Read Wild Justice: The Moral Lives of Animals by Marc Bekoff Jessica Pierce Online

wild-justice-the-moral-lives-of-animals

Scientists have long counseled against interpreting animal behavior in terms of human emotions, warning that such anthropomorphizing limits our ability to understand animals as they really are. Yet what are we to make of a female gorilla in a German zoo who spent days mourning the death of her baby? Or a wild female elephant who cared for a younger one after she was injuScientists have long counseled against interpreting animal behavior in terms of human emotions, warning that such anthropomorphizing limits our ability to understand animals as they really are. Yet what are we to make of a female gorilla in a German zoo who spent days mourning the death of her baby? Or a wild female elephant who cared for a younger one after she was injured by a rambunctious teenage male? Or a rat who refused to push a lever for food when he saw that doing so caused another rat to be shocked? Aren’t these clear signs that animals have recognizable emotions and moral intelligence? With Wild Justice Marc Bekoff and Jessica Pierce unequivocally answer yes.Marrying years of behavioral and cognitive research with compelling and moving anecdotes, Bekoff and Pierce reveal that animals exhibit a broad repertoire of moral behaviors, including fairness, empathy, trust, and reciprocity. Underlying these behaviors is a complex and nuanced range of emotions, backed by a high degree of intelligence and surprising behavioral flexibility. Animals, in short, are incredibly adept social beings, relying on rules of conduct to navigate intricate social networks that are essential to their survival. Ultimately, Bekoff and Pierce draw the astonishing conclusion that there is no moral gap between humans and other species: morality is an evolved trait that we unquestionably share with other social mammals.Sure to be controversial, Wild Justice offers not just cutting-edge science, but a provocative call to rethink our relationship with—and our responsibilities toward—our fellow animals....

Title : Wild Justice: The Moral Lives of Animals
Author :
Rating :
ISBN : 9780226041612
Format Type : Hardcover
Number of Pages : 204 Pages
Status : Available For Download
Last checked : 21 Minutes ago!

Wild Justice: The Moral Lives of Animals Reviews

  • Mohamed Al Marzooqi
    2018-11-17 19:52

    يقول علماء التطوّر إن الإنسان تعب يوماً من المشي على أربع فانتصب واقفاً على قائمتين، ومنذ ذلك اليوم، الذي يقدّر بآلاف السنين، أعلن الإنسان الأحكام العرفية في الأرض، ونصّب نفسه حاكماً ومالكاً لكل ما يدبّ عليها من حيوانات وحشرات ونباتات!ثم ازداد الإنسان انتصاباً، حتى لم يعد يرى ما يدبّ تحت قدميه، أو ــ بتعبيرٍ أدقّ ــ يراه دون أن يكترث إن دهسه بكعب حذائه (المصنوع غالباً من جلد تمساح أو ثعبان).فالإنسان، منذ استطالت قامته، صادر الأرض بما فيها ومن عليها، وغرس في خاصرتها لافتة كتب عليها «ملكيّة خاصة»، متناسياً أن البشر بكونهم خلفاء الله في الأرض، يجب أن يحيوا ويسمحوا لغيرهم بالعيش.إننا نسخر دائماً من عبارة «حقوق الحيوان» التي يرددها أشخاص نعتقد أنهم مجانين، وكأننا نرفض ضمناً أن يكون هنالك حقوق لكائنات أخرى غير الإنسان، كونه ــ أي الإنسان ــ يجلس وهو يضع قدماً على أخرى وبيده سيجارة، على قمة السلّم التطوري، لكن لنتخيل لدقائق أن الأمور لم تجرِ على هذا النحو، أو جرت وفق سيناريو آخر دخل فيه طرف آخر، فلو فرضنا أنّ الجنس البشري قد صادف يوماً ما أنواعاً أخرى من الحياة العاقلة أكثر تطوّراً منه، كأن يأتي زائر من المريخ وبيده صك ملكية يمنحه حق التصرف بكل ما يملأ الكرة الأرضية، بما فيها البشر، فإن «حقوق الإنسان» ستبدو عندها أضحوكةً بالنسبة له، كما تبدو «حقوق الحيوانات» بالنسبة لبعضنا اليوم!لكن بعيداً عن السيناريو المحتمل لقصص الخيال العلمي يجب علينا الإدراك أن كل مخلوقات الله لها قيمة وتالياً حقوق، ويجب ألا يتم التجاوز عليها وعلى حقوقها أو السخرية منها، ويجب كذلك ألا نجعلها تعاني من دون ضرورة كما يقوم بعض العابثين، إلا إذا وافق من يقطع ذيل قطة بغرض المتعة أن يأتي كائنٌ متخيل من المريخ ويبتر إحدى ساقيه، أو يحرقه حياً كما يحرق البعض ثعالب وكلاباً وقططاً، ويصورون جرائمهم وينشرونها على الملأ دون خوف من حساب أو عقاب!ينقل مؤلف الكتاب عن العالم النفساني فيكتور نيل، زعمه أن القسوة سلوك بشري بشكل حصري، وفي تعريفه للقسوة، يقول «القسوة هي تعمّد إلحاق الأذى الجسدي أو النفسي بكائن حي، وأكثر سماته إثارة للاشمئزاز الاستمتاع الذي يتجلّى عند مقترفها». ومع ذلك لا يخجل الإنسان من تنصّله من هذه الصفة واتهام الحيوان بها (ربما لأن الحيوان لا يستطيع أن يدافع عن نفسه أمام افتراءات البشر)، فنلجأ ــ لا شعورياً ــ عند الحديث عن جريمة ارتكبها أحد أبناء آدم وحواء إلى وصفه بـ«الحيوان»، نضعها هكذا بين هلالين مزدوجين كوحش، يقبع وراء القضبان، نخشى أن يهرب، مع أننا لو فكرنا ملياً فسنجد أن الحيوان لا يخطف حيواناً آخر كي يغتصبه، كما أنه لا يقتله أو يلقيه في الصحراء بعد ذلك كما يفعل الإنسان، فلماذا نصرّ على وصف مرتكبي هذه الجرائم بالحيوانات؟إذا كان علماء التطور يقولون إن قاعدة «البقاء للأقوى» هي التي أوصلت الإنسان إلى ما هو عليه اليوم، فإن قاعدة أخرى، هي قاعدة «البقاء للألطف» ستضمن بقاءه، فبقاؤنا مرهون بحفاظنا على حيوانات ونباتات الأرض ورعايتها.---كتبت هذا المقال المنشور في صحيفة الإمارات اليوم بتاريخ 26 أكتوبر 2014 بوحي من هذا الكتاب بعد انتهائي من قرائته

