Cerca tra vari insegnanti di Inglese...
Italy flagSilvy
Can we find a sort of "moral" behavior in the animal field? Darwin recognized for first that animals which are as well as human being "social creatures" inevitably acquire something like a moral sense or a conscience. We don't know if animals feel pain for others but some more recent experiments have shown some similarities with human hallmarks. A quite violent example dated 1964 had as protagonist a chimp. It had learned to pull a chain. When It pulled the chain it received food but at the same time, another monkey(the same race) had an electric shock. The majority of these chimps within this experiment stopped of eating for 12 days, until the end of the experiment. It would probably be been the same behavior of each of us. This empathy rises when the others are members of our family or social group. In another experiment always a monkey, in this case, cappuccino race, gained food for a work. It should have split the food with a mate. If the other was a member of the same group the division was equal; if not, the monkey didn't care about the right amount. Scientists haven't still now proofs on moral concerns in the animal kingdom but we can't ignore some basic-inner social instincts that they possess.

Correzioni · 1

0

Can we find evidence (this gives a clue that you are presenting a serious line of enquiry. "Sort of" is widely used as a meaningless filler phrase, so is perhaps better avoided. "Type of" might be an alternative if that's the meaning you want)  of "moral" behavior in the animal field?

Darwin was the first to recognize that animals, which like human beings are "social creatures", inevitably acquire something like a moral sense or a conscience.
We don't know if animals feel empathy (I think that's what you mean by "pain for others") but some (more we don't need this ...)  recent experiments have shown some similarities with human behaviour. A quite violent example dated ("from" might be more natural than "dated") 1964 had a chimp as subject (we'd probably use that for an experiment, rather than "protagonist"). The chimp had learned to pull a chain. When it pulled the chain it received food, but, at the same time, another chimp (the same species so let's say chimp again!) received an electric shock. The majority of the chimps in this experiment stopped (of) eating for 12 days, until the end of the experiment.
It would probably have been the same behavior for each (or "all") of us. This empathy rises when the others are members of our family or social group.
In another experiment, in this case using capuchin monkeys , the subject gained food for work. It should have split the food with a mate (in an experiment of this kind "mate" would imply sexual partner. If you mean simply another monkey, perhaps "co-subject" or "the other half of the subject pair" might be better). If the other ("mate" - or whatever term you choose - would perhaps be smoother than "other" here ) was a member of the same group, the division was equal. If not, the monkey didn't care about the right amount.
Up till now, (or "to date", or"so far") scientists still haven't found proof of moral concerns in the animal kingdom, but we can't ignore some basic ( I don't know that the "inner" adds anything?) social instincts that animals (or does the "they" mean scientists?!) possess.


"Behavior" is the US English spelling. In British English we'd use the "u" to give "behaviour". But it's no big thing. And maybe you are aiming at American English anyway :)

https://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/en/intermediate-grammar/british-english-and-american-english

Vuoi progredire più velocemente?

Unisciti a questa comunità di apprendimento e prova gli esercizi gratuiti!

Non perdere l'opportunità di imparare una lingua comodamente da casa tua. Esplora la nostra selezione di insegnanti di lingue esperti e iscriviti subito alla tua prima lezione!

Inizia a imparare oggi