO, SO JUST TO SHOW YOU FOR
EXAMPLE CHIMPANZEE DATA, THIS
IS A STUDY I DID WITH MY
COLLABORATOR, PHILIPO ORAILY.
WE HAD SOME VERY SIMPLE
PREDICTIONS.
WE SAID WELL IF CONSOLATION HAS
SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE
ALLEVIATION OF DISTRESS, WE
EXPECT MORE CONTACTS BY
BYSTANDERS TOWARDS THE
RECIPIENTS OF AGGRESSION THAN
TOWARDS THE AGGESSORS.
BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY RECIPIENTS
ARE GONNA BE MORE DISTRESSED WE
ASSUME THAN AGGRESSORS, AND
MORE AFTER SERIOUS AGGRESSION
THAN AFTER MILDER AGGRESSION,
AND SO THAT'S WHAT WE FOUND.
WE FOUND THAT THIS IS SERIOUS
AGGRESSION.
THIS IS MILD AGGRESSION.
THE NUMBER OF CONTACTS IN THE
FIRST TWO MINUTES AFTER AN
INCIDENT ARE MOSTLY DIRECTED AT
THE RECIPIENT'S OF SERIOUS
AGGRESSION.
WELL, I'M NOT SAYING THAT THIS
PROVES IN ANY WAY IT'S BASED ON
EMPATHY, BUT IT IS, IT IS
CONSISTENT WITH THE LINE OF
THINKING THAT WE HAVE.
NOW THIS SORT OF TECHNIQUE OF
COLLECTING INFORMATION ON
CONSOLATION CAN BE APPLIED TO
ANY ANIMAL.
ANY ANIMAL THAT IS WILLING TO
FIGHT BECAUSE YOU DO NEED SOME
AGGRESSIVE, INCIDENTS TO FIND
IT.
AND SO WHEN WE APPLIED IT TO
MONKEYS WE DIDN'T FIND
ANYTHING.
SOMEONE APPLIED IT TO BABOONS
IN THE FIELD, SOMEONE TO
LANGERS AT THE ZOO.
WE DID IT AT THREE MACAQUE
SPECIES AT JURKISH.
WE DID IT AT CAPUCHIN MONKEYS.
ALL THESE ANIMALS SHOWED
RECONCILIATION.
SO IF YOU DO A RECONCILIATION
STUDY YOU'RE GONNA FIND IT.
YOU DO A CONSOLATION STUDY
THERE IS NOTHING THERE.
WHICH MEANS THAT CHIMPANZEES
ARE SOME, SOMEHOW SPECIAL.
THEY'RE DOING SOMETHING,
THEY'RE RESPONDING TO THE
DISTRESS OF INDIVIDUALS IN A
WAY THAT ALL THESE OTHER
PRIMATES ARE NOT DOING.
AND THIS GOT ME THINKING ABOUT
EMPATHY AT A MORE COGNITIVE
LEVEL.

A photo shows a chimpanzee looking in the mirror as it sits on a stool.