  • ميقات الراجحي
    2018-12-17 00:06

    I have to admit that this book is completely different. I respect and appreciate the book for it's scientific subject and ethical and moral value. I found this book quite distinct from the intellectual, historical and literary books in general. The book taught me that all animals deserve respect, care, compassion and appreciation and how we all should be responsible toward animals.In this book, Marc Bekoff and Jessica Pierce deliver the moral behaviors of animals and the book focuses the perceptions of animals, their behaviors, and even their emotions. Some of the scientific studies in this book contributes to refute and demolish the faulty hypothesis that entrenched in our minds for many years such as animals are less important than humans and that belief came from the idea that animals don't have the ability to think. Bekoff and Pierce provide indisputable evidence and arguments that some of the actions of animals should be classified as moral and animals do think and do have morality. Also, the book is against the prevailing idea that animals like to dominate and compete with each other. In addition, this book shows the importance of having balance between nature life and justice in the animal world.Notice,Arab readers who are interested in the world of animals and their lives and their actions and behaviors will accept a lot of the credibility of this book beside that they would prefer the scientific studies especially the studies that done by names such as John, Edward, Michael Suzan, or William to studies that done by Fatemah, Ashraf, Ahmed, or AbdulAziz.

  • Elaine
    2018-11-25 01:39

    Philosophers have pretty much judged that nonhuman animals can not act morally. On what do they base this judgment? The fact that only humans are capable of moral behavior. Well, if you define morality as something only humans have, then of course, you can say only humans are moral. That, of course, is circular reasoning. It also ignores Occam's Razor, which says that for something to be true, it can't rest on faulty hypotheses, and a priori judgements automatically fail the test of Occam's Razor.But, why blame only philosophers? For years, scientists have claimed that animals are just a bundle of learned responses. Even before modern Behaviorists insisted that judging animals' behavior, one must always start with the premise that animals don't think or reason. Again only human animals were considered to be capable of thinking. Again, the reasoning is circular: if you define thinking as something only humans do, then you don't acknowledge the possibility thant other animals think.At this point, I could go on and show that animals do think and do have morality. But I won't. This book and Mark Rowland's Can Animals be Moral both give plenty of examples. Moreover, you'll find incontrovertible evidence of animal thinking on my blog http://dogsandwolves-smartoldlady.blo....Scientists with no preconceived notions to defend, have found that all social mammals have brain structures that correlate with human ones for compassion, fairness, love, and other emotions. The only thing humans have that animals don't is language, but in order to encode anything into language, yup must have thought of it pre verbally. Before you can find the words and syntax to encode in speech, you have to have had a nonverbal feeling. In fact, everything we say is first experienced non-verbally. The Executive function of the brain has to find the words and syntax that match the nonverbal thought. Humans aren't aware of what they've been thinking until it presents itself in language, but that doesn't negate the fact that initial thoughts are not in linguistic form. How could they be? Something has to decide what words and grammar to use to express what a person has decided or has been thinking.To give you an example of how homo-centric human scholars can be, consider Descartes. He, preceding B.F. Skinner by decades, decreed that animals feel no pain. When "scientists" cut living dogs up without using anesthesia, the screaming and howling of pain was considered an automatic reflex. Why would this "automatic reflex" take the form of screaming as humans do when they are subjected to horrible pain? For centuries, however, scientists, medical doctors and just plain folk never thought to ask that question. Just as humans are not just bundles of responses to stimuli, neither are animals.Marc Bekoff cites data observed by impartial humans that show animals obeying moral imperatives and solving new problems without being conditioned to do so. This book like his The Emotional Lives of Animals is well written, and avoids pseudo-scientific jargon. Even if you don't share a love of animals with him--or me--you'll find a lot of thought provoking observations in this book. He sees nonhuman animals as part of a cline from non-humans to humans.The difference between me an my dogs is one of degree, not of kind. In fact, I can understand what my dogs are conveying to me because they do so much as humans do. Eye contact, moaning or happy sounds are familiar to me from raising four babiesIf you're sick of novels, try this novel presentation of the moral lives of animals based upon careful, nonjudgmental observation of their actions and reactions.Ihave to admit that I have read Mark Bekoff's works --and other works--while researching my forthcoming book, Humans, Dogs, and Civilization

