Morals, Apes and Us 道德、猿和我们 (Marc D. Hauser 马克 D·豪泽)

1、批自：英语泛读教程A female gorilla was seen helping an unconscious 3-year-old boy. Why did she do that? Did she feel empathy? Can animals learn to share, cooperate, punish, and show empathy? The following article tries to answer such questions.有人看见一只雌性的大猩猩救助一个不省人事的3岁男童。她为什么那样做？她是否也有同理心？动物能学会共享、合作、惩罚，以及表示出同理心

2、？下面的这篇文章试图回答这个问题。Nearly four years ago, a visitor to Brookfield Zoo, outside Chicago, captured an extraordinary event on video. A 3-year-old boy fell into a gorilla enclosure and was knocked unconscious. Within moments, Binti Jua, a female gorilla, approached, picked up the unconscious boy, and crad

3、led him in her arms. Then she walked over and gently put the boy down in front of the caretakers door. The event captured the nations heart as newspaper headlines blared: Gorilla Saves Boy.将近四年前，一个芝加哥郊外布鲁克菲尔德动物园的游客，用摄像机拍下了一个令人惊讶的事情。一个3岁的男孩掉进了大猩猩的 围场里，失去了知觉。一会儿，宾蒂朱叶，一只雌性大猩猩，走了过来，抱起了这个失去知觉的男孩，把他搂在怀中。然

4、后她走过去，把男孩轻轻地放在管理员出入的门口。报纸大幅标题赫然标着：“大猩猩救男孩”，这件事打动了全国人的心。Most reports suggested that Binti rescued the boy because she felt empathy for him. Although there is no ambiguity about what the gorilla did, there are a lot of questions about why. Did she realize the boy was unconscious? Was she concerned abo

5、ut his well-being? Would she have acted in the same way toward a conscious boy, a cat, a teddy bear, or a bag of potato chips?大多数报道认为，宾蒂救那个男孩，是因为她对他的处境进行了换位思考。尽管大猩猩做的事情确凿无疑，她为什么要这样做，还有许多疑问。她是不是意识到孩子不省人事？她是不是关心他的安危？对一个有知觉的男孩，一只猫，一个玩具熊，或者一袋土豆片，她也会这样做吗？Despite what the headlines implied about Bintis mo

6、ral fiber, the answer is by no means clear. Studies by developmental psychologists Susan Carey and Frank Keil, for example, have shown that children dont fully grasp the distinction between a dead being and a live one until they are almost 10 years old. And to date, no study of ape intelligence come

7、s close to showing that orangutans, gorillas, or chimpanzees have the mental sophistication of a 10-year-old human. We can only guess why Binti did what she did. And one incident is not enough to warrant conclusions.不管报纸的标题怎样暗示了宾蒂的道德素质，答案绝非是清楚的。例如，发展心理学家苏珊凯里和弗兰克凯尔的研究表明，小孩快10岁时才能完全识别死东西和活东西的区别。而且到今天为

8、止，没有一项猿类智能研究接近于表明，猩猩、大猩猩或是黑猩猩，具有一个10岁的人的智力水平。我们只能猜测为什么宾蒂那样做。而且 ，一次偶然的事件也不足以保证结论正确。But Bintis actions do raise the public and scientific interest in the broad question of what mental traits cause us to behave morally and to what extent other animals possess those tools. As a psychologist, Im interest

9、ed in the techniques we use to get at these questions: Can other creatures share, cooperate, punish cheaters, show empathy, and act altruistically?但是宾蒂的行为确实引起了公众和科学界对这个大问题的兴趣：什么智力特点引起我们符合道德地行动，多大程度上别的动物也具有 这些工具？作为一个心理学家，我对我们用来解答这些问题的方法很感兴趣：别的生物也能够共享、合作、惩罚骗子，表现同理心，以及行动无私吗？In a 1988 study, University

10、of Zurich ethnologist Edward Stammbach set up an experiment with long-tailed macaque monkeys to test their ability to rein in aggressive behavior and act cooperatively. First each monkey was trained to press a lever on a machine to receive a popcorn treat. Once each animal knew what to do and when,

11、subgroups were created. Then a low-ranking member in each subgroup was trained to press a set of levers in a specific sequence that caused the machine to deliver enough popcorn for three individuals. During the training, the machine began releasing popcorn only to the low-ranking specialist.在一项1988年