Frans says CAN I HAVE THE NEXT ONE?
AND RELATING IT TO OTHER
FINDINGS THAT WE, OTHER THINGS
THAT WE KNOW ABOUT THE GREAT
APES.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WERE AWARE
OF THE STUDIES ON MIRROR, SELF-
RECOGNITION.
MIRROR, SELF-RECOGNITION IS
VERY OFTEN STUDIED IN CHILDREN.
HUMAN CHILDREN SHOW IT BETWEEN
THE AGE OF 18 AND 24 MONTHS.
YOU PUT A LITTLE DOT OF PAINT,
IT'S CALLED A ROUGE TEST ON
THEIR FACE AND YOU PUT THEM IN
FRONT OF A MIRROR, AND IF THE
CHILD HAS GOTTEN IT, IT WILL
SEE THE MIRROR FACE AND IT WILL
START MAKING THE CONNECTION
BETWEEN THE FACE IN THE MIRROR
AND THE DOT ON ITS OWN FACE.
MEANING THAT IT CONNECTS THE
MIRROR IMAGE WITH ITSELF, AND
THAT'S WHY IT'S CALLED A, A
SIGN OF SELF-AWARENESS.
SO BETWEEN THE AGE OF 18, 18
AND 24 MONTHS CHILDREN REACH
THE LEVEL OF SELF-AWARENESS
THAT ALLOWS THEM TO MAKE THAT
CONNECTION BETWEEN THE MIRROR
IMAGE AND THEMSELVES.
BEFORE THAT TIME THEY PROBABLY
SEE THE MIRROR IMAGE, JUST AS
MANY ANIMALS DO AS A STRANGER,
FROM ANOTHER KID, THERE, IN THE
MIRROR.
UM, NOW CHIMPANZEES PASS THE
MIRROR TESTS.
UNTIL NOW ONLY THE GREAT APES
AND HUMANS PASSED THE MIRROR
TEST.
I'M NOT SAYING IT'S LIMITED TO
THEM.
THERE ARE SOME, SOME
UNPUBLISHED STUDIES THAT SEEM
TO INDICATE THAT SOME OTHER
ANIMALS MAY HAVE IT.
BUT ALL OF THEM ARE VERY HIGHLY
ENCEPHALIZED ANIMALS, CERTAINLY
NOT TRIVIAL ANIMALS.
SO ANIMALS LIKE DOLPHINS SEEM
TO HAVE MIRROR, SELF-
RECOGNITION FOR EXAMPLE.
NOW, MIRROR, SELF-RECOGNITION
IF YOU THINK OF IT, IT IS THE
ABILITY TO DISTINGUISH YOURSELF
FROM THE OTHER AND TO, TO HAVE
SUFFICIENT SELF-KNOWLEDGE.
TO RECOGNIZE THAT IF YOU SEE
SOMEONE IN THE MIRROR WHOSE
MOVEMENTS ARE 100 PERCENT CONTINGENT
WITH YOUR OWN MOVEMENTS, THAT
CAN ONLY BE YOURSELF.
AND SO THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN
SELF AND OTHER IS VERY OFTEN
MENTIONED IN THE CONTEXT WITH
HUMAN EMPATHY.
HUMAN EMPATHY IS ONLY POSSIBLE
IF YOU CAN MAKE THAT
DISTINCTION.
AND THERE'S A VERY INTERESTING
STUDY BY A SWISS SCIENTIST WHO
STUDIED CHILDREN, AND SHE
STUDIED EMPATHY IN CHILDREN.
AND AT THE SAME TIME SHE GAVE
THE CHILDREN MIRROR TESTS.
AND WHAT SHE DID FOR EXAMPLE,
THEY WOULD SIT AT THE TABLE,
HERE WOULD BE THE EXPERIMENTOR,
HERE, WOULD BE THE CHILD.
AH, THEY WOULD BOTH BE EATING
AND IN THE MIDDLE OF THE MEAL
THE EXPERIMENTOR'S FORK BREAKS
ON PURPOSE OF COURSE.
SO THE FORK BREAKS AND THE
EXPERIMENTOR STARTS CRYING AND
THEN SHE SEES WHAT THE CHILD
DOES.
THE CHILD MAY JUST CONTINUE
EATING.
THE CHILD MAY HAND HER THE OWN
FORK OR SHARE HER MEAL.
THERE'S ALL SORTS OF SOLUTIONS
POSSIBLE.
AND SHE FOUND THAT ACTS OF
COGNITIVE EMPATHY AS SHE CALLED
IT, COINCIDED WITH THE CHILD
RECOGNIZING ITSELF IN THE
MIRROR.
SO EVEN IF YOU CAN RECTIFY AGE,
THE MOMENT THE CHILDREN START
TO RECOGNIZE THEMSELVES IN THE
MIRROR IS ALSO THE MOMENT IN
LIFE THAT THEY START TO SHOW
THESE HIGHER FORMS OF EMPATHY.
AND SO THAT'S, THAT'S THE SORT
OF THE CONNECTION I'M THINKING
OF WHICH MAY EXPLAIN WHY
CHIMPANZEES SHOW CONSOLATION,
AND NONE OF THE OTHER ANIMALS
THAT WE HAVE TESTED.

A photo appears under the title “Development and Revolution” Beneath an arrow
points from “Young Child” to “Adult Person.” Below Young Child is a box that
reads “Emotional Contagion and Attachment” and beneath that Social animals. Below
“Adult Human” a box reads “Cognitive Empathy” and below “Hominoids.”

Frans says CAN I HAVE THE NEXT ONE?
AND SO THERE MAYBE A PARALLEL
IN THE DISTINCTION OF SELF AND
OTHER, WHICH, WHICH UM, TAKES
PLACE IN THE, IN THE, IN THE
YOUNG CHILD AND TAKES PLACE IN
SOME ANIMALS SUCH AS THE
HOMONOIDS, WHICH ARE THE APES
AND HUMANS.
AND SO YOU HAVE VERY SIMILAR
FORMS OF EMPATHY, WHICH WE CALL
EMOTIONAL CONTAGION, AND BEING
AFFECTED BY THE EMOTIONS OF
OTHERS IS DEFINITELY PRESENT IN
MANY SOCIAL ANIMALS.
SO FOR EXAMPLE THE FAMILY DOG
IS AFFECTED BY EMOTIONS IN THE
FAMILY DEFINITELY.
SO EMOTIONAL CONTAGION AND
ATTACHMENT ARE PRESENT IN MANY
SOCIAL ANIMALS.
BUT THESE HIGHER FORMS OF
EMPATHY, WHICH INVOLVE
PERSPECTIVE THINKING, A LITTLE
BIT SUCH AS THE STORY THAT I
TOLD YOU OF THE BONOBO WHO LED
A BLIND, FEMALE BONOBO, WHICH
IS COGNITIVE EMPATHY ARE MAYBE
LIMITED TO HOMONOIDS IN, IN THE
EVOLUTIONARY TREE.
AND UM, I COULD GIVE YOU TONS
OF DIFFERENT EXAMPLES.
I'LL, I'LL TELL YOU ONE MORE
ANECDOTE ALONG THE LINES OF
COGNITIVE EMPATHY.
UM, THIS WAS A, A BONOBO AGAIN,
BONOBOS ARE REMARKABLE FOR THIS
ACTUALLY.
THIS WAS A BONOBO AT THE LONDON
ZOO WHO HAD FOUND A BIRD.
THE BIRD WAS ALMOST DEAD.
SHE BROUGHT IT IN.
THE CARETAKER SAID WE DON'T
WANT IT HERE AND SO HE BROUGHT
IT OUT AGAIN.
AND SHE PUT THE BIRD ON ITS
FEET ON THE GROUND, WHICH IS
SORT OF INTERESTING, PUT IT ON
ITS FEET AND TRIED TO SHOW HER
THE WAY SO THAT IT WOULD FLY.
BUT IT COULDN'T FLY.
SO THEN SHE TOOK IT --
AND CLIMBED
TO THE HIGHEST SPOT IN HER
ENCLOSURE, AND WRAPPED HER LEGS
AROUND A TREE TRUNK AND, AND
FOLDED THE WINGS LIKE THIS AND
SENT THE BIRD OUT LIKE THAT.
[Audience laughs]

