道德、猿和我們.docx

自：英語泛讀教程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.有人看見一只雌性的大猩猩救助一個(gè)不省人事的3歲男童。她為什么那樣做？她是否也有同理心？動(dòng)物能學(xué)會(huì)共享、合作、懲罰，以及表示出同理心？下面的這篇文章試圖回答這個(gè)問題。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 cradled 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.將近四年前，一個(gè)芝加哥郊外布魯克菲爾德動(dòng)物園的游客，用攝像機(jī)拍下了一個(gè)令人驚訝的事情。一個(gè)3歲的男孩掉進(jìn)了大猩猩的 圍場里，失去了知覺。一會(huì)兒，賓蒂朱葉，一只雌性大猩猩，走了過來，抱起了這個(gè)失去知覺的男孩，把他摟在懷中。然后她走過去，把男孩輕輕地放在管理員出入的門口。報(bào)紙大幅標(biāo)題赫然標(biāo)著：“大猩猩救男孩”，這件事打動(dòng)了全國人的心。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 about 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?大多數(shù)報(bào)道認(rèn)為，賓蒂救那個(gè)男孩，是因?yàn)樗龑?duì)他的處境進(jìn)行了換位思考。盡管大猩猩做的事情確鑿無疑，她為什么要這樣做，還有許多疑問。她是不是意識(shí)到孩子不省人事？她是不是關(guān)心他的安危？對(duì)一個(gè)有知覺的男孩，一只貓，一個(gè)玩具熊，或者一袋土豆片，她也會(huì)這樣做嗎？Despite what the headlines implied about Bintis moral 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 comes 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.不管報(bào)紙的標(biāo)題怎樣暗示了賓蒂的道德素質(zhì)，答案絕非是清楚的。例如，發(fā)展心理學(xué)家蘇珊凱里和弗蘭克凱爾的研究表明，小孩快10歲時(shí)才能完全識(shí)別死東西和活東西的區(qū)別。而且到今天為止，沒有一項(xiàng)猿類智能研究接近于表明，猩猩、大猩猩或是黑猩猩，具有一個(gè)10歲的人的智力水平。我們只能猜測為什么賓蒂那樣做。而且 ，一次偶然的事件也不足以保證結(jié)論正確。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 interested in the techniques we use to get at these questions: Can other creatures share, cooperate, punish cheaters, show empathy, and act altruistically?但是賓蒂的行為確實(shí)引起了公眾和科學(xué)界對(duì)這個(gè)大問題的興趣：什么智力特點(diǎn)引起我們符合道德地行動(dòng)，多大程度上別的動(dòng)物也具有 這些工具？作為一個(gè)心理學(xué)家，我對(duì)我們用來解答這些問題的方法很感興趣：別的生物也能夠共享、合作、懲罰騙子，表現(xiàn)同理心，以及行動(dòng)無私嗎？In a 1988 study, University 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, 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.在一項(xiàng)1988年的研究中，蘇黎世大學(xué)的人種學(xué)者愛德華斯塔姆貝奇對(duì)長尾獼猴進(jìn)行了一次試驗(yàn)，以測試它們控制攻擊性的行為和相互合作的能力。首先，每只猴子都接受一種訓(xùn)練，按一下一種裝置上的杠桿，就能得到一把爆米花。當(dāng)每個(gè)猴子都學(xué)會(huì)做什么以及什么時(shí)候做時(shí)，就把它們分成更小的組。然后訓(xùn)練每小組中一個(gè)地位低的成員去按一系列扛桿，這些扛桿以特定次序排列，能使裝置倒出足夠三個(gè)猴子吃的爆米花。在訓(xùn)練中，裝置開始只給這個(gè)地位低的專家放出爆米花。At first, high-ranking individuals threatened low-ranking individuals to keep them away from the 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. Some 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 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 but were allowed a moment at the high table when their skills were of use to the royalty.起初，地位高的猴子威脅地位低的猴子，要它們一直遠(yuǎn)離爆米花箱。隨后，地位高的猴子才知道，原來地位低的猴子有一種獨(dú)特的技巧，于是它們就跟著地位低的猴子來到裝置前，等著攫取所有的爆米花。