12、的研究中，苏黎世大学的人种学者爱德华斯塔姆贝奇对长尾猕猴进行了一次试验，以测试它们控制攻击性的行为和相互合作的能力。首先，每只猴子都接受一种训练，按一下一种装置上的杠杆，就能得到一把爆米花。当每个猴子都学会做什么以及什么时候做时，就把它们分成更小的组。然后训练每小组中一个地位低的成员去按一系列扛杆，这些扛杆以特定次序排列，能使装置倒出足够三个猴子吃的爆米花。在训练中，装置开始只给这个地位低的专家放出爆米花。At first, high-ranking individuals threatened low-ranking individuals to keep them away from th

13、e dispenser altogether. Then the high-ranking individuals learned that the low-ranking individuals had a unique skill, so they followed them to the machine and waited to grab all the popcorn. Before long the low-ranking specialists stopped operating the machine. But their strike didnt last long. Som

14、e higher-ranking individuals changed their behavior. Rather than chasing specialists away or eating all their popcorn , they began to inhibit their aggression. They approached peacefully and allowed the lower-ranking specialists to eat a portion of the popcorn. Further, some high-ranking individuals

15、 started grooming specialists more often, even during periods when the machine was inoperative. Although this attitude change enabled low-ranking specialists to access food that would normally be unobtainable, it had no impact on their dominance rank within the group. Specialists kept their low rank

16、 but were allowed a moment at the high table when their skills were of use to the royalty.起初，地位高的猴子威胁地位低的猴子，要它们一直远离爆米花箱。随后，地位高的猴子才知道，原来地位低的猴子有一种独特的技巧，于是它们就跟着地位低的猴子来到装置前，等着攫取所有的爆米花。不久，地位低的专家不再操作那个装置。但这个罢工没有持续多长时间。一些地位高的猴子改变了它们的行为。它们不再把地位低的专家赶走或是吃掉所有的爆米花，霸道行为开始有所收敛。它们安静地走近， 允许地位低的专家吃一份爆米花。不仅如此，一些地位高的猴

17、子开始更经常地为地位低的专家梳理毛发。尽管这种态度的转变使地位低的专家能够吃到它们通常无法得到的食物，它在小组里对它们的上司并没有什么影响。专家的地位依然很低，但是当它们的技术对权威者有用时，就允许坐在上席餐桌。Other experiments have found that monkeys even have a rudimentary sense of ownership and respect for property. Although these might seem to be strictly human concerns, territorial animals such a

18、s sunfish, lizards, sparrows, ad gibbons are invested in these issues. The space that a territory owner defends is like its property, and an intruders respect reveals its acknowledgment of ownership and property rights.其他试验还发现，猴子还有一种初步的所有权观念和对财产的尊重。尽管这些看起来全是人类所关心的事情，然而有地盘感的动物如翻车鱼，蜥蜴，麻雀，和长臂猿都有这些问题。一个

19、地盘的所有者护卫的空间，就好像是它的财产，一个外来者对他者地盘表示尊重，就表明了它承认所有权和财产权。In a 1991 study, for example, University of Zurich ethnologists Hans Kummer and Marina Gords tested macaques that had something other macaques wanted a see-through tube filled with raisins. The tube was either fixed to a wall or freestanding. If it

20、was freestanding, it was attached to a long or a short piece of rope, or no rope at all. A subordinate animal was allowed first crack at the tube in all the various placements. Then researchers observed how the more dominant individuals reacted. Although dominants often take resources away from subo

21、rdinates, the experiments revealed rules underlying their responses. Consistently, dominants took ownership of fixed tubes more often than free tubes, and took over free tubes when the subordinates failed to carry them. Staying close to the tube and looking at it were not sufficient cues of ownershi

22、p from the dominants perspective. A dominant macaque would appear to inhibit its impulse to grab the tube if a subordinate held it close to its body. Here, then, is an intriguing example of how inhibition plays a crucial role in maintaining social conventions among monkeys.例如，一项1991年的研究中，苏黎世大学人种学者汉斯

23、库马和玛丽娜戈兹对一种猕猴进行实验，这些猕猴有某种别的猕猴没有的东西一个装满葡萄干的透明管子。这个管子或者被固定到墙上，或者自个儿立着。如果是自个儿立着，它被系在一根或长或短的绳子上，或者干脆不系绳子。一个地位低的猕猴被 允许首先去打开放在各种不同地方的管子。然后研究者们观察占优势的猕猴如何反应。尽管占优势者经常从下属那里抢走物品，试验揭示了它们的反应后面的潜规则。情况总是这样：占优势者更经常地拿走固定的管子，而不是自个儿立着的管子；当下属猕猴没有拿时，才去拿自个儿立着的管子。在占优势的猕猴看来，站在管子旁边看着它并不足以表明拥有它。如果一个下属猕猴把一个管子紧靠身子抱着，那么占优势猕猴就会抑