Frans says THAT'S VERY
INTERESTING, BECAUSE IT MEANS
THAT THE, THE BONOBO HAD A
CONCEPT OF WHAT IS GOOD FOR A
BIRD.
THIS IS THE WAY BIRDS GO
THROUGH THE SKY, AND SO THIS
MUST BE A GOOD WAY OF GETTING
RID OF THE BIRD.
[Audience laughs]
AND, AND IT
REQUIRES THIS SORT OF
PERSPECTIVE THINKING THAT I'M
TALKING ABOUT THAT YOU WILL NOT
FIND IN MANY OTHER ANIMALS.
AND SO I DO THINK THAT THESE
FORMS OF COGNITIVE EMPATHY ARE
NOT LIMITED TO OUR SPECIES AND
CAN BE FOUND IN OTHER SPECIES,
AND THE CONSOLATION DATA SEEM
TO SUPPORT THAT.

A photo shows three types of monkeys under the title “Matching-to-Sample Format.

Frans says CAN I HAVE THE NEXT ONE?
NOW WE ARE AT THE MOMENT DOING
ALL SORTS OF TESTS TO TEST THE
ABILITIES OF CHIMPANZEES IN, IN
THE DOMAIN OF EMPATHY.
AND SO ONE OF THE TESTS THAT WE
DO, WE HAVE CHIMPANZEES WHO WE
TRAIN ON COMPUTERS AND WHO
LEARN TO MOVE A JOYSTICK, AND
SO THIS IS A MATCHING-TO-SAMPLE
DESIGN IN THIS.
WE SHOWED THEM A PICTURE.
THIS IS VERY SIMPLE.
THIS POINT HAS NOTHING TO DO
WITH EMPATHY.
THIS HAS JUST TO DO WITH VISUAL
FACE RECOGNITION.
WE SHOWED THEM A PICTURE, AND
THEN WE SHOWED THEM TWO
PICTURES AND THEY HAD TO SELECT
WHICH ONE IS THE SAME.
WELL, YOU CAN DO THAT.
THIS ONE.

A photo shows three different types of monkeys and the title reads “Individual
Discrimination Test.”

Frans says AH, NEXT ONE.
THEN WE GOING MAKING IT
DIFFICULT.
WE SHOWED THEM A PICTURE AND
THEY HAVE TO SELECT THE PICTURE
WHICH IS THE SAME INDIVIDUAL,
BUT NOT THE SAME PICTURE.
NOW, YOU CAN DO THAT.
NO, YOU CAN'T.
[Audience laughing]

Frans says IT'S THIS
ONE?
NOW CHIMPANZEES ARE VERY GOOD
AT THIS.
THEY CAN DO THIS ON THEIR FIRST
TRIAL WITHOUT ANY TRAINING,
WITH FACES THAT THEY HAVE NEVER
SEEN IN THEIR LIFE, JUST AS WE
PROBABLY CAN.
I THINK WE CAN DO THAT, BUT
FACE RECOGNITION IS OFTEN
CONSIDERED A VERY SPECIAL
CHARACTERISTIC.
AND SO WE HAVE DEMONSTRATED
THAT CHIMPANZEES ARE VERY GOOD
AT FACE RECOGNITION.
AND ACTUALLY IN ONE OF THE
STUDIES, MY STUDENT LISA PARK,
PUBLISHED A STUDY IN, IN NATURE
LAST YEAR WHERE SHE SHOWED THAT
CHIMPANZEES CAN RECOGNIZE
FAMILY RESEMBLANCE.
SO YOU SHOW THEM A PICTURE, YOU
SHOW THEM TWO INDIVIDUALS, ONE
OF WHOM IS A FAMILY MEMBER, THE
OTHER ONE IS NOT AND THEY CAN
MATCH THEM.
AND SO THEY CAN SAY THESE
INDIVIDUALS LOOK ALIKE, SO THEY
CAN SEE FAMILY RESEMBLANCE JUST
AS WE PROBABLY CAN IF WE LOOK
AT A FAMILY ALBUM OR SOMETHING.
CAN I HAVE THE NEXT ONE?
AND THEN WE GO FURTHER.
WE GO TO FACE, FACIAL
EXPRESSIONS.
LIKE THIS IS A SIMILAR FACIAL
EXPRESSION.
THIS IS A DIFFERENT FACIAL
EXPRESSION.
ALL OF THIS RELATES TO WHAT DO
THEY SEE WHEN THEY LOOK AROUND
THEM AND LOOK AT THEIR SOCIAL
LIFE, WHAT ARE THEY ABLE TO
RECOGNIZE OF THEIR SOCIAL LIFE?
AND SO AT THE MOMENT, WE'RE
DOING EXPERIMENTS WHERE WE SHOW
THEM A SOCIAL SITUATION, A
LITTLE VIDEO CLIP OF A SOCIAL
SITUATION LIKE A FIGHT, FOR
EXAMPLE.
AND THEN WE ASK THEM, WHICH
FACIAL EXPRESSION GOES WITH
THIS PARTICULAR CONTEXT?
AND SO WE'RE GETTING DEEPER AND
DEEPER INTO WHAT DO THEY KNOW
AND WHAT DO THEY SEE WHEN THEY
LOOK AROUND THEM?
BECAUSE YOU CANNOT HAVE HIGHLY
DEVELOPED CAPACITIES FOR
EMPATHY AND SYMPATHY IF YOU
DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT'S
HAPPENING AROUND YOU.
CAN I HAVE THE NEXT ONE?