  • Abu Hasan
    2018-12-15 18:02

    يستاهل الكتاب أكثر من ثلاث نجمات، لكن الأخطاء المطبعية فيه كثيرة ومزعجةموضوع الكتاب مازال مثار جدل لم ينتهولا يعدو الكتاب كونه تناولا للموضوع من زاوية من يرى أن الحيوانات تتمتع بمزايا أخلاقية مثل التعاون والإيثار والإنصاف والتعاطفوقد كان المؤلفان منصفين في نقلهما للرأي المغاير ومعالجة الموضوع بتجرد وطرح كل المؤاخذات على رأيهمافي بعض المواضع كان الكتاب تقنيا وفلسفيا لكن قراءته لم تخل من فائدة بالنسبة لي، بل حتى أراه مرجعا في بابه

  • Lorien
    2018-11-20 18:55

    I was a bit disappointed with the lack of science in this book, however, the authors make no claim that it is intended to be a scientific study of morality in non-human animals. Rather, the authors, a biologist and a philosopher, intend to raise the idea of morality in non-humans for consideration in the philosophical and scientific (as well as lay) communities. Their premise is essentially (I am oversimplifying) that certain behaviors in non-humans that are called "pro-social," are labeled "moral" in humans. Therefore (they argue), why not label these behaviors "moral" in non-humans as well as humans? The book is a challenge to philosophers to begin to expand their consideration of morality to include animals, and to scientists to devise behavioral studies that more accurately reflect an animal's natural habitat (and that are more respectful of the animal's being), in order to discover how far these "moral" behaviors extend. In a sense, it is a radical little book.The authors restrict their argument to a few animal species, including most primates, some social carnivores (specifically canids), elephants, rats and some birds. These species show behaviors that appear to be akin to some of the components of morality in humans, such as reciprocity, a sense of fair play, and altruism. As I stated above, while the authors do cite to some animal study results (and Marc Bekoff is a biologist who studies canids), the science is pretty much on the "gee-whiz" level, and the bulk of the book is devoted to their philosophical argument. So it won't satisfy anyone wanting a hard science argument before they get on board with non-human morality and its attendant right jab to the edifice of human uniqueness. I'd actually suggest reading this book along with Marc Hauser's Moral Minds, which has an entire section detailing the study of behaviors such as reciprocity, altruism, cooperation, deception, and punishment in non-human animals, for some further insight into the scientific work done in this sphere (although that's not a "science" book either). All that said, Wild Justice is a fast, easy, provocative read, and well worth reading, especially because the study of animal minds is a really exciting field right now.

  • Nikki
    2018-12-13 20:04

    What can I say about Wild Justice? Nothing great, that is for sure. I should be the target audience for Wild Justice: The Moral Lives of Animals. I hold a degree in Biology and I am a vegan on moral/ethical grounds. But I found this book to be dull, dry, slow, basic and extremely repetitive. Oh boy was it repetitive.The preface itself is an extremely long winded summary of the book that seemed never ending. It literally seemed by the writing choices to be on the verge of ending a dozen times or so but you turn the page and it is still going and going and going. *sigh* Then you think you are going to get into the nitty gritty when the chapters start but all you get is dull repetition and bland attempts at covering the topic at hand. Circles, so many circles we traveled in. I cannot even count the number of times we were told an example was coming up only for no example to come. THEN we would be told "for example" and it wasn't even necessarily the example we were promised. At this point though I just could not come to care.The lack of science was also a major hangup for me. The only times scientific data was even mentioned was during brief summaries of studies they noted. Unfortunately many of the studies they used employed animal testing to support the claims of empathy or other evidence of morality. For some crazy reason I just cannot get on board with injecting mice with acid to cause them incredible pain just to see how the other mice react (who subsequently also get injected). So let me get this straight, Mark Berkoff who supports animal rights uses vivisection cruelty in his book to support this philosophical crap? Way to go. Perhaps I am not the target audience, perhaps the target audience is actually philosophy fans as this book was extremely heavy on the philosophy and extremely weak on science. It had far too much philosophy, turns out I really am not much of a fan of philosophy. Are philosophers naturally repetitive? If so I'll avoid any such topic in the future.This book is an insomnia cure, duller than most biology and other class textbooks I've read over the years. If you enjoy reading a grad student's thesis in philosophy by all means, read this and you'll get about the same amount of enjoyment.