24、制住自己想去抢走管子的冲动。这个有趣的例子表明，抑制自我在猴子们保持社会规范方面是如何起关键作用。But in any social situation with conventions, individuals often find that it pays to break the rules. Would such rule-breakers be punished? To explore this possibility, I conducted experiments on the island of Cayo Santiago, a research station near Pu

25、erto Rico that is home to some 800 rhesus monkeys. This particular species has an interesting convention: Unlike long-tailed macaques, which dont share food, the rhesus monkeys tend to call out when they find food. In the study, my colleagues and I located lone individuals and presented them with a

26、small stash of food. Their first response was to look around, presumably to decide if there were enemies near. A few individuals waited and waited and then, as if assuming an infantry combat crouch, moved cautiously toward the food. Only half the discoverers called out. When they were detected by ot

27、her group members, some were aggressively attacked. Our initial suspicion was that those who were being attacked were lower-ranking than those who were not. This hunch turned out to be false. Surprisingly, both high- and low-ranking individuals were attacked. Whether or not they were attacked seemed

28、 to depend on their vocal behavior. Silent discoverers who were caught with food were attacked more often and more severely than those who cried out. It was as if individuals were being punished for being inappropriately silent, for deceptively withholding information about a rich food source.但是，在任何

29、有规可依的社会环境中，个体常常发现违犯规则是要付出代价的。这种违犯规则者会受到惩罚吗？为了探寻这种可能性，我在凯酉圣地亚哥岛进行了试验，该岛是邻近波多黎各的一个研究站，上面生活着大约800个恒河猴。这种特别的猴有一个有趣的习俗: 和不分享食物的长尾猕猴不一样，这些恒河猴在发现食物时总是大声叫喊。在研究中，我和我的同事们选定一些独处的猴子，给它们少许食物。它们的第一反应是四下看看，大概是想断定附近有没有敌人。少数的猴子一直在 等待，最后，好像是摆出一副步兵格斗的架势，小心翼翼地朝食物移动。只有一半发现食物的猴子叫喊。当它们被别的小组成员发现时，有些就会受到狠狠的攻击。我们最初猜疑，那些受到攻击的

30、猴子比那些没有受到攻击的猴子的地位要低。结果证明这种预测是错的。令人吃惊的是，地位高和地位低的猴子都受到了攻击。它们是否受到攻击，要看它们有没有叫喊。发现食物而不吭声的猴子比那些叫喊的猴子遭到更经常、更凶狠的攻击。似乎，那些猴子受 攻击，是因为它们不适当地保持沉默，隐瞒了一个丰富的食物资源的信息。In a second experiment, we tested peripheral males, outsiders shifting between groups. Of 26 outsider males who were shown food, not one called out. Th

31、ey beelined to the food and either consumed it on the spot or gobbled a few pieces and then moved to a new location with a stash. Even if other monkeys discovered them with the food, the outsiders were never attacked. Thus, it seemed that members of an established rhesus community abide by a rule th

32、at says: Attack members that find food and dont share it. And the corollary seems to be: Why bother risking harm by assaulting onetime transgressors?在第二次试验中，我们对外围的雄性猴子进行试验，它们是在不同群体之间流动的外来者。在26个外来雄性猴中，给予它们食物时，没有一个叫喊。它们直奔食物，要么当场把它吞下，要么抓上几块后带着跑到一个新地点。这样，看起来一个已确立的恒河猴群体的成员们遵循着这样一条规则：攻击那些发现食物而不与大家分享的成员。自然

33、的结论似乎就是：为什么要冒险去进攻那些一时的侵犯者呢？Thus research indicates that animals can inhibit their impulses and punish those who violate community rules. But what about empathy? What about Binti? Unless we can establish that animals understand the thoughts and feelings of others, we cannot assume that their behavior

34、 is moral as humans understand the word. Codes of moral behavior are founded on beliefs of right and wrong. How we form those beliefs is based on an idea of justice, a consideration of how particular actions affect others. And to understand how our behavior affects others requires empathy.这样，研究表明，动物

35、能够抑制它们的冲动，惩罚那些违反社团规则的成员。但是怎样说明同理心？怎样说明宾蒂的事例？除非我们能够证实动物理解他者的思想和感情，我们就不能假定它们的行为像人类所理解的那样是道德的。道德行为的规则是建立在对与错的信念之上的。我们如何形成这些信念基于一种正义观，一种对特定的行为如何影响别人的考虑。要理解我们的行为如何影响别人，这需要同理心。Ethnologist Frans de Waal has offered several observations of apparent empathy among nonhuman primates in his 1996 book Good Natur