A quote appears and it reads “Food-sharing and the kind of behavior associated
with it probably played an important part in the development of systems of
reciprocal social obligations that characterize all human societies known about.

Quote by Glynn Isaac (1978)

Frans says SO THAT WAS THE PART ON
SYMPATHY AND EMPATHY AND NOW
I WANT TO GET TO THE SECOND
PILLAR OF MORALITY, WHICH IS
RECIPROCITY.
RECIPROCITY, OR TIT FOR TAT, OR
QUID PRO QUO, AH, I'M SURE
THERE'S A FEW MORE TERMS ABOUT
IT YOU KNOW, UM, HAS BEEN A
VERY OLD TOPIC IN ANTHROPOLOGY,
AND THIS IS A QUOTE FROM ISAAC,
WHO SAYS FOOD-SHARING AND THE
KINDS OF BEHAVIOUR ASSOCIATED
WITH IT PROBABLY PLAYED AN
IMPORTANT PART IN THE
DEVELOPMENT OF SYSTEMS OF
RECIPROCITY SOCIAL OBLIGATIONS.
OBLIGATIONS, IS A MORAL TERM
THAT CHARACTERIZE ALL HUMAN
SOCIETIES.
AND SO RECIPROCITY'S AN OLD
TOPIC IN ANTHROPOLOGY, AND IT
BECAME A MAIN TOPIC IN BIOLOGY,
THERE'S A PAPER BY ROBERT
TRIVERS WHO IN THE EARLY 70S,
ACTUALLY SEVEN YEARS BEFORE
THIS PAPER HE WROTE A PAPER,
“THE EVOLUTION OF RECIPROCAL
ALTRUISM AND LOOKED AT HOW THE
EXCHANGE OF BENEFITS BETWEEN
INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE NOT RELATED
MAY AT THE FIRST SIGHT BE
COSTLY TO THEM, BUT IN THE LONG
TERM ACTUALLY BE VERY
BENEFICIAL FOR THEM IF THEY DO
IT IN A RECIPROCAL FASHION.
SO YOU LOSE SOMETHING WHEN YOU,
WHEN YOU GIVE SOMETHING TO
SOMEONE ELSE, BUT IN THE LONG
RUN YOU MAY BE GAINING BECAUSE
THAT SOMEONE ELSE IS WILLING TO
REPAY YOU.
IF THAT SORT OF MECHANISMS,
EXIST THEN YOU GET A SYSTEM OF
RECIPROCITY.
CAN I HAVE THE NEXT ONE?

A photo shows an aerial view of Jurkish Primate center.

Frans says WELL AT THE FIELD STATION OF
THE JURKISH PRIMATE CENTRE
WE'VE DONE LOTS OF EXPERIMENTS
WITH CHIMPANZEES ON THIS AND IF
I HAVE THE TIME I'LL SHOW YOU A
LITTLE VIDEO AT THE END OF AN
EXPERIMENT THAT WE DID WITH
CAPUCHIN MONKEYS ON
RECIPROCITY.
AND SO I'M VERY INTERESTED IN
WHAT WE CALL APPROXIMATE
MECHANISMS OF, IT MEANS SORT OF
LIKE THE PSYCHOLOGY BEHIND
RECIPROCITY, BECAUSE I THINK IN
SOME ANIMALS IT'S VERY SIMPLE
AND IN OTHER ANIMALS IT'S VERY
COMPLEX.
SO, SO WE OFTEN THINK OF OUR
RECIPROCAL RELATIONS AS FAIRLY,
FAIRLY CALCULATING.
LIKE I HELP YOU TODAY TO MOVE
YOUR PIANO AND UM, WHICH IS A
VERY DANGEROUS ACTIVITY
ACTUALLY, AND A YEAR FROM NOW
UM, I, I HAVE A PIANO TO MOVE
AND I CALL YOU AND I SAY CAN
YOU MAYBE HELP ME ON THIS
OCCASION?
NOW IF YOU THEN ANSWER, AND SAY
WHY WOULD I HELP YOU?
AND I SAY WELL, YOU KNOW,
REMEMBER I HELPED YOU A YEAR
AGO WITH YOUR PIANO?
AND YOU SAY WELL I DON'T
BELIEVE IN RECIPROCITY.
[Audience laughing]
I WOULD BE
VERY SURPRISED.
I WOULD SAY WELL HEY WE, WHERE,
WHERE DO YOU EVER ENCOUNTER
SOMEONE WHO SAYS I DON'T
BELIEVE IN RECIPROCITY?
[Audience laughs]
AND SO WE ALL
BELIEVE IN RECIPROCITY REALLY.
SO WE ARE OFFENDED WHEN THAT
HAPPENS.
A series of clips shows a chimpanzee at the field station, then his assistant
carrying branches as he walks on the cement, then a bunch of chimps collecting
food, next to a group of chimpanzee