  • فاطمة الابراهيم
    2018-12-04 22:40

    لم نعد الكائنات الوحيده التى تتبع الشريعه الاخلاقية كما كنا نعتقد! هذا الكتاب يؤكد أن الحيوانات تمتلك منظومة أخلاقيه ، ويقصد به سلسة من السلوكيات التى تنظم معاملات الأفراد داخل الجماعه ، وهى كفيله بالمناسبه نحو تحقيق الاستقرار والتماسك في العلاقات الاجتماعية ، إن أهم خطوة يجب أن تقدم عليها كي تتمتع بقراءة هذا الكتاب ، هو التخلي عن الفرضية الكلاسيكية بأن الحيوانات كائنات غير أخلاقيه ، وتسميتها بدلاً من ذلك "بالمنظومة الاخلاقيه الحيوانية " او"السلوك الحيواني الاليف "لكن هذا لا يعني خلوهم من السلوكيات اللا أخلاقيه ، فهنالك حالات شواذ في عالم الحيوان ، كالغدر والعدوانية بدلاً من "التعاملات الودية" التى اكتشفت تلك الكائنات بأن الأخيره - التعاملات الودية - ذات نتائج مضمونه أكثر في تشكيل التحالفات فيما بينها بدلاً من أسلوب العنف .كما أن القيم الاجتماعية لدى الحيوانات تختلف بعض الشيء عن البشر فما نعتبره فظاً وغير مقبول قد يكون في عالم الحيوان عكس ذلك ، بعبارة أخرى "يصبح السلوك غير أخلاقي عندما يتعارض مع التوقعات الاجتماعية الراسخه" ان الاستنتاجات والتفاسير لم تكتفِ على المشاهده والمراقبه وانما بفضل الاستعانه بعلماء الاعصاب ومراقبة الخلايا العصبية التى تتغير نتيجه تأثر الجرذان - على سبيل المثال - بآخر يتألم ، وهذا مايسمونه ب" التقمص الوجداني"كما ان هناك معادلة تكاد تكون ثابته ألا وهى كلما تزايد التعقيد الاجتماعي كلما كانت السلوكيات الأخلاقيه أكثر رقي وتنوع، إلا أن ذلك لا يعني بأن الحيوانات المنعزله كالنمور وغيرها تفتقر لتلك السلوكيات " فالنزعه الجماعيه والانعزال ليسا نقيضين" .اعتبر هذا الكتاب جريء الطرح نظراً لاعتماده على الفرضيات أكثر من النظريات ، ولثقتهم على ما يفترضونه ، ولست على نقيض رأيهم !لم يرق لي أسلوب التمهيد في كل صفحه ، وددت لو دخل في التفاصيل من دول المماطله ، تمنيت لو زود الكتاب بالكثير من الصور عن تلك التجارب والدراسات التى تحدثوا عنها ، أسلوب التكرار والابتعاد عن التفاصيل أفقد قيمة الكتاب . اذا كان عالم الحيوان لديه القدرة على الايثار والتعاون وإن كان في معظمه للحصول على المنفعه الشخصيه ، فانها قادره على التقمص الوجداني - ادراك مشاعر الاخرين والاحساس بها- فلماذا نلقب اي تصرف لا اخلاقي يصدر من بعض البشر ب"الحيوان" ؟!الحيوانات أكثر رقياً وحضاره ، أعتقد البعض يحتاج لأن يكون طالباً في مدرسة الحيوان !

  • Cheryl
    2018-12-14 02:00

    This book brings together science and ethics and thus can be appreciated by a wide audience. Bekoff and Pierce challenge the anthropocentric worldview that infests so much of our thinking, especially in discussions of what sorts of beings can act morally. By inviting us to consider a scientific definition of morality from an evolutionary standpoint, Bekoff and Pierce provide indisputable evidence and arguments that some of the actions of animals should be classified as moral. As an animal ethicist and ethics professor, I appreciate this book for two major reasons: (1)it encourages us to rethink the definition of what it means to be a moral being, while drawing our attention to the fact that there are types of moral actors that fall inbetween "full blown moral agents" and "nonmoral beings", and (2) it incites us to question WHY some individuals continue to deny all of the science that supports the conclusion that animals are moral beings (the answer: to maintain a world of human supremacy). Of all the books I had read on animal ethics and animal minds, this is, without a doubt, my favorite.

  • Gustavo
    2018-11-17 01:52

    O autor introduz alguns conceitos básicos, inclusive uma ótima discussão sobre a cautela necessária nesse ramo da ciência (como os riscos da antropomorfia e de uma visão "mecanizada" do comportamento animal, onde nenhum comportamento tem relação com moralidade ou cognição).Ele então determina três comportamentos que servem de base para a moralidade: cooperação, empatia e senso de justiça. O resto do livro segue no debate filosófico e científico desses temas, com exemplos da literatura (muitas vezes anedóticos, mas o autor é bem honesto quanto a isso).Uma introdução muito boa ao Comportamento Animal/Etologia.

  • Shaun
    2018-11-15 19:00

    For a subject I am intensely interested in, this was an intensely dull read. Some of the anecdotes of animal behavior we're interesting but I had heard a lot of them before. I also found interesting the authors perspective on anecdotes as evidence and their defense of those who get criticised for anthropomorphising animals in biological and philosophical discussions of animals. The overall sentiment of the book is one that I can definitely get behind but I thought the writing let it down.

