Yes, says animal behaviorist Marc Bekoff:
“I’m convinced many animals can distinguish right from wrong,” Bekoff said.
Bekoff says looking for the roots of morality in animals is a difficult scientific undertaking. It begins with looking for emotions central to morality, such as empathy — understanding of another’s situation, feelings and motives.
Personally I think right and wrong is a foreign concept to animals. But I’m sure they experience emotions — as any pet owner will attest. But emotions ≠ morality.
For instance, is it right or wrong for a dog to bite a person? Many wild dogs think it is right — as well as some tame ones. Police dogs are trained to bite people — does that go against their “natural morality” or does it agree with it?
I don’t think those questions make sense in an animal context. They don’t have enough information or logic thought to arrive at a moral conclusion. A dog might fight to the death to protect his boy — but it would also fight to the death to protect his owner even if he was a rapist and murderer. Is that right or wrong? Both are right to the dog, but protecting a murderer isn’t right.
They do, however, have a course of conduct that keeps them alive. If that’s morality, then I suppose everything alive has morality. But that’s a very loose definition and seems to make the term meaningless.
So what do you think — do animals have morality?
John M: I think the biggest issue we are seeing is that this kind of money is available to pastors in the first... 
Siberia: I kind of don’t give a rat’s ass about propagating my genes. I’d much rather have this particular iteration of my... 
Ty: If that was a possible benefit of being above the line, then yes. I’m extraordinarily capable of success when I... 
K: Couldn’t agree more – especially as I’ve studied the Bible on the role of women and... 
Erp: Interesting. Many years ago I helped my aunt sort out some of her late mother-in-law’s... 
Peter Cross: The Age of Reason is sometimes published and sold without Part 3: Examination of the... 
115 Comments
Hm. This is a tough one.
Well… I would say that yes, they do have morality.
However, morality in context to animals, perhaps. Based off survival, or perhaps domestication.
This is hard to answer because I could say “my dog wouldn’t bite me because he knows it is wrong” but I could also say “my dog wouldn’t bite me because I will yell at him if he does”.
So, I don’t know. That was a weird flow-of-thought comment I just had.
In the context of animals to be sure. It may not necessarily be due to domestication. Unless you call merely feeding an animal domestication. I once made friends with a wild squirrel. Eventually I was able to get her to take pecans from my hand. The first time she took it with her claw, accidentally scratching me. She must have noted my reaction. After that she would take the pecan with her mouth. This strikes me as a rudimentary understanding of the notion of “do unto others”.
More likely is that the scratch produced an undesirable reaction from you such as a swift and startling movement of your hand, or a dropped pecan. Squirrels learn very quickly from experience and are brilliant opportunists especially when food is involved.
To be sure. The point is that she modified her behavior accordingly so as not to cause harm. Even if it was motivated by the idea that “if I scratch I won’t get fed” that kind of understanding is the basis of most moral behavior: to cause harm is not in my best interest.
I grew up with cats and dogs.
And they do know about morality, they know if they have done something wrong, you can see how they hide or how they look with those sad eyes.
Also they know that it is moraly wrong to take a piece of meat from the table because just before they will look around or wait unill you are gone to take their chance.
Cats and dogs also can feel that you feel sad, then they come and lay with you.
You have to define morality first, before attempting to answer this question. I think we are a lot more like the other mammals than we like to think. For example, generally speaking, a child growing up in a nurturing, loving, respectful home, with humor and kindness, will likely grow up to be a productive, gentle, person. A person who is abused or neglected with struggle with issues – will struggle to be “moral”. For example, I was “numb” for years because of a difficult childhood (christian home, no less) and I felt there was something wrong with me because I did not feel that I had a normal conscience. Turns out I needed to let go of past pain, then my natural conscience showed itself. Now I am empathetic, care about other people, animals and the environment, feel “connected” with others, etc. This, to me, is true “morality”. It is not a set of rules – it is living by kindness and love. I raised my two cats by these standards, and they are gentle to the core, as well as empathetic and “connected” to each other and to me. The only difference between me and my cats is that I had a higher intelligence – a self-awareness that enabled me to “fix” myself. If an animal grows up in a cruel home, they can’t do that so they are stuck with their “issues” forever (in their case it might be mistrust, anger, skittishness, etc.).
Am I going too deep on this question????