Frans says CAN I HAVE THE NEXT ONE?
CHIMPANZEE AT THE FIELD
STATION.
NEXT ONE.
AH, THIS MIKE CHERIS, MY
ASSISTANT WHO CUT SOME BRANCHES
IN THE FOREST AROUND THE FIELD
STATION AND WE USED THAT TO
TEST THE FOOD CHAIN OF THE
CHIMPANZEES.
CAN I HAVE THE NEXT ONE?
WE THROW THAT INTO THE
ENCLOSURE.
NEXT ONE.
AND THEN YOU GET THESE CLUSTERS
OF CHIMPS WHO COLLECT THE FOOD
AND IN, IN THIS PARTICULAR
CONTEXT IT'S INTERESTING, THE
DOMINANCE HIERARCHY BASICALLY
DOESN'T EXIST ANYMORE.
ALL OF A SUDDEN IT'S GONE, AND
SO NOT TOWARDS JUVENILES, BUT
AMONG THE ADULTS.
AMONG THE ADULTS EVEN IF THE
LOWEST RANKING FEMALE GRABS THE
FOOD, ONCE SHE HAS IT IN HER
HANDS ITS HERS.
AS I SAID IT DOESN'T APPLY TO
JUVENILES.

Frans says CAN I HAVE THE NEXT ONE?
AND YOU GET THESE CLUSTERS OF
INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE INTERESTED
IN EACH OTHER'S FOOD AND WE
THEN MEASURE IF THEY SOMETIMES
GET SOMETHING FROM THE OTHER.
AND WHAT WE FIND IS ABOUT 50 PERCENT
OF THE APPROACHES TOWARDS FOOD
RESULT IN A FOOD TRANSFER.
SO IT'S NOT ACTIVE SHARING,
USUALLY.
IT'S NOT SOMEONE HANDING OUT
FOOD.
IT IS THE THAT THEY, THEY MAY
REACH OUT AND, AND GRAB A PIECE
OF IT.

A photo has a group of chimpanzees. One female is approaching an alpha male as
he eats leaves.

Frans says CAN I HAVE THE NEXT ONE?
AND, AND SO, A TYPICAL EXAMPLE,
FOR EXAMPLE THIS IS A FEMALE
WHO HAS APPROACHED THE ALPHA
MALE.
AH, THE ALPHA MALE IS CHEWING
ON SOME LEAVES.
THERE'S LOTS OF FRESH LEAVES
HERE, WHICH ARE NOT GOOD ENOUGH
FOR THIS FEMALE.
IT'S THE LEAVES THAT THE MALE
IS EATING.
[Audience laughs]

Frans says AND SO SHE
PUTS HER HAND ON HIS MOUTH SO
THAT HE CANNOT CHEW ANYMORE.
[Audience laughing]

Frans says AND WAITS
TILL HE DROPS THE FOOD, AND
THEN SHE TAKES THE FOOD AND
WALKS AWAY.
NOW HE'S THE ALPHA MALE, SO
HE'S THE HIGHEST RANKING MALE,
BUT HE TOLERATES THIS SORT OF
BEHAVIOUR FROM HER.
IT SHOWS THE VERY HIGH LEVEL OF
TOLERANCE THAT OCCURS AND THE
SORT OF FOOD BEGGING THAT MAY
OCCUR.

A photo shows one chimpanzee on the back of another.

Frans says CAN I HAVE THE NEXT ONE?
SOMETIMES INDIVIDUALS ARE VERY
STINGY.
[Audience laughing]

Frans says SO YOU HAVE
ALL THESE PERSONALITY
CHARACTERISTICS.
WE'RE ACTUALLY DOING A BIG
PROJECT AT THE MOMENT ON
CHIMPANZEE PERSONALITIES, AND
THEY'RE, THEY'RE ENORMOUSLY
DIFFERENT.
SO HERE WE HAVE SOMEONE WHO
APPROACHED AND WHO DIDN'T GET
ANYTHING.
AND SO THAT'S THE IMPORTANT
PART OF THE STORY IS THAT UM,
NOT ALL APPROACHES LEAD TO FOOD
TRANSFER.
SO THERE'S A CERTAIN
SELECTIVITY IN THE PROCESS, AND
WHICH MAKES TECHNICIANS STUDY
RECIPROCITY AND CAN SEE WITH
WHOM ARE THEY SHARING, WITH
WHOM ARE THEY NOT SHARING.

