Beliefs about what animals “should do” are often hampered by a lack of common sense reasoning and an outdated evolution theory:
Mulling various theories to account for the evidence, Winder and Shaw conclude,
Attempts have been made to look for “hidden” relationships between helper and recipient, to make altruism “fit” with evolutionary selfishness. Perhaps instead we may just have to accept that humans are not unique in their capacity to care for and help each other.
ISABELLE CATHERINE WINDER, VIVIEN SHAW, “ANIMAL ADOPTIONS MAKE NO EVOLUTIONARY SENSE, SO WHY DO THEY HAPPEN?” AT THE CONVERSATION
Well yes. If we don’t feel a need to affirm kin selection theory or selfish gene theory, maybe we don’t need an explanation — “evolutionary” or otherwise — for animals adopting unrelated animals. Animals think with their feelings, which do not always follow the theory. If whatever they are doing doesn’t kill them or their kind, that’s enough.
But when Winder and Shaw write, “we may just have to accept that humans are not unique in their capacity to care for and help each other,” again, wait.
What makes humans different is that many humans went out and spent decades studying animals and reporting back to the rest of us. So now you are reading about their work. The animals are simply doing what they do and not reporting or reading about it. That, not the feelings part, is the unbridgeable gap. Any theory that states or implies otherwise is in stark conflict with everyday evidence.
Takehome: Human exceptionalism is never more obvious than when humans are offering rational-sounding arguments against it.