  • Lina AL Ojaili
    2018-12-03 18:43

    القضية الأهم هل الأخلاق راسخة في المعتقد الديني ؟وهل تتمتع الحيوانات بوازع ديني

  • د. حمدان
    2018-12-06 23:54

    العدالة في عالم الحيوان – مارك بيكوفمارك بيكوف 1945 هو بروفيسور أحياء تطورية في جامعة كولورادو الأمريكية وله أعمال كثيرة فيما يخص علم السلوك الحيواني. جيسيكا بيرس 1965 هي أستاذة في الفلسفة في جامعة كولورادو الأمريكية ولها نشاطات حالياً في مجال علم الأخلاق الحيواني. إن هذا الكتاب هو حصيلة تعاون السيد بيكوف مع السيدة بيرس، حيث نجد مزيجاً من العلم والفلسفة في ظاهرة فريدة قلما نجدها في الكتب ذات الموضوع العلمي وقد صدر المرة الأولى عام 2009.مما هو واضح من عنوان الكتاب، يبدو لنا جلياً سبب إستعانة السيد بيكوف بزميلته الفيلسوفة. فكما هو معروف فإن الأخلاق ليست موضوعاً علمياً كي يتمكن السيد بيكوف وحده من الخوض فيه. ولهذا السبب فإننا نجد الفلسفة تمشي مع العلم في هذا الكتاب يداً بيد. ولكن، هل هذا صحيح ؟ينقسم الكتاب إلى ستة فصول؛ الأخلاق في مجتمعات الحيوان، ركائز العدالة البرية، التعاون، التقمص الوجداني، العدالة، أخلاق الحيوان والناقمون عليها. ويمتد إلى 326 صفحة. كما أشرنا سابقاً، فإن العنوان لا يشي بمادة علمية، فمنذ متى تبدأ الكتب العلمية بتقديم النتيجة، وبأسلوب فلسفي ثم تبدأ تدعيمه بالأدلة ؟ حتى الأدلة، هي ليست قاطعة. لماذا ؟ لأن تصنيف السلوك على كونه أخلاقي أم غير أخلاقي ليس له أساس علمي. مهمة العلم لا تكمن في تصنيف السلوك بل في تفسيره وشرحه. وهذا ما كان يتوجب على هذا الكتاب أن يفعله.. ولربما يلحق به كتاب آخر يقوم بمهمة التصنيف. وإن كنت أرى بأن القفز إلى النتائج دون تقديم دراسات كافية تجعلنا نفهم الكيفية أو تقدم لنا تفسيراً قاطعاً للسلوك الحيواني والإنساني سيكون ضرباً من العبث. والأن، إلى بعض الملاحظات المهمة:بالنسبة لي، جاءت لي نتائج الكثير من الدراسات المرفقة في الكتاب بديهية. بمعنى، لقد كنت أعلم أن الحيوانات قادرة على التعاون فيما بينها، والتعاطف مع بعضها البعض أو الآخرين وذلك من خلال تجاربي الشخصية.. ولكنني لم أفكر يوماً في أن أطلق على هذا السلوك صفة الأخلاق. فهل يمكننا أن ندّعي بأن الإنسان فاقد العقل لديه منظومة أخلاقية ؟ لقد تطرق هذا الكتاب إلى هذه النقطة في آخره.. ولكنه ترك الأمور مفتوحة مما يؤكد على عدم جاهزية الفلسفة والعلم معاً اليوم للوصول إلى نتيجة قاطعة. فإن كنا لا نستطيع التقرير بوجود منظومة أخلاقية للإنسان عديم العقل، فكيف ندّعي بقدرتنا على تصنيف سلوك الحيوان إلى منظومة أخلاقية. وقد اعترف بيكوف بذلك في بداية الكتاب.. وأن هذه ليست إلا البداية.. وإن كانت فعلاً البداية، فكيف يسمح بيكوف لنفسه القفز هكذا إلى النتائج مدعياً بأن هناك منظومة أخلاقية لدى الحيوان ؟ كي نتمكن من إطلاق صفة الأخلاق على مثل هذا السلوك الحيواني، يجب علينا أن نقيم تعريفاً واضحاً للأخلاق كما نعرفها كبشر، وليس هذا وحسب، يجب علينا أن نقوم بتفسيرها وفهم الأساس التي جاءت منه الأخلاق البشرية أولاً. ولكننا هنا بالطبع سنصطدم بالعديد من العقبات والمشكلات.. فلا توجد لدينا نتائج كافية للوقوف على تعريف أو ماهية صريحة للأخلاق. أعجبني تفسير الأخلاق على أنها ضرورة تطورية بمعنى أنها تساعد الكائن على التكيف والتعايش مع مجتمعه. فالتعاون يعطي فرصاُ أكبر لتحقيق الأهداف المرجوة من وراء هذا التعاون، والتعاطف مع الآخرين، يكسب الحلفاء، وقد يكون صورة أخرى من صور التعاون. ولكن، ما هو التفسير التطوري للتعاطف مع المشلول الذي لا يملك ضراً أو نفعاً للآخرين ؟ إذا كانت الأخلاق منتشرة في قاعدة كبيرة من الحيوانات الإجتماعية، فلماذا الإفتراض بأنها مرتبطة بالقشرة الدماغية التي توجد لدى الرئيسيات فقط ؟ فالأولى أن تكون موجودة في مناطق أقدم تطورياً في الدماغ، كالدماغ الزاحف أو الجهاز الحوفي حسب نظرية ماكلين. وباعتقادي، أرى أنه من البديهي، أن يكون مثل هذا السلوك منظماً بشكل غريزي وبالتالي، يرتبط بمواقع أكثر بدائية من القشرة الدماغية في الدماغ.. ويبدو لي أن الجهاز الحوفي موقعاً مثالياً. لطالما كنتُ مؤمناً بأننا لن نتمكن يوماً من فهم صحيح للكون والعالم إلا من خلال دراسة معمقة لأنفسنا ولأقرب الكائنات إلينا وهي الحيوانات.. ولا يمكنني أن أنفي كمية الإثارة التي أشعر لقراءتي لهذا الكتاب.. رغم أنه جاء مخيباً لآمالي إلى حد بعيد. على أي حال، لن يكون الكتاب الأخير لي في هذا المجال، بكل تأكيد.