36、ed: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals. Richer insights come, however, from a series of studies published about 40 years ago, when standards for animal welfare were minimal. Today the experiments would be deemed unethical, but they do provide a window on animal emotion that h

37、as yet to be opened by more recent scientific observations.人种学者弗郞斯德瓦尔在其1996年出版的善良的：论人类和其它动物中正确与错误的根源一书中，提供了几起观察到的非人类的灵长类动物中明显的同理心例证。然而，更为深入的了解来自40年前发表的一系列研究成果，当时动物的待遇水平还处在最小的限度。今天，这些试验会被认为是不道德的，但在了解动物感情的研究方面，它们确实为我们提供了一扇窗户，有待时间较近的科学观察将其开启。One experiment was designed by psychologist Robert Miller and

38、 his colleagues to see if a monkey could interpret another monkeys facial expression, a presumed indicator of emotion. First, a researcher trained rhesus monkeys to pull a lever to avoid getting shocked after hearing a specific sound. Then one of the monkeys the actor was put in a room with a lever

39、and a live television image of a second animal the receiver that was out of sight and earshot. The receiver was exposed to the sound that indicated a shock was coming but lacked a lever to avoid it.有一项实验是由心理学家罗伯特米勒和他的同事们设计的，用来了解一只猴子是否能够理解另一只猴子的面部表情，即人们认为的感情显示器。首先，一位调查者训练恒河猴在听到一种特定的声音后拉一根扛杆来避免电击。然后其中

40、一只猴子“作用者”被关进一个房间，里面有一根扛杆 ，还有他看不见也听不见的第二只猴子“接受者”的现场电视图像。接受者能听到电击将要到来的声音，但却没有扛杆来避免它。The assumption underlying this experiment was that the receiver would hear the sound, anticipate the shock, and show fear on its face. If the actor understood the receivers facial expressions, then it would use this in

41、formation to pull its lever. If the actor failed, both animals received a shock. Because shock trials were presented randomly, and neither animal could hear the other, there was no way to predict the timing of a response except by using the receivers image in the monitor. As it turned out, the actor

42、 pulled the lever significantly more when the receiver heard the sound. Miller concluded that the actor was able to read the receivers facial expressions. Moreover, he and his colleagues suggested that the animals behaved cooperatively: To avoid the shock, the receiver gave a signal and the actor re

43、ad the receivers signal.进行这项实验的假定理论是，接受者会听见声音，预料到电击的到来，脸上会显露出害怕。如果作用者理解了接受者的面部表情，它就会利用这个信息来拉动扛杆。如果作用者不这么做，两只猴子都要受到电击。由于电击试验是随机的，而且两只猴子都听不到对方，所以没有办法预测反应的时间，只有看显示器上接受者的图像。结果，当接受者听到声音时，作用者拉动扛杆的次数明显增多。米勒下结论说，作用者能够看懂接受者的面部表情。而且，他和他的同事们还提出，两只猴子表现得很合作：为了避免电击，接受者发出一个信号，表演者看懂了这个信号。Did the receivers intend to

44、 provide information to the actors? Was this a cooperative effort? The receivers, to be sure, must have felt helpless and afraid. But to establish that they were signaling the actors, one would have to demonstrate that they were aware of the actors presence. And, given the design of the experiment,

45、they certainly were not. Rather, each receivers response was elicited by the sound, perhaps as reflexively as we kick out our foot in response to the doctors tiny mallet. It seems likely that the actors picked up on a change in the activity of the receivers, one that was consistent enough to predict

46、 the shock. But using an expression to predict a response is not the same as seeing the expression as an indication of anothers emotions at the time.接受者是否想要给作用者提供信息？这是一种合作吗？接受者当然一定感到了无助和害怕。但要想认定它们在向作用者发出信号，我们得证明它们意识到作用者在场。而就实验的设计来说，它们当然不会意识到。倒不如说，每个接受者的反应是由声音引发的，就像医生用小槌棒敲时我们会往外踢腿一样条件反射。看起来可能是作用者在接受者

47、的行动中对某一个变化熟悉了起来，这个变化相当有规律，可以用来预测电击的到来。但是 ，通过一个面部表情来预测一个反应，与把面部表情看作他者的感情显示是不一样的。This experiment left many loose ends. Although it is clear that rhesus monkeys can learn to avoid shock by attending to a facial expression, we dont know if this response is motivated by empathy, and empathy is necessary