不久，地位低的專家不再操作那個(gè)裝置。但這個(gè)罷工沒有持續(xù)多長時(shí)間。一些地位高的猴子改變了它們的行為。它們不再把地位低的專家趕走或是吃掉所有的爆米花，霸道行為開始有所收斂。它們安靜地走近， 允許地位低的專家吃一份爆米花。不僅如此，一些地位高的猴子開始更經(jīng)常地為地位低的專家梳理毛發(fā)。盡管這種態(tài)度的轉(zhuǎn)變使地位低的專家能夠吃到它們通常無法得到的食物，它在小組里對(duì)它們的上司并沒有什么影響。專家的地位依然很低，但是當(dāng)它們的技術(shù)對(duì)權(quán)威者有用時(shí)，就允許坐在上席餐桌。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 as 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.其他試驗(yàn)還發(fā)現(xiàn)，猴子還有一種初步的所有權(quán)觀念和對(duì)財(cái)產(chǎn)的尊重。盡管這些看起來全是人類所關(guān)心的事情，然而有地盤感的動(dòng)物如翻車魚，蜥蜴，麻雀，和長臂猿都有這些問題。一個(gè)地盤的所有者護(hù)衛(wèi)的空間，就好像是它的財(cái)產(chǎn)，一個(gè)外來者對(duì)他者地盤表示尊重，就表明了它承認(rèn)所有權(quán)和財(cái)產(chǎn)權(quán)。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 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 subordinates, 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 ownership 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，一項(xiàng)1991年的研究中，蘇黎世大學(xué)人種學(xué)者漢斯庫馬和瑪麗娜戈茲對(duì)一種獼猴進(jìn)行實(shí)驗(yàn)，這些獼猴有某種別的獼猴沒有的東西一個(gè)裝滿葡萄干的透明管子。這個(gè)管子或者被固定到墻上，或者自個(gè)兒立著。如果是自個(gè)兒立著，它被系在一根或長或短的繩子上，或者干脆不系繩子。一個(gè)地位低的獼猴被 允許首先去打開放在各種不同地方的管子。然后研究者們觀察占優(yōu)勢的獼猴如何反應(yīng)。盡管占優(yōu)勢者經(jīng)常從下屬那里搶走物品，試驗(yàn)揭示了它們的反應(yīng)后面的潛規(guī)則。情況總是這樣：占優(yōu)勢者更經(jīng)常地拿走固定的管子，而不是自個(gè)兒立著的管子；當(dāng)下屬獼猴沒有拿時(shí)，才去拿自個(gè)兒立著的管子。在占優(yōu)勢的獼猴看來，站在管子旁邊看著它并不足以表明擁有它。如果一個(gè)下屬獼猴把一個(gè)管子緊靠身子抱著，那么占優(yōu)勢獼猴就會(huì)抑制住自己想去搶走管子的沖動(dòng)。這個(gè)有趣的例子表明，抑制自我在猴子們保持社會(huì)規(guī)范方面是如何起關(guān)鍵作用。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 Puerto 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 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 other 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 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，在任何有規(guī)可依的社會(huì)環(huán)境中，個(gè)體常常發(fā)現(xiàn)違犯規(guī)則是要付出代價(jià)的。這種違犯規(guī)則者會(huì)受到懲罰嗎？為了探尋這種可能性，我在凱酉圣地亞哥島進(jìn)行了試驗(yàn)，該島是鄰近波多黎各的一個(gè)研究站，上面生活著大約800個(gè)恒河猴。這種特別的猴有一個(gè)有趣的習(xí)俗: 和不分享食物的長尾獼猴不一樣，這些恒河猴在發(fā)現(xiàn)食物時(shí)總是大聲叫喊。在研究中，我和我的同事們選定一些獨(dú)處的猴子，給它們少許食物。它們的第一反應(yīng)是四下看看，大概是想斷定附近有沒有敵人。少數(shù)的猴子一直在 等待，最后，好像是擺出一副步兵格斗的架勢，小心翼翼地朝食物移動(dòng)。只有一半發(fā)現(xiàn)食物的猴子叫喊。當(dāng)它們被別的小組成員發(fā)現(xiàn)時(shí)，有些就會(huì)受到狠狠的攻擊。我們最初猜疑，那些受到攻擊的猴子比那些沒有受到攻擊的猴子的地位要低。結(jié)果證明這種預(yù)測是錯(cuò)的。令人吃驚的是，地位高和地位低的猴子都受到了攻擊。它們是否受到攻擊，要看它們有沒有叫喊。發(fā)現(xiàn)食物而不吭聲的猴子比那些叫喊的猴子遭到更經(jīng)常、更兇狠的攻擊。似乎，那些猴子受 攻擊，是因?yàn)樗鼈儾贿m當(dāng)?shù)乇３殖聊?，隱瞞了一個(gè)豐富的食物資源的信息。