  • Dhe
    2018-12-12 00:52

    le premesse erano più che buone. gli autori son personaggi interessanti e l'accoppiata sembrava promettente: bekoff è un professore di ecologia, con all'attivo numerosi studi riguardanti il comportamento animale, alcuni dei suoi libri sono stati anche tradotti in italiano, ma non li ho mai letti. pierce è una scritttrice e una studiosa di filosofia. tutto faceva ben pensare, dagli autori all'argomento trattato: la moralità nel mondo animale. avendo letto già numerosi libri di etologia ero curiosa rispetto a questa sfaccettatura dell'argomento, ma devo essere onesta, mi aspettavo di più da questo libro.il sommario è interessante: la moralità nelle società animali, i fondamenti di giustizia selvaggia, la cooperazione, l'empatia, la giustizia, posizioni contrarie alla moralità animale. ciò che lo è stato meno è la trattazione. ora devo fare un piccolo passo indietro: questi due autori sono i pionieri di questo aspetto dell'etologia. mai nessun libro è stato pubblicato sull'argomento. in effetti l'argomento è tabù nel campo etologico, sostenere che gli animali provano emozioni, empatia, che sono "etici" nel loro comportamento è qualcosa che viene detto a volte in modo ufficioso ma raramente in modo ufficiale, e quando avviene ecco che cosa accade: si afferma una cosa, poi si mettono "i puntini sulle i" puntualizzando cosa si intende, le eccezioni al caso... in pratica si dice una cosa e si nega poche righe dopo di averla detta. è la stessa cosa che è accaduta nel libro, purtroppo. il nostro modo di vedere gli animali, soprattutto allo stato selvatico è piuttosto semplicistico, dovuto prevalentemente al modo di rappresentare gli animali in televisione: la dura legge del mondo animale, la sopravvivenza. gli animali sono istintivi, non ragionano nelle loro azioni. tutto quello che fanno è legato alla loro sopravvivenza o al massimo a quella del gruppo o della specie. tutto normale, se non fosse che ci sono animali che escono da questo schema. come si possono intendere i comportamenti altruistici al di fuori della propria specie? che motivo ha un elefante di aiutare una gazzella mettendosi in pericolo anch'esso? può essere che provi empatia, che capisca la sua paura e voglia soccorrerla? e la giustizia? gli animali hanno un concetto di giustizia? in alcuni gruppi l'elemento che "ruba il cibo" spesso viene isolato fino a quando non si adegua alle regole del gruppo. mentre questo sembra legato alla sopravvivenza del gruppo se l'elemento viene isolato anche se fa solo i dispetti o non sta al gioco, che significato può avere?come dicevo l'argomento è decisamente interessante. per chi ha animali in casa molti dei concetti espressi sono banali, scontati. chi ha un gatto o un cane sa che quando si sta male sono particolarmente affettuosi e tendono a non mollarci un attimo, fino a che non ci rimettiamo in salute. si può chiamare empatia, affetto o con qualunque altro nome ma è una situazione in cui ci si riconosce senza troppa difficoltà. ho trovato paticolarmente interessante la difficoltà degli autori nello spiegare concetti, a volte banali, comprendendo che la loro difficoltà stava essenzialmente nel timore di essere fraintesi nell'affermare che molti animali provano sensazioni ed emozioni molto simili a quelle umane. dire che un animale prova "amore" è rischiosissimo per uno studioso di etologia, perchè significa antropizzare un comportamento animale, il che pare essere il peggior sbaglio che è possibile commettere in quel campo. la mia sensazione (personalissima ovviamente) è che sia più un libro per gli addetti ai lavori. ricco di paroloni, riferimenti ad altri testi più tecnici (più di questo libro?!?)... per darvi un'idea la bibliografia alla fine del libro occupa più di 20 pagine! l'idea come dicevo è buona, ma gli autori hanno passato più tempo a dire cosa avrebbero spiegato (i primi 2 capitoli su 6 totali sono un continuo "come vedremo successivamente") e come, perchè, in che situazioni la loro conclusione è valida piuttosto che a raccontare episodi, casi e riflessioni sugli stessi. non mi sento di sconsigliarlo in assoluto, per certi versi può essere interessante, soprattutto per chi ama una tipologia di libro in cui la saggistica e le definizioni la fanno da padrone, per quanto mi riguarda cercherò altri testi sull'argomento, ma meno "professionali" e più emozionali. come sempre vi ringrazio per l'attenzione!

