[Krimel said] Often the alpha male in a chimpanzee troop is the biggest and baddest but on occasion he is the smartest and most devious. Again the distinction blurs and the taxonomy seems artificial.
[Craig] So actually look at "the structure, function, origins and developmentof the matter under question".If an agressive primate attacks & replaces a troop leader, it is actingmorally. But if a cavalry member does the same, it is not acting morally(unless there is a justification). Ron: Quite right, that is why I proposed that the levels are defined by the society being observed. If smart monkeys repeatedly kick the physically superior monkeys asses Then the Intellectual level emerges. But if the physical monkeys rule and the society defines itself by that criteria. Then an entirely different set of values are defined. [Krimel] It would seem that you both are willing to ascribe at least social level behavior to primates. This is my point. The MoQ does not allow this. The social level only applies to humans. And yet you both see the parallels between primate and human behavior patterns. Since this has devolved into a discussion of dominance hierarchies I should point out that these occur throughout the animal kingdom and their function is pretty similar up and down the phylogenetic scales. Craig maintains that there is some radical difference in the structure of the cavalry. I would argue that even there people ascend the chain of command by virtue of their successful competition with peers but there are other examples like pirates, the mafia, the schoolyard or the corporate structure where the ape model works just fine and ruthless behavior does not violate any moral code. Just a note to Ron: Chimpanzees like humans, are not monkeys they are great apes. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