“Morality” is just the series of actions that are perceived to benefit others, or at least not to harm others or the integrity of the group. In effect, morality is whatever contributes to common good, directly or indirectly, in species that require some degree of cooperation. Bacteria need no morality. Squirrels sometimes do. Humans do all the time. So do horses, wolves, and ants. A rogue ant that bites off the heads of its fellows isn’t conducive to nest harmony. That ant is “immoral”.
Most often, the “morality” both we and our animal brethren show is unintentional. If we didn’t carry the tendency, the species as a whole would have vanished. And it’s often violated by isolated individuals or groups, so they alone can benefit. Morality is the tempering of competition so that cooperation can be presumed. It just takes some odd forms where it’s difficult to say what’s competitive and what’s cooperative. A new stallion in a herd of horses, for example, may kick the currently pregnant mares to induce abortions of his predecessor’s offspring. It’s good for the new guy, but it could also be good for future herd harmony if the new stallion is now convinced that he has more to protect. Is the stallion acting morally? It’s impossible to answer that with any certainty.
“but protecting a murderer isn’t right”
I hope you mean while he is on the act of murdering. Do you think it is wrong to protect a murderer from fire? From a car accident?
On the subject… we are animals, so some animals have morality. The point then will be, do other animals appart from humans have morality? If we don’t believe in an universal morality, an objective set of rules for what is “right” and “wrong”, I think we can find some similarities between our morality and other animals behaviours.
I, in fact, think that every social mammal could have “morality” rules. I’m pretty certain about apes, as some of them care of their olders; that’s a behaviour with no inmediate reward. Chimps do have taboos -it was proven as a scientific test not many time ago, but I don’t find the reference’s- that they force unto new members of the group -yeah, pretty like religion.
Some other social mammals defend their weakest members from a predator. They don’t use to fight another member of the group, but there are rules to avoid a fight and at the same time to have a winner. In wich sense is that so much different from human morality?
Although I do agree with that in principle, humansdo have a unique capability for logical thinking, reflection and self-consciousness. Which doesn’t mean, of course, that everybody is using that potential, but that’s another story.
The man that reduces himself to mere intellectual animal will surely be one, for we shall have what we say, what we believe. That is why the power of agreement is the first step in Self-recognition.
John C, the way you digest your food or produce offspring is not substantially different from other animals such as chimps and bonobos. Can you prove that you’re more than that without resorting to obscure bible quotes?
I think your missing the point. Morality is a constructed entity, it isn’t innate. Just because a dog would defend an owner who is a rapist means nothing. They have no concept of what a rapist is, but that doesn’t make them amoral. Besides, there’s plenty of people who defend murderers and rapists (lawyers), but I’d still call them moral.
I think before you make the argument that an animal is moral or amoral you’d better define what morality is, and how it can be determined in an animal.
My dog definitely knows when it has done something that it shouldn’t have!!
I have to agree with you on this. When I get home I know when my dog has been good or bad by how he greets me at the door. I don’t see this as morals but from being told several times what is good or bad when he is home alone. If it is morals then they are taught morals. Is it morals he has when he has been trained not to use the aprt. as a bathroom or that chewing on shoes is wrong?
Personally, I don’t think peeing on the carpet or chewing on shoes is “immoral”. It’s “incorrect” behaviour (I think someone pointed out that distinction earlier). To me anyway, morality is about ethics – empathy, kindness, that kind of thing. I think morality has to have a “natural” quality to it – chewing on a shoe is not intrinsically wrong, but hurting someone is. My opinion anyway.
Well, that’s what I was going to say. :-D
I really think the question “do animals have morality?” has to be answered with “it depends what you mean by morality” – but as others have said, if that means supressing their own individual urges for the sake of group harmony, I’d say up to a point, dogs have morality, in that they will do as I say, not as they want, when the two are in conflict. Cats, on the other hand, have not a moral hair on their bodies ;-)
I disagree. I think that the morality of cats is quite clear. Their morals are based on the creed “I will do what I want to do” – end of discussion.
Cats are freethinkers.
But they do know when they have done something wrong.
“Right” and “Wrong” are pretty nebulous concepts anyway, often arbitrarily defined by the society in question. Dogs certainly have a concept of “fair” vs “unfair” though (as proved by that recent and well-publicised study), and I can attest from our own dog that they also know the difference between “permitted behaviour” and “forbidden behaviour” – so for example she will only try to steal food when she thinks we’re not looking. Not exactly what we’d term “morality”, but it certainly looks like some kind of proto-morality that could give a good indication of where our own moral sense comes from.