  • Henrique Maia
    2018-11-25 00:05

    If you are familiar with the works of the likes of Frans de Waal, Edward O. Wilson, Jane Goodall, [insert name of reputed ethologist/biologist], the subject matter of this book will not come to you as a surprise. In a way, its premisse, that of animals having a sense of justice, morality, fairness, all being evolved traits, is just a given. However, when you start to read the book, you know you are not the primary target audience of its message.The book presents its case in defense of the notion of Wild Justice, a sense of justice, morality, fairness that some social animals have, thus blurring even more the lines that separate the human animal from all other non-human animals. The case is more philosophical, or theoretical, than practical; that is, the authors rely on the works of primatologists, ethologists, biologists, etc, to draw conclusions allowing them to question the long standing assumptions that morality is an exclusive human characteristic.The text tends to be a bit repetitive, the text seeming to be rotating in some way, the same idea popping up again and again with a very similar presentation. Is it intentional? Is this the result of having the text composed by two separate authors? In any case, that’s not as bad as it sounds, for the repetitions allow you to remember, or at least to give a second (or third, fourth, ...) thought about the issue that is being put forth. Does it deserve a reading? If you are familiar with the biology/ethology field, maybe not. If you have a philosophical bent and like to explore the ethical dimensions open up by the current consensus on the animal behavior front, than this book is for you. For in it you’ll have a good summary of the observations, experiences, hypotheses and conclusions on animal behavior research.

  • Julian
    2018-11-26 21:00

    It's likely my fault for expecting this book to rely more heavily on hard science and studies, but I found the book and the conclusions that it drew to be terribly obvious. Studies are sited and mentioned, but not discussed in detail, which I really would have enjoyed. The book was written at such a basic level that it was a real chore to finish it.In the end, the authors posit that animals do indeed have morality. After that, though, they hesitate to go any further. My reaction upon finishing the book was obviously animals have morality, so what? They even make the point early in the book that it is unreasonable to expect cross species morality. They explain that wolves are moral in the context of wolf society, wherein it is entirely acceptable to eat deer. Even though the deer would object to being eaten, that places no morl onus on the wolf. That is an obvious remark. However, it undercuts the general intent of the book to covince the reader to treat animals as if their morality somehow elevates them. If a wolf can't be culpable for enforcing wolf morality on a deer, how can you make the claim that a human is culpable for enforcing human morality on a cow?

  • Mkovarik
    2018-12-10 21:37

    Really interesting concept, but a little dry and somewhat repetitive in the presentation. I think the same material condensed into a long-form article would have been more engaging. Some of the studies discussed are really interesting, and I enjoyed the last chapter which focused more on the philosophical arguments and implications of morality in animals. In the end I at least agreed with the authors' thesis that morality in animals differs primarily in degree and not in kind from human morality.

  • Robert Fischer
    2018-12-08 17:57

    This book challenges the assumption that morality is somehow unique to human beings. This challenge is issued through both philosophical critiques of speciesist understandings of morals, as well as by direct ethological evidence of justice in natural contexts.

  • Barbara J
    2018-11-24 21:45

    I read pretty much everything Bekoff publishes, and here, Bekoff & Pierce make a convincing case for complex cognitive and emotional responses of animals in the arena of empathy, morality, and justice.

  •  نورة
    2018-12-01 21:38

    الكتاب ليس علميا بحتا ، فهو بين العلم والفلسفة .. كنت متحمسة لقرائته حتى أطابق وأقارن بين المفاهيم في الكتاب والمتعلقة بعالم الحيوان وأقارنها بالبشر .. لكن لم أحقق الهدف المطلوب كما تخيلت .. ولكن بشكل عام الكتاب ممتع .

  • Michelle Taylor
    2018-11-29 23:04

    Similarly to recent arguments about animal intelligence, ethologist Marc Bekoff and philosopher Jessica Pierce argue that morality in animals is species-specific and should not be judged against the measuring stick of human morality. Basing their conclusions off of evidence of cooperation/altruism, empathy, and justice/fairness in apes, monkeys, canids, rats, and more, Bekoff and Pierce argue that some animals do indeed have morality—just not necessarily the same kind of “reflective self-control” that we deem moral in humanity. Indeed, the pair suggest that the meaning of morality in humans needs to be re-evaluated because it is “outdated in important respects, for example in ascribing too much volition and intentionality to moral behavior” (149). That is, early studies suggest that there may be much more evolutionary background to morality than we currently believe. My 3-star rating is mostly due to the fact that the book is highly repetitive and could have been written in about half the words.

  • Frederick
    2018-12-13 20:53

    Very interesting book. For those of us who have been close to animals other than hunting them the findings of these scientists are not surprising. The only complaint I have about the book was that the author seemed to keep apologizing to evolution for his findings. Really, truth is truth no matter whose sensibilities might be offended. But, that may have just been my impression.

