For one how did they know the other monkey gets an electric shook unless they had some experience of it themselves, in which case we're back to Pavlov.
They'd know it hurt by seeing the other one react. And if they had prior experience with being shocked, that doesn't need to have anything to do with Pavlov either, unless you assume they got shocked as a result of their own action instead of as a result of another monkey's, which isn't indicated.
there are now reputable reports of some apes seeking out killing and eating other monkey's.
"Monkeys". A non-possessive plural has no apostrophe. What you've written is a possessive singular.
And "other monkeys" would still have been wrong because apes aren't monkeys.
And that wouldn't be relevant anyway because getting nutrients from eating members of other species is not generally treated as a moral issue one way or another.
That... suggests they couldn't 'give a fig' for other monkeys well being.
So members of one species don't care about members of another? That's pretty standard, normal stuff, but it doesn't have anything to do with how they treat other members of their own species, which is the normal realm of morality.
...together with the dicipline 'dished' out within a group of monkeys...
OK, so now we're talking about how individuals of the
same species treat each other? That's different. But it's evidence FOR morality being biologically built in, not against it. Punishment is part of how morality is taught, maintained, and enforced/defended. If there were no right and wrong, there'd be nothing to punish. That's why non-social animals don't use discipline.
Displacement of women- Seems to be inate.
No, what's innate is division of labor: men do some tasks and women do others. Only in certain cultures, which are
not the hunter-gatherer type that we're designed for, can this become a matter of restricting women and letting men have freedom, simply because the new options for what to do with one's life that come with post-hunter-gatherer development happen to accumulate on the non-domestic side of that basic innate division.
Changes only as a result of laws and without them it would revert.
Not true, but even if it were, so what? Laws aren't some outside force imposed on us contrary to our true nature; they get passed by people making choices and thus reflect aspects of human nature.
I would say it's a growing phenomena worldwide not a reducing one.
That would simply contradict the facts. You could just as well say "I would say the sky is yellow with green stripes", but that wouldn't mean the sky was yellow with green stripes.
Racism - Again seems to be inate changes only due to laws not.
I can't tell what this is supposed to mean, but racism isn't innate either. The tendency to separate others in one's mind as "us" and "them" is innate, but how the line is drawn could be by race or by something else instead.
In the US isn't the death row ratio something like 8 to 1.
So? You put this in the paragraph with "racism" but didn't give any reason to think it has anything to do with racism.
Victorian England. Everyone (well the amongst the masses anyway) was dying of starvation.
Again, you seem to want us to assume this must just have been because of people being mean to each other, but that requires pretending there aren't other factors in such things (such as economics and weather).
Child abuse... Biafra, Ethiopia Darfur and even as we speak Burmah...
OK, so you an list cases of people actually doing bad stuff to each other. But how does this add up to a general point of any kind? If your point is that we don't really have morality or compassion, this wouldn't help your case. It might be able to prove something else (I don't know what), but not that.
Heaven forfend we get on a boat and 'do' something about it.
Like what? Failure to implement a solution means nothing if there is no solution to implement.
As for victorian overwork a recent BBC radio program pointed out victorian children who were 'forced to work' in the mills actually prefered to be there. It was warm abd better than dying of hyperthermia at home.
So now you're contradicting your own pattern: that that wasn't about people mistreating each other, but just a matter of people making the best choice for the circumstances.
Legal punishments - HUMANE Capital punishment. The UK would vote for public hanging and worse tomorrow. When people say hangings too good for him they really mean it. They would be happy for the old punishments to brought back... How does that compare with the 'shoot an intruder mentality' the US has (and it's comming to the UK so I'm not just having a go at the US) a recent case here had people supporting a guy who used a shotgun on an intruder.
And this contradicts morality how? Punishment of people who have committed crimes is part of how morality is maintained in a society, and individuals' right to defend themselves and their families and properties when attacked is a moral principle.
So I'm affraid I still have the same low opinion of us humans and would welcome your reconversion to the sunny side of the street
If the "sunny side" part means you're challenging someone to tell you that your list of bad behaviors is all inaccurate and we really don't ever behave badly, then you know it's impossible. But a list of bad signs proves nothing anyway, and the way to counter it, or even to get a full and honest picture of the situation at all instead of cherry-picking the evidence that favors the desired predetermined conclusion, is not by arguing over whether the bad signs exist at all or how common they are, but by including the good signs as well.
And on that side, we'd have to include not just the fact that people often are helpful and charitable and self-sacrificing, but also just the fact that we'd call those other behaviors you mentioned "bad" at all in the first place. Bears and crocodiles and scorpions and butterflies wouldn't. They wouldn't care. They're non-social and truly lack morality and compassion. But in a species that considers some behavior bad, that species must possess other behavior that it considers good, or there'd be nothing to describe as bad or good, and thus no bad/good descriptions at all. Such things can't be imposed from the outside; the only way they can work is if they're a built-in part of the nature of the species.
To some extent, we even know biologically how this works. Look up "mirror neurons". They're parts of your brain that take other people's, or sometimes even animals', experiences and make them yours. You mentioned monkeys not caring about other monkeys, but, because there's a part of the brain that's built in for no purpose other than to empathize, it's essentially biologically impossible not to, unless there's a rare deformity or injury causing malfunction/death/absence of the mirror neurons.
And here's another biological connection for you. All mammals start out relatively social at birth because they must, at a bare minimum, live with their litter-mates and mother for a while, even if they'll grow up to be solitary later. So, when we breed mammals for docile, cooperative, friendly behavior, we're essentially breeding them to remain juvenile for longer by retaining traits that they would otherwise outgrow. And when that happens, some physical traits of juvenility come along too, resulting in a pattern in physical changes that happen in any domesticated species compared to its wild relatives: a taller, rounder, less elongated, a diminished muzzle/snout (the nose, jaws, and teeth), bigger eyes (at least relative to the mouth & nose), and more general roundness of features instead of angular-looking. And there are more physical signs of juvenilization that are specific to certain kinds of animals, such as many adults dogs' floppy ears, curled tails, and barking, all of which are outgrown by adulthood in wolves. And in human evolution, not only has there been a lot of juvenilization before, but it's still continuing now; we show slightly stronger signs of it than even the skeletons of even fairly recent civilized human populations. Yes, these are physical traits, not behavioral, but the only known way to get them is to breed for niceness, friendliness, and cooperativeness.