In a second experiment, we tested peripheral males, outsiders shifting between groups. Of 26 outsider males who were shown food, not one called out. They 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 that says: Attack members that find food and dont share it. And the corollary seems to be: Why bother risking harm by assaulting onetime transgressors?在第二次試驗(yàn)中，我們對(duì)外圍的雄性猴子進(jìn)行試驗(yàn)，它們是在不同群體之間流動(dòng)的外來者。在26個(gè)外來雄性猴中，給予它們食物時(shí)，沒有一個(gè)叫喊。它們直奔食物，要么當(dāng)場把它吞下，要么抓上幾塊后帶著跑到一個(gè)新地點(diǎn)。這樣，看起來一個(gè)已確立的恒河猴群體的成員們遵循著這樣一條規(guī)則：攻擊那些發(fā)現(xiàn)食物而不與大家分享的成員。自然的結(jié)論似乎就是：為什么要冒險(xiǎn)去進(jìn)攻那些一時(shí)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 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.這樣，研究表明，動(dòng)物能夠抑制它們的沖動(dòng)，懲罰那些違反社團(tuán)規(guī)則的成員。但是怎樣說明同理心？怎樣說明賓蒂的事例？除非我們能夠證實(shí)動(dòng)物理解他者的思想和感情，我們就不能假定它們的行為像人類所理解的那樣是道德的。道德行為的規(guī)則是建立在對(duì)與錯(cuò)的信念之上的。我們?nèi)绾涡纬蛇@些信念基于一種正義觀，一種對(duì)特定的行為如何影響別人的考慮。要理解我們的行為如何影響別人，這需要同理心。Ethnologist Frans de Waal has offered several observations of apparent empathy among nonhuman primates in his 1996 book Good Natured: 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 has yet to be opened by more recent scientific observations.人種學(xué)者弗郞斯德瓦爾在其1996年出版的善良的：論人類和其它動(dòng)物中正確與錯(cuò)誤的根源一書中，提供了幾起觀察到的非人類的靈長類動(dòng)物中明顯的同理心例證。然而，更為深入的了解來自40年前發(fā)表的一系列研究成果，當(dāng)時(shí)動(dòng)物的待遇水平還處在最小的限度。今天，這些試驗(yàn)會(huì)被認(rèn)為是不道德的，但在了解動(dòng)物感情的研究方面，它們確實(shí)為我們提供了一扇窗戶，有待時(shí)間較近的科學(xué)觀察將其開啟。One experiment was designed by psychologist Robert Miller and 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 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.有一項(xiàng)實(shí)驗(yàn)是由心理學(xué)家羅伯特米勒和他的同事們?cè)O(shè)計(jì)的，用來了解一只猴子是否能夠理解另一只猴子的面部表情，即人們認(rèn)為的感情顯示器。首先，一位調(diào)查者訓(xùn)練恒河猴在聽到一種特定的聲音后拉一根扛桿來避免電擊。然后其中一只猴子“作用者”被關(guān)進(jìn)一個(gè)房間，里面有一根扛桿 ，還有他看不見也聽不見的第二只猴子“接受者”的現(xiàn)場電視圖像。接受者能聽到電擊將要到來的聲音，但卻沒有扛桿來避免它。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 information 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 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 read the receivers signal.進(jìn)行這項(xiàng)實(shí)驗(yàn)的假定理論是，接受者會(huì)聽見聲音，預(yù)料到電擊的到來，臉上會(huì)顯露出害怕。如果作用者理解了接受者的面部表情，它就會(huì)利用這個(gè)信息來拉動(dòng)扛桿。如果作用者不這么做，兩只猴子都要受到電擊。由于電擊試驗(yàn)是隨機(jī)的，而且兩只猴子都聽不到對(duì)方，所以沒有辦法預(yù)測反應(yīng)的時(shí)間，只有看顯示器上接受者的圖像。結(jié)果，當(dāng)接受者聽到聲音時(shí)，作用者拉動(dòng)扛桿的次數(shù)明顯增多。米勒下結(jié)論說，作用者能夠看懂接受者的面部表情。而且，他和他的同事們還提出，兩只猴子表現(xiàn)得很合作：為了避免電擊，接受者發(fā)出一個(gè)信號(hào)，表演者看懂了這個(gè)信號(hào)。Did the receivers intend to 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, 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 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.