  • Corvus
    2018-11-29 17:50

    I quit. I really tried with this book and I usually finish books even if I am not into them. I assumed I was the audience as an ethical vegan with a background in psychology and cognitive neuroscience. The first third of the book (introduction and chapter 1 and 2) are repetitively on the defensive about the discussion of nonhuman animal morality having a right to exist. The same things are said over and over and very little progress is made because the majority of it is trying to seem objective and scientific but just coming off as too afraid to make the valid point that other animals have emotional and moral lives. Without said repetition I assume this book could succeed as a 30 page paper instead.Even with all that I stuck with it. But, a person like me can only read so many cruel captive animal studies without wanting to throw the book against a wall. I read half of this book and counted one tiny paragraph that even slightly acknowledged that- if we acknowledge that other animals are more than just machines- that the research is completely unethical. There were far more paragraphs validating cruel captive animal research because we've learned something about captive animal behavior. Science that validates cruelty for the sake of learning is dangerous and terrible as history and present will show.I quit when I got to the study about mice injected with acid to see if they would show empathy while watching another mouse injected with acid before they themselves were also injected. Why don't we talk about the moral lives of human animals in this book? A scientist that spends their days injecting mice with acid is not someone I will ever look to as an authority on empathy or morality. Shame on this book for not calling these researchers out.Maybe if I stuck with it the last half of the book would be just that. But, I spent my time pushing myself through it and waiting for what I expected- a detailing of moral animal behavior examples and a discussion thereof which included observations and ethics. I will stand corrected if the book completely changed direction after I quit. But, I doubt it.2 stars instead of 1 for the discussion of anthropomorphism and because reading the reviews makes me think maybe it might build a bridge for some intellectuals- who don't believe humans and other animals share many things- to wake up.

  • Emarie
    2018-12-03 01:50

    Fabulous book that breaks down the black or white divisions of morality (Is or is not) and shows how there is a moral continuum. More highly social animals are more likely to engage in moral behavior than less social animals. All this, largely based on the studies of animals in their own habitats.Jessica Pierce is co-author and covers the philosophical content. She does a great job of explaining the spectrum of moral behavior, such as, cooperation, empathy, and justice, in a way that's easy to understand.The authors "define morality as a suite of interrelated other-regarding behaviors that cultivate and regulate complex interactions within social groups. These behaviors relate to well-being and harm, and norms of right and wrong attach to many of them. (As of 10/22/13 on http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Ch... .)"Offers astounding insight into the complexity and subtlety of animal behavior.

  • Thomas Bundy
    2018-11-24 00:01

    This book was worthless. Reading a biologist's take on morality and justice is as frustrating and mind-numbing as reading some religious people's takes on biology, evolution, etc. He calls the book "Wild Justice", then proceeds to explain that evidence of anything that could be called "justice" is almost entirely lacking in the scientific literature. The whole book revolves around the notion that empathy that animals occasionally display toward one another is evidence of morality. Practical empathy hasn't the slightest thing to do with morality, especially in the abstract. He suggests that by expanding the definition of morality to include certain behaviors or animals, he is making the word MORE meaningful. Of course, that is silly. The more one expands the meaning of a word, the more meaningless it becomes. If a word can mean anything, it means nothing.This book was a waste of three days of my life.

  • Ken McDouall
    2018-11-25 00:54

    It's hard to deny the evidence, both experimental and anecdotal, for the possession of such supposedly human attributes as justice, moral behavior, and conscience in a wide variety of animals. Bekoff presents a decent overview here, though his style is unnecessarily ponderous for a book aimed primarily at a popular audience. His interdisciplinary approach brings together the work of ethologists, behavioral neuroscientists, and moral philosophers.

  • SĦorouk Nasr
    2018-11-30 20:48

    بداية الكتاب كانت مشوقة للغاية .. واعتقدت أن هذا الكتاب سيمثل تجربة فريدة بعد الانتهاء من قراءته .. ولكن للأسف بعد أقل من مائة صفحة بدأ الملل يتسلل .. ثم وصل الملل لذروته ولم أعد أطيق الاستمرار في القراءة .. الكثير من التكرار والاستفاضة الرتيبة في التفاصيل .. ربما يكون الكتاب أقرب للفلسفة من العلم لذلك شعرت بكل هذا الملل .. و كذلك أعتقد أنه يمكن اختصار كل الأفكار التي وردت في نصف عدد صفحاته بسهولة تامة ....

  • Miranda
    2018-11-15 22:50

    This is a great collaboration discussing the foundations of ethics/morality in the non-human world. In fact, morality is not human-specific. I always enjoy Bekoff's perspectives and willingness to step outside the "comfort zone" to say what he really believes he is observing in the world's non-human inhabitants.

  • Jay
    2018-11-27 20:49

    New subject matter for me. A mildly thought provoking book on animal psychology, arguing that some animals have evolved what we would call a sense of morality, roughly defined by three categories: cooperation, empathy, and justice. The book spends too much times defining it's terms (it is co-authored by a philosopher) and doesn't provide enough anecdotal illustrations.

  • Nwaf
    2018-11-29 21:06

    أصبت بخيبة أمل من الكتاب لعدم وجود أدلة علمية كافية وإختصار حجته على أنواع من الحيوان قليلة جدا مثل الفئران والفيلة وبعض من الطيور تظهر هذه الأنواع سلوكيات تبدو أقرب إلى بعض من مكونات الأخلاق في البشر، مثل المعاملة بالمثل، والشعور واللعب النظيف، والإيثار والتعاون والخداع...الكتاب من وجهة نظري يعتبر مقدمة للفلاسفة لطرح مسائل أخلاقية ليست مقتصرة للبشر فقط وإنما للحيوانات أيضا

  • Doralee Brooks
    2018-11-26 23:44

    It was well worth the time, very informative. However, the writing is in the academic style, dry and definition-laden, a real slog, but I guess necessary from the author's perspective. I just did my best to learn what I could of a fascinating subject. The examples given in narratives are powerful.