Evolution is gradual. The changes that come with it are long lasting and in addition have long term effects on different morals. Just like anything else, morals too have evolved over time. For instance, in the beginning what used to be right and sound can never be said to be so today. It is not so long ago that man walked on all fours. Nowadays, such a scenario would be treated as medical case. When people are born, they have an empty brain that is ready to take in everything that is on display. This through the surroundings (cultural beliefs) is what eventually happens. For example, through colonialism a lot of morals were transferred from the different places all over the world.
Some of the mostly referred to as ‘universal morals’ are as a result of this interaction. Because the foreigners were deemed superior, most of their morals were thought also to be superior to those of the locals. Through this, one can say that evolution took place through habits. Brain is also affected in another way. For instance, when emotions are involved it is through associating a certain reaction to certain other thing that one comes to know about it. Habits and the chemistry that forms over time as a result of evolution control everything that we do. It is through this gradual but constant change that the evolution can be said to take place.
In both species, the trait of selflessness (altruism) can be seen. For example, after the terrorist attack firefighter went inside all in the name of rescuing and help others. This in addition to the classic example cited about soldiers shows the real meaning of altruism in humans. On the other hand, animals can be said to again possess this trait. From bees, ants to monkeys they have all been known to have this trait in one way or the other. Male monkeys although stronger and faster than others tend to stand firm in case of threat trying to protect the rest (Angier, 53). Finally, according to Sinha there is a similarity between the two living organisms. This is faithfulness and philandering. Human beings are known to live with their partners and take care of their families (Sinha, 74).
This similarity can vividly be seen in prairie voles. Both live with their partners though not all are faithful. It is true to note that human beings and animals share a lot in common according to the authors. However, it is worth noting that there is a great difference between the two when it comes down to the aspect of progress. Humans are more progressed than the animals. This can be seen from the excerpts above. In a human setup, in times of need everybody from kids to grown-ups participate in one way or the other. However, in the animal setup only the males are frequently expected to face the problem. Although, in the absence of the male, the females take responsibilities (Angier, 53).
Reason can be defined as a motive or cause for acting or thinking in a particular way. On the other hand, emotion can be defined as agitation caused by strong feelings. This two have been in conflict since the world was created. This is simply because human beings are emotional, and so are many other living organisms. From Sinha excerpt, she has vividly explained the emotional perspective of humans and prairie voles. Here, one can conclude mildly that emotions and reason conflict. Love is brought about by emotions rather than reasons is one point that clearly highlights the conflict. According to Sinha, people who are deeply in love with their partners rarely see their shortcomings (Sinha, 74).
This is emotionally driven. This too can be said of the prairie voles. It is also in them to ‘fall in love’. Emotions again can be purported to lead humans and voles into philandering. Of the two, emotions can be said to be much stronger than reason. It is this emotions that make people have health complications when something bad happens to the things they love. Again it is the emotions that make people do things they never thought they would do (Sinha, 74).
Morality is the accepted standard of conduct that is taken as right or proper. With this in mind, it would be inappropriate to state that morality is in any way pharmaceutically related. Morality has more to do with nature than it has to do with science (drugs). This is because morals are instilled by the things around us. For example, the holy book in respective communities acts as a guide to what is good or wrong. Morals are also governed by the cultural beliefs. People mostly tend to take after the seniors and the environment in which they grow in. However, morals can be said to be somehow pharmaceutically manipulated on the grounds of drug and substance use.
It is only through this manipulation that morals would be said to be pharmaceutically manipulated. Some substance might have effects on individuals that will make them change their morals. For example, the use of marijuana and/or cocaine might make a person behave and adopt morals that were not previously theirs. This is a change of morality after taking substances can be researched scientifically. This is because a sudden change in behaviors can be explained only after study has taken place. It is after this study that the people in charge will be in a position to explain the sudden or a gradual change in a person.
Human and animals though there share a lot of similarities biologically, there is no one point that they will ever be under the same bracket progression wise. Humans will always be in a position to progress much faster compared to animals. As much as the author has precisely highlighted the similarities, it would be worthwhile to draw lines on what makes animals and humans progress on different trajectories. According to Sinha both these two groups share a lot in common. However, if you put the thinking aspect of humans in it, this statement seems to be null and void.
The level of thinking is what really makes humans more progressive than all other organisms. For instance, under the reasoning and emotions bit humans more often than not are in a position to utilize both accordingly. On the other hand, there is very little reasoning (thinking) if any that will take place in an animal (Angier, 75). This explains the reason animals will react in a certain manner when provoked and human may differ when under the same provocation. As much as evolution has succeeded in explaining a lot of things, it will never be in a position to explain everything. This is because some things happen spontaneously rather than because of evolution.
Angier, Natalie. "Of Altruism, Heroism and Nature Gifts in the Face of Terror." Terror 0.0 (2001): 2. Print.
Sinha, Gunjan. "You Dirty Voles." Popular Science 0.0 (2003): 2. Print.