接受者是否想要給作用者提供信息？這是一種合作嗎？接受者當(dāng)然一定感到了無助和害怕。但要想認(rèn)定它們?cè)谙蜃饔谜甙l(fā)出信號(hào)，我們得證明它們意識(shí)到作用者在場。而就實(shí)驗(yàn)的設(shè)計(jì)來說，它們當(dāng)然不會(huì)意識(shí)到。倒不如說，每個(gè)接受者的反應(yīng)是由聲音引發(fā)的，就像醫(yī)生用小槌棒敲時(shí)我們會(huì)往外踢腿一樣條件反射。看起來可能是作用者在接受者的行動(dòng)中對(duì)某一個(gè)變化熟悉了起來，這個(gè)變化相當(dāng)有規(guī)律，可以用來預(yù)測電擊的到來。但是 ，通過一個(gè)面部表情來預(yù)測一個(gè)反應(yīng)，與把面部表情看作他者的感情顯示是不一樣的。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 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 displayed 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.這項(xiàng)實(shí)驗(yàn)留下了許多未解決的問題。盡管很明顯，恒河猴能夠通過觀看面部表情來學(xué)會(huì)避免電擊，我們不知道這個(gè)反應(yīng)是否是由同理心引起的，而對(duì)利他主義來說，同理心是很必要的。一個(gè)人得感受是別人的話會(huì)是怎樣，得感受別人的懼怕、痛苦，或者歡樂。我們不知道作用者是否也意識(shí)到了接受者的感情。作用者也沒有理由在乎這些。從作用者的角度看，要緊的是顯示在電視屏幕上的圖像，其作用是可靠地預(yù)測電擊。更好一點(diǎn)的實(shí)驗(yàn)，應(yīng)該是讓作用者看到接受者發(fā)生了什么事，但是把電擊限于接受者身上。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 receive 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 delivered 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 continued 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年的一項(xiàng)研究中，朱爾斯梅瑟曼和他的同事們進(jìn)行了一項(xiàng)不同的實(shí)驗(yàn)，這次也是用恒河猴來做的。一個(gè)作用者接受訓(xùn)練，對(duì)一道閃過的藍(lán)色或紅色的光做出反應(yīng)，拉動(dòng)兩個(gè)鏈條中的一條以得到食物。接著，一個(gè)接受者被安置在作用者可以看到的附近。實(shí)驗(yàn)者然后改變對(duì)閃光的顏色做出反應(yīng)的結(jié)果?？吹揭环N顏色拉動(dòng)鏈條得到食物；看到另一種顏色拉動(dòng)鏈條，既能得到食物，又會(huì)給接受者帶來一陣強(qiáng)烈的電擊。大多數(shù)的行動(dòng)者拉動(dòng)帶來電擊的鏈條的次數(shù)，比拉動(dòng)只帶來食物的鏈條的次數(shù) 要少得多。15個(gè)表演者當(dāng)中，2個(gè)甚至有5到12天沒再拉兩個(gè)鏈條。當(dāng)行動(dòng)者與新的接受者搭檔時(shí)，大多數(shù)繼續(xù)不去拉帶來電擊的鏈條。相互非常熟悉的搭檔，比不熟悉的搭檔，趨向于顯示更多的利他主義行為。What is most remarkable about this last experiment is the possibility that some monkeys refrained from eating 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 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.這最后一次實(shí)驗(yàn)最引人矚目的地方是，是有可能有些猴子為了避免傷害另外的猴子而不去吃食?；蛟S作用者感受了同理心，想象到受電擊會(huì)是什么感覺。另外一種可能性是，看到別的猴子面露痛苦是不愉快或帶有威脅性，恒河猴會(huì)盡其所能地避免不愉快的情況。或者作用者擔(dān)心有一天它也會(huì)是受電擊的對(duì)象。盡管不去吃食似乎是一種同理心或同情心反應(yīng)，它實(shí)際上可能只是一種自私的反應(yīng)。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, 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.就像試驗(yàn)顯示的那樣，動(dòng)物絕不是機(jī)器人，只受本能反應(yīng)的驅(qū)使。它們對(duì)其社會(huì)和生態(tài)的環(huán)境都很敏感，在某些情況下，它們能夠抑制一種反應(yīng)而偏向另一種。而且，它們會(huì)懲罰別的動(dòng)物，有時(shí)會(huì)減輕別的動(dòng)物的痛苦。但到目前為止，沒有任何實(shí)驗(yàn)?zāi)軌蜃C明，動(dòng)物清楚其它動(dòng)物的看法或意圖。而沒有這方面的意識(shí)，就不可能有道德上的判斷。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 t