A slide shows a scatter graph with the title Reciprocity Correlation.

Frans says CAN I HAVE THE NEXT ONE?
SO THE FIRST THING THAT WE
FOUND IS A RECIPROCITY
CORRELATION.
EACH DOT HERE IS ONE PAIR OF
ADULT INDIVIDUALS IN THE
COLONY, AND THERE'S A POSITIVE
CORRELATION.
WHICH MEANS THAT IF I SHARE A
LOT OF FOOD WITH YOU, YOU SHARE
A LOT OF FOOD WITH ME.
AND IF I SHARE VERY LITTLE WITH
YOU, WHICH IS THESE DOTS, YOU
SHARE VERY LITTLE WITH ME.

Frans says SO THAT'S
GOOD.
THERE'S A POSITIVE RECIPROCITY
CORRELATION, AND WHEN I FIRST
FOUND IT I THOUGHT THIS PROVES
A LOT, AND THE MORE I THOUGHT
ABOUT IT --

Frans says THE LESS I
THOUGHT IT ACTUALLY PROVED
ANYTHING.
IT, IT, IT DOES PROVE THAT
THERE'S, THERE'S A SYMMETRICAL
DISTRIBUTION OF FOOD BETWEEN
INDIVIDUALS.
SO THERE'S A CERTAIN MUTUAL
SHARING GOING ON, BUT THE
MECHANISM BEHIND IT IS TOTALLY
UNCLEAR.
AND THAT'S ALWAYS A PROBLEM
WITH CORREALTIONS.

A photo shows a family of chimpanzees close together and the female chimpanzee
holding a baby chimpanzee.

Frans says CAN I HAVE THE NEXT ONE?
AND SO TO GET AROUND THIS
PROBLEM THAT WE DIDN'T KNOW
WHAT THE CORRELATION REALLY
TOLD US IS WE GOT INTO A VERY
DIFFERENT PARADIGM, WHERE WE
LOOKED AT THE GROOMING AMONG
CHIMPANZEES.
SO EACH MORNING WE MEASURED WHO
GROOMS WHOM, AND FOR HOW LONG.
OUR CHIMP, OUR CHIMPANZEES
GROOM A LOT AND SO THAT WAS
VERY EASY TO DO.

A photo shows two chimps grooming one another.

Frans says OKAY, CAN I HAVE THE NEXT ONE?
VERY MUTUAL GROOMING SOMETIMES,
VERY INTENSE GROOMING THAT THEY
DO.
NEXT ONE.
THIS IS JUST TO REMIND YOU THAT
WE PAY FOR GROOMING AND I THINK
MY CHIMPS PAY FOR GROOMING.
[Audience laughing]

A photo of a bar graph shows two yellow bars and two black bars. Beneath the two
yellow bars “A gets from B” and below each bar is either “A grooms B” or “No
grooming.” The two black bars from “B gets from A” and below “A grooms B” and
“No grooming.”

Frans says AND THE NEXT
ONE.
AND NOW THIS IS THE DATA THAT
WE FOUND.
WHAT WE DID IS AFTER THE
GROOMING WE LOOKED AT THE FOOD
SHARING.
SO AFTER WE HAD MEASURED THE
GROOMING BETWEEN THEM WE WOULD
THROW IN FOOD.
WE COLLECTED DATA ON ABOUT
10,000 FOOD INTERACTIONS IN
THIS PARTICULAR STUDY, SO IT'S
AN ENORMOUS DATA BASE THAT WE
USED.
AND WE LOOKED DOES “A,” HOW
OFTEN DOES “A” GET FOOD FROM
“B,” AFTER “A” HAD GROOMED “B.”
IN THE MORNING, WHICH IS A
COUPLE OF HOURS EARLIER OR
WITHOUT ANY GROOMING.
AND YOU SEE THERE'S AN
INCREASE.
SO AFTER “A” HAD GROOMED “B,”
“A” GOT MORE FOOD FROM “B.”
AND “B” GETTING FOOD FROM “A.”
WAS UNAFFECTED BY THIS.

A slide appears under the title “1 effect, 2 Non- Effects.” An arrow points from
“A” with “Grooming” written above to “B” with an arrow to Non-Effect: Sharing
with others. Then an arrow from “B” with “Food Sharing” below and then an arrow
below “A” with “Non-effect Sharing with B.”