48、for altruism. One has to feel what it would be like to be someone else, to feel someone elses fear, pain, or joy. We dont know whether the actors were even aware of the receivers feelings. There was no reason for the actors to care. From the actors perspective, all that mattered was that the image d

49、isplayed on the video monitor functioned as a reliable predictor of shock. A better experiment would have allowed the actors to see what was happening to the receiver but restrict the shock to the receiver alone.这项实验留下了许多未解决的问题。尽管很明显，恒河猴能够通过观看面部表情来学会避免电击，我们不知道这个反应是否是由同理心引起的，而对利他主义来说，同理心是很必要的。一个人得感受是

50、别人的话会是怎样，得感受别人的惧怕、痛苦，或者欢乐。我们不知道作用者是否也意识到了接受者的感情。作用者也没有理由在乎这些。从作用者的角度看，要紧的是显示在电视屏幕上的图像，其作用是可靠地预测电击。更好一点的实验，应该是让作用者看到接受者发生了什么事，但是把电击限于接受者身上。In a 1964 study, Jules Maserman and his colleagues ran a different experiment, again with rhesus monkeys. An actor was trained to pull one of two chains to receiv

51、e its food in response to a brief flash of blue or red light. Next, a receiver was housed nearby, where the actor could see it. The experimenter then changed the consequences of responding to the color of the flash. Pulling in response to one delivered food; pulling in response to the other delivere

52、d both food to the actor and a severe shock to the receiver. Most actors pulled the chain delivering the shock far less often than the chain delivering food only. Two of the 15 actors even stopped pulling both chains for between 5 to 12 days. When the actors were paired with new receivers, most cont

53、inued to refrain from pulling the chain that delivered the shock. And pairs that knew each other well tended to show more altruistic behavior than pairs that were unfamiliar.在1964年的一项研究中，朱尔斯梅瑟曼和他的同事们进行了一项不同的实验，这次也是用恒河猴来做的。一个作用者接受训练，对一道闪过的蓝色或红色的光做出反应，拉动两个链条中的一条以得到食物。接着，一个接受者被安置在作用者可以看到的附近。实验者然后改变对闪光的

54、颜色做出反应的结果。看到一种颜色拉动链条得到食物；看到另一种颜色拉动链条，既能得到食物，又会给接受者带来一阵强烈的电击。大多数的行动者拉动带来电击的链条的次数，比拉动只带来食物的链条的次数 要少得多。15个表演者当中，2个甚至有5到12天没再拉两个链条。当行动者与新的接受者搭档时，大多数继续不去拉带来电击的链条。相互非常熟悉的搭档，比不熟悉的搭档，趋向于显示更多的利他主义行为。What is most remarkable about this last experiment is the possibility that some monkeys refrained from eating

55、to avoid injuring another. Perhaps the actors empathized, imagining what it would be like to receive the shock. Alternatively, perhaps seeing another monkey grimace in pain is unpleasant or threatening, and rhesus monkeys will do whatever they can to avoid unpleasant conditions. Or perhaps the actor

56、 worried that one day it might be the recipient of a shock. Although refraining from eating appears to be a response of empathy or sympathy, it may actually be a selfish response.这最后一次实验最引人瞩目的地方是，是有可能有些猴子为了避免伤害另外的猴子而不去吃食。或许作用者感受了同理心，想象到受电击会是什么感觉。另外一种可能性是，看到别的猴子面露痛苦是不愉快或带有威胁性，恒河猴会尽其所能地避免不愉快的情况。或者作用者担

57、心有一天它也会是受电击的对象。尽管不去吃食似乎是一种同理心或同情心反应，它实际上可能只是一种自私的反应。As the experiments show, animals are by no means robots driven solely by instinctual responses. They are sensitive to their social and ecological environments, and under certain conditions they can inhibit one response and favor another. Moreover,

58、they can punish others and sometimes alleviate anothers pain. But no experiment to date has provided evidence that animals are aware of others beliefs or intentions. And without such awareness, there can be no ethical judgment.就像试验显示的那样，动物绝不是机器人，只受本能反应的驱使。它们对其社会和生态的环境都很敏感，在某些情况下，它们能够抑制一种反应而偏向另一种。而且，

59、它们会惩罚别的动物，有时会减轻别的动物的痛苦。但到目前为止，没有任何实验能够证明，动物清楚其它动物的看法或意图。而没有这方面的意识，就不可能有道德上的判断。Asking what it means to be moral challenges us to think about how our own capacity for moral agency came about. Monkeys employ rulelike strategies for promoting the welfare of a group, including maintaining peace, observing boundaries, and sharing food. And they can abide by these rules without necessarily understanding