There is an interesting editorial on capuchin monkeys and fairness in the NYTimes this morning. You can access it here, though you will need a free membership to read it. The piece is well written, but it is flawed for at least a couple of reasons:

First, it fallaciously equates what is with what ought to be. The author echoes the suugestion of some segments of socio-biology that, because certain behaviors are naturally hard-wired into our minds or genetic make-up, our principled judgments should therefore reflect them. I am with Richard Dawkins, however, that it is precisely our ability to embrace principles that *depart* from our biological programming that differentiates us from most animals. The monkey case is illuminating to be sure--it always helps to know what behaviors we are pre-disposed to adopt and justify. But this editorial is an example of the naturalistic fallacy at its worst.

Second, the editorial is flawed for its failure to account for different dimensions of fairness. It implicitly celebrates the monkey's rejection of its bargain--after the fact. But was the monkey treated unfairly? It made a bargain and received the benefit. Then, when it realized it had not made the best bargain it could, it threw a tantrum. To me, that sounds like the athlete who signs a contract then wants to renegotiate when a teammate or rival receives more. Fairness of result is obviously relevant, but equally important is respect for the benefit of a bargain. The latter dimension of fairness is another feature that differentiates humanity from the beasties--and one for which the editorial fails to account.
- posted by bigmouth @ 2:27 AM