Frans says CAN I HAVE THE NEXT ONE?
AND SO BASICALLY WHAT WE FOUND
IS IF “A” GROOMS “B,” THIS
INCREASES THE SHARING OF “B.”
WITH “A,” BUT IT DOES NOT
AFFECT THE SHARING OF “B” WITH
ANY OTHERS.
WELL THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT.
WHAT THIS MEANS IS THAT “B” IS
NOT JUST IN A GENERALLY GOOD
MOOD, SO “B” HAS BEEN GROOMED,
FEELS VERY RELAXED AND VERY
HAPPY AND SHARES WITH EVERYONE
IN THE COLONY.
THAT'S NOT THE CASE.
“B” IS SPECIFICALLY SHARING
MORE WITH “A” THE ONE WHO DID
THE ACTUAL GROOMING.
AND THIS IS THE FIRST EVIDENCE
IN ANY ANIMAL OF PARTNERS
SPECIFIC EXCHANGE BETWEEN
DIFFERENT CURRENCIES AS WE CALL
IT.
AND UM, IT IS OVER A TIME
PERIOD OF ABOUT TWO HOURS, SO
IT MUST BE BASED ON MEMORY OF
THE PREVIOUS EVENT.
SO THE, SO “A” AND “B,” “A” AND
OR “B” MUST REMEMBER THE
PREVIOUS EVENT.
AND THERE'S ANOTHER THING THAT
COMES INTO IT.
MEMORY'S NOT SUFFICIENT.
YOU, YOU CAN REMEMBER THE
PREVIOUS EVENT AND SAY, OH,
THIS IS “B” WHO JUST GROOMED
ME, THAT'S NOT SUFFICIENT.
IT ALSO AFFECTS YOUR BEHAVIOUR.
YOU'RE POSITIVELY INCLINED
BECAUSE “B” DID THIS TO YOU.
AND YOU MUST RECALL THEIR
GRATITUDE.
AND SO THERE'S ACTUALLY A WHOLE
FIELD COMING UP IN SOCIAL
PSYCHOLOGY, WHICH ALSO INCLUDES
ANIMAL BEHAVIOURISTS, WHO ARE
WORKING ON GRATITUDE AND THE
ORIGINS OF GRATITUDE, WHICH IS
AGAIN, A MORAL CONCEPT.
SO, SO YOU GET INTO ANOTHER
MORAL CONCEPT WOULD BE
OBLIGATION.
DO THEY HAVE, DO THEY FEEL AN
OBLIGATION TO SHARE WITH THE
ONE?
DOES “B” HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO
SHARE WITH “A” AFTER “A” HAS
GROOMED “B”?
SO THERE'S ALL SORTS OF
INTERESTING ISSUES THAT COME
UP, SOME OF WHICH WE MORALLY IN
HUMANS, WOULD PHRASE IN MORAL
TERMS, AND BECAUSE RECIPROCITY
IS BASICALLY A CONCEPT THAT WE
HAVE INTEGRATED IN OUR MORAL
SYSTEMS.

A photo shows a chimpanzee holding a white basket up to his face and looking
inside.

