When in doubt, blame the journalist, not the scientist, but this is some pretty deficient evidence.<p>> On three occasion the male monkey picked up tokens she dropped and inserted them into the slot and allowed her to have the food.<p>> As there was no benefit for the male monkey, Prof Bekoff argues that this is a clear example of an animal's actions being driven by some internal moral compass.<p>Primates participate in a good deal of social behavior based on reciprocal exchange, e.g., social grooming. The lack of immediate obvious benefit for the male monkey ignores the benefits of e.g., greater friendship, and ignores the dangers of "stealing" food from an older, possibly more dominant monkey. This example is interesting, but no more "moral" than any other one-sided benevolent exchange that you can find in monkey societies.<p>> Recent research from Switzerland also showed that rats will help a rat, to which it is not related, to obtain food if they themselves have benefited from the charity of others. <i>This reciprocity was thought to be restricted to primates.</i><p>Next paragraph...<p>> Those who are successful in foraging for blood will share their meal with bats who are not successful.
They are more likely to share with bats who had previously shared with them. Prof Bekoff believes <i>this reciprocity</i> is a result of a sense of affiliation that binds groups of animals together.<p>(My emphasis.)
The bat data has been known for over 15 years, and the lack of internal consistency is likely the journalist, but the science is still... stretching pretty far. It is not uncommon for vampire bats to find "bat buddies" with whom they predominantly share their excess food. This activity is easily traced through reciprocal altruism to selfishness.<p>> Some studies have shown that animals experience hormonal changes that lead them to "crave" social interaction.<p>Yes, like estrus, or ovulation in humans. This fact is unimportant and does not relate to morality.<p>> They also have three times as many spindle cells compared to humans and are thought to be older in evolutionary terms.<p>We know so little of the workings of the brain or of spindle /neurons/ that stating an absolute difference (without reference to the fourfold or greater size difference (sorry, no reference to whale neuron count on hand))) as if it means something is silly. They exist in whales, which is important, but in humans they have been implicated in emotion, spatial awareness, and touch. Would whales having a sense of touch be a radical notion?<p>> This finding has suggested that complex emotional judgements such as empathy may have evolved considerably earlier in history than previously thought and could be widespread in the animal kingdom.<p>So because whales are older than humans in evolutionary terms, this suggests an earlier evolution of empathy? I think the fundamental mistake is thinking that the whales did not evolve spindle neurons independently, but the whole line of thinking is somewhat muddled.