They studied kidney donors at one end of the spectrum and violent criminals at the other end. If a person who naturally lacks empathy has financial and educational support, they can be socialized to have a normal life,staying in bounds of the law and social expectations, although a lot of empathy- lacking people just kind of go along to avoid the consequences of anti-social behavior.

"The underpinning of our morals can be viewed as being based on two pillars: empathy (our ability to feel what others feel) and reciprocity (our sense of fairness or justice), both of which are clearly seen in other animals."

I like the notion of empathy and reciprocity however I disagree that "both of which are clearly seen in other animals". I think animals act in accordance with their instinct to survive which may at times entail some altruistic behavior but it certainly does not entail some sort of rudimentary morality. I think the notion "clearly seen" is anthropomorphic projection.

I think the moral roots behind empathy & reciprocity, involve how people as social creatures must act to remain in good faith with themselves. Its origin, in my opinion, is the maintenance of a coherent relationship between emotion (the empathy component) and rational (the reciprocity/justice component).

The notion of internal consistency is one of the few positive conceptions Plato overtly provided in his Socratic dialogues. Socrates asserts in the Gorgias that he would rather be out of tune with the whole world than out of tune with himself.

@cava There have been numerous peer reviewed studies and papers published regarding demonstrated behaviors of empathy, even leading to altruistic behaviors, as well as a sense of fairness, or reciprocity in chimpanzees, gorillas, bonobos and monkeys. This is not anthropomorphic projection. Here’s an interesting introduction:
[ted.com]

@pnullifidian I started to watch but I stopped because I seriously doubt that animals held in captivity, especially higher primates can provide any sort of argument for moral behavior in non-human animals as they exist unmolested by humans. Peer review is no guarantee of correctness. This is both projection and in my opinion a flawed appeal to authority.

@cava The video was meant as an introduction. Why should we think that primates behave differently in captivity? Is there data that supports this assertion? In any case, considerable research exists from observations conducted in the wild, where the aforementioned behaviors have been documented. And while it may be true that peer review is no guarantee, to insinuate that a wide-ranging group of primatologists, anthropologists, psychologists and biologists constitutes an appeal to authority fallacy is itself, an anti-science assertion reminiscent of the denial of climate change.

@pnullifidian " Why should we think that primates behave differently in captivity?" Because they don't have to struggle to survive. Further they learn how to curry the favor of their captors. Come on.

If you have references for animals acting morally in the wild please present it. I don't for a second, think that any animals in nature experience an ought. This is delusional in my opinion.

@cava "Come on"[?] So are you saying that captive primates and apes are able to 'curry favor' with their captors, thus negating all observations of their behavior? In other words, they are outsmarting the scientists who study them?

Who said anything about animals experiencing an ought? I simply put forth that the two pillars of what we call morality--empathy and reciprocity--are expressed (not anthropomorphized) in other animals, such as apes and primates, and that scientists like Frans de Waal, Jane Goodall and many others have chronicled these behaviors, both in captivity and in the wild. Why is this such a difficult admission for you? Your responses appear to support an anthropocentric frame of reference--please prove me wrong on this account!

@pnullifidian Scientists can observe captive animals all they want, but these animals don't have to worry about where their next meal is coming from, and you can't reasonably deny that animals in the wild have much different life styles than captive animals.
The instinctual empathy and reciprocity an animal exhibits is different in kind from human morality which is socially constructed and learnt over a long and complicated maturation process. To suggest that morality can be clearly seen in wild animals is a category mistake.

@cava I’m pleased that we can agree. I asserted that our moral framework is built—as in designed or constructed—upon empathy and reciprocity, behaviors we clearly see in other primates and monkeys. I did not, however, say that animals had morals. The whole point here with regard to the original question posted, is that our morals are not derived from religion or some holy book, but were evolved, and they continue to do so.

As to your point about research conducted on animals in captivity, you appear willing to disparage thousands of scientists and decades of work. Other than a personal hunch, based, it would seem, on an animal not having to forage or hunt, what data have you to offer the scientific community that their work with captive animals is not of value?

@pnullifidian I have explained the issue three times, and it seems to go past you or you have ignored it, but besides a lame protest to authority no logical thoughts from you explaining why you believe that captive animal behavior can be legitimately compared to the behavior of animals in their natural habitats.

@cava Thank you for your insistence. Upon further review of academic studies and papers, it appears there is significant evidence of behavioral differences between animals in the wild and those held in captivity, particularly apes, monkeys and cetaceans. The captive animals are reported to exhibit behaviors associated with stress, including depression, learned helplessness, antisocial behaviors (such as throwing feces) and a reduced libido. In other words, animals in captivity—particularly when reduced to relatively confined spaces—very often show signs of trauma and psycho-social decline, while the very same species flourishes in the wild. Thus, the lives of these animals are not necessarily enhanced or improved by captivity when compared with their counterparts in their natural habitat. All of this leads one to conclude that the fundamental behaviors of empathy and reciprocity, which form the basis for what we call morals and are observed in other animals, are not enhanced by captivity. Agreed?

@pnullifidian Agreed

Well ... please consider this. What we call morality pre-dates organized religion. A faith system is typically comprised of many ideas regarding moral behavior, some of which are negative, others positive. Of those that are positive (or good), ask yourself: could, or have they existed apart from the particular faith system in which you have been accustomed?

@pnullifidian I believe you are right. However we are influenced by the the more recent history, and those ancient ideas of morality have been honed through out the centuries, and yes organized religion has adapted them into their dogma. I think it would be interesting to witness the ancient moral codes albeit the penalties were much more bloody.

@Leutrelle A time machine would enable us to bear witness with 21st century eyes, but with the unfortunate reality that the stench, disease, tooth decay and overall poor personal hygiene would, in all likelihood, not only take one's breath away, but dissuade anyone from remaining very long!

@pnullifidian You got that right, and not to mention the half spoiled meat