Frans says CAN I HAVE THE NEXT ONE?
OKAY LET ME CONCLUDE, AND AT
THE END I'LL SHOW YOU A VIDEO
OF THE CAPUCHIN MONKEYS, WHICH
ALSO RELATES TO RECIPROCITY.
IN THE CAPUCHINS WE DO EVEN
MORE CONTROLLED EXPERIMENTS
THAN WE DO IN THE CHIMPANZEES.
NOW WHAT IS EXACTLY MY CLAIM
ABOUT THE SYSTEMS OF MORALITY,
AND WHETHER ANIMALS OR HUMANS
ARE MORAL BEINGS, I, I DON'T
THINK IT'S POSSIBLE TO DEFINE
MORALITY EASILY.
IT'S LIKE DEFINING LANGUAGE OR
DEFINING POLITICS, SOME OF
CULTURE.
IT'S VERY HARD TO DEFINE THAT
SORT OF CONCEPTS, BUT MY TAKE
ON MORALITY IS REALLY THAT,
THAT MORAL SYSTEMS ARE SYSTEMS
THAT OF CONFLICT, RESOLUTION.
SOCIETIES ARE FULL OF CONFLICT
BETWEEN THE RICH AND THE POOR,
AND THE HEALTHY AND THE SICK
AND THE OLD AND THE YOUNG.
SO, SO IT IS FULL OF CONFLICT,
AND WHAT WE DO IN OUR MORAL
SYSTEMS IS SORT OF DESIGN RULES
AND SAY THIS IS HOW WE RESOLVE
THESE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
WITHIN OUR SOCIETY.
AND WE, WE HAVE THESE MORAL
SYSTEMS BECAUSE WE HAVE A LOT
OF COMMON INTERESTS.
SO THE MORAL SYSTEMS ALWAYS
EMPHASIZE THE COMMUNITY AND THE
SHARED INTERESTS AND THE GOOD
INTERESTS IN ORDER TO RESOLVE
THESE CONFLICTS.
UM, THE SOLUTIONS THAT WE FIND
ARE EXACTLY THE SOLUTIONS THAT
WE WANT.
SO I DON'T BELIEVE THAT BIOLOGY
DICTATES THE RULES OF THE MORAL
SYSTEM.
THE SPECIFICS OF THE MORAL
SYSTEM ARE NOT DICTATED BY
BIOLOGY.
IT'S A BIT LIKE OUR LANGUAGE
ABILITY.
WE HAVE A LANGUAGE ABILITY,
WHICH IS AN, AN INHERITED
ABILITY.
WE ARE BORN WITH THE LANGUAGE
ABILITY.
BUT HOW IT IS FILLED IN, IS
DECIDED BY THE ENVIRONMENT.
IF YOU LIVE IN ITALY YOU LEARN
A DIFFERENT LANGUAGE, THEN YOU
LIVE IN HOLLAND OR YOU LIVE IN
CANADA.
AND SO THE SPECIFICS OF THE
LANGUAGE ARE NOT BIOLOGICALLY
DESIGNED BUT THAT WE CAN LEARN
LANGUAGE AND THAT WE WILL LEARN
LANGUAGE IN THE RIGHT
ENVIRONMENT IS A BIOLOGICAL
CHARACTERISTIC.
AND THE SAME WAY I LOOK AT
MORALITY IS THE SPECIFICS ARE
NOT BIOLOGICALLY DETERMINED,
BUT THAT WE ARE MORAL BEINGS
AND THAT WE TEND TOWARDS
DEFINING RULES IN OUR SOCIETY
IS A NATURAL TENDENCY.
NOW, I, I PERSONALLY DON'T LOOK
AT THE GREAT APES OR
CHIMPANZEES AS MORAL BEINGS.
SO, SO I USUALLY LOOK AT
MORALITY AS A SORT OF TWO-
LAYERED CONCEPT.
YOU HAVE THE WHAT, WHAT THE OLD
PHILOSOPHERS LIKE SMITH AND
HUME USED TO CALL THE MORAL
SENTIMENTS.
SYMPATHY IS ONE OF THEM.
SO YOU HAVE THE MORAL
SENTIMENTS.
SORT OF THE EMOTIONS AND THE
PSYCHOLOGY THAT GOES INTO
MORALITY, AND AT THAT LEVEL I
SEE TONS OF CONTINUITY BETWEEN
US AND THE GREAT APES.
YET ANOTHER LEVEL, WHICH WE
CALL MORAL JUDGEMENT OR MORAL
REASONING WHERE YOU FOR EXAMPLE
LOOK FOR CONSISTENCY IN YOUR
MORAL SYSTEM.
YOU SAY IF YOU ACCEPT THIS YOU
MUST ACCEPT THAT.
UM, THAT SORT OF LEVEL OR
MORALITY, A MORE LEVEL OF
MORALITY.
I'M NOT SURE THAT I FIND THAT
IN ANIMALS.
I DON'T WANT TO EXCLUDE IT.
A HUNDRED YEARS FROM NOW THERE
WILL BE SOMEONE TALKING TO YOU
WHO WILL EXPLAIN THAT THEY HAVE
THAT I'M SURE, BUT I'M NOT
WILLING TO MAKE THAT CLAIM.
BUT I THINK AT THAT PARTICULAR
LEVEL OF MORAL JUDGEMENT I
THINK THERE'S A LOT OF
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN US AND THE
GREAT APES.
BUT IT DOES MEAN THAT OUR MORAL
SYSTEMS WERE NOT DESIGNED BY US
FROM SCRATCH.
THEY'RE NOT A 2,000 YEAR OLD
RELIGIOUS INVENTION AS SOME
PEOPLE SEEM TO THINK.
THEY'RE MUCH
OLDER.
THEY'RE 5,000,000, 10,000,000
YEARS OLD IN TERMS OF THE
PSYCHOLOGY THAT GOES INTO THEM.
SO, WE MAKE, WE MAKE USE OF A
LOT OF NATURAL TENDENCIES THAT

Frans says WE SHARE WITH
A LOT OF OTHER ANIMALS THAT WE
HAVE INTEGRATED IN OUR SOCIAL
SYSTEMS.

A photo appears under the title “Moral Prerequisites” It reads “ Sympathy-
Related: Attachment, emotional contagion leads to cognitive empathy. Norm –
related: prescriptive social rules leads to internalization, Reciprocity:
reciprocal exchange leads to obligation. Getting Along: peacemaking leads to
community concern.”

Frans says CAN I HAVE THE NEXT ONE?
AND JUST TO SUMMARIZE THAT VERY
QUICKLY, SYMPATHY-RELATED
CHARACTERISTICS, WHICH RELATE
TO EMOTIONAL CONTAGION BUT ALSO
TO, TO COGNITIVE EMPATHY WE
HAVE INTEGRATED INTO IT.
I HAVE NOT TALKED ABOUT SOCIAL
RULES, BUT OBVIOUSLY SOCIAL
RULES ARE PART OF OUR MORAL
SYSTEMS AND TO SOME DEGREE THEY
ARE INTERNALIZED, WHICH WE CALL
OUR CONSCIENCE TO SOME DEGREE.
RECIPROCITY, THE RECIPROCAL
EXCHANGE AND OBLIGATIONS AND I
THINK MANY OF, MANY OF THESE
TENDENCIES CAN BE FOUND IN
OTHER ANIMALS.
AND UM, A CERTAIN COMMUNITY
CONCERN AND TENDENCY TO, TO
RESOLVE CONFLICT, WHICH IS ALSO
INHERENT IN MORAL SYSTEMS WE
ALSO SHARE WITH OTHER ANIMALS.
SO THESE ARE MORAL
PREREQUISITES.
THINGS WITHOUT, WHICH WE COULD
NEVER HAVE MORAL SYSTEMS THAT
WE CAN FIND IN SPECIES OTHER
THAN OURSELVES.

Watch: Frans De Waal on Moral Systems Among Primates