The protection by a dog of a rapist/murder owner isn’t any different then the protection of Christianity by Christians or Nazism by Nazis.
I attest there is no natural morality, only what we are taught. We have the ability for compassion to other creatures who aren’t threatening us, and this can lead toward ‘morals’ but we are just a product of our upbringing and a bit of brain work as well.
Bekoff says “I’m convinced many animals can distinguish right from wrong,”. I say I’m convinced many humans can’t distinguish right from wrong. We aren’t any better then animals, we just have bigger brains. It’s not a yes or no question, it’s a scale from low to high understanding of those around you.
I believe that many animals, like humans, have a “natural morality” when they are treated with respect, love and kindness. I have two wonderful cats – Tazzie and Snowball. They are so gentle. They would never, never bit or scratch me intentionally. When I am upset, they both immediately come to me and try to comfort me, and they have a worried look in their eyes. I’m with you that I’m not really sure what constitutes “morality”, or who can say what that is, but personally I believe that these traits are “moral”.
Yes, animals have morality.
They don’t have the sophisticated, intellectual kind of morality we have, obviously. They don’t have self-reflective morality. They don’t think through logically and try to better themselves, either.
But I believe many do have a vague understanding that there are OTHERS, that they want to act too alleviate another’s pain or take retribution for their transgressions, or so on. So yes, I’d say animals have morality.
Whatever the answer, since we are animals also, the answer applies to us as well.
Hear hear. “Morality” isn’t some concrete concept that exists in space and time (unless you believe in god, which we can throw out from the get-go). Morality is something we’ve learned from years of cooperating in groups, and from reward and punishment. Yes, your dog might learn not to bite because she doesn’t like you hitting her, but a child learns not to slap other children because we punish them too. That’s how we all learn. Why would we poo-poo “instinct,” “avoidance,” etc, in other animals, when we humans learn morality in exactly the same way?
I agree that “morality” is not set in stone – I think the nebulousness of the concept is why many people cling to religion. But I don’t agree that people learn anything good through hitting. I would never hit a cat, a dog, or a person. That just teaches that violence is the answer, or to fear. That’s something all of us can do without.
your counterexamples don’t really work… after all, one person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter, and I guess that has to be extended to dogs as well.
Yeah. It’s not “wrong” for a dog to bite any more than it’s “wrong” for a person to kill. In self defense, or military engagement, or a law enforcement situation, or the more controversial situations of euthanasia and abortion, we find situations in which killing is either not seen as wrong, or fiercely defended as right.
Morality is always a complicated topic, whether that of Human or Non-human animals. [thanks for the reminder, Doubting Foo!]
Animals can feel guilt, they know when they’ve been bad. They and we have learned through positive and/or negative reinforcement what is good and bad to do. My cat will take a lunging bite at me and immediately recoil as if she expects retaliation. I’m not sure where she learned that, I think from other cats. I don’t hit her back, but I do demonstrate who is in charge sometimes, like picking her up and bringing her away from where I was. Also, some animals can be trained not to scratch the furniture or hop on the table. Some owners don’t mind that stuff, so a cat isn’t going to know that until you teach it what is good and bad. Similar with people. People can do bad things and not think they are bad, like drink a lot or yell at strangers for no good reason instead of stuffing those feelings down and carrying on. Some people are too uptight, rigid, superior moral-thinking, while a lot of us let some things pass without thinking too hard. I don’t have the urge to kill, but sometimes I get irritable and successfully refrain from punching someone I think deserves it. Would it be more moral to punch them? Justice, morals, is there a difference? We just don’t go around punching people, we have to be taught that. If society were structured such that you could expect a punch from someone every now and then instead of a dirty look or a sarcastic remark, it would be moral to punch people.
Is it moral to use a litter box and not crap on the laundry basket? Cats seem to know, or it’s generally thought of that they do, what kind of message they’re trying to send, and how that message will be received. I never had a dog, so I don’t know, but it’s my understanding they have more of a hierarchy, and as long as you’re the alpha dog, they want to please you, and they will always think that’s the right way to be. Is that morals? I can’t define it absolutely.
Interesting topic, and it brings to my mind a slightly related question. As Yair noted above, awareness of, and responsibility to, others is maybe a functional definition of morality for some purposes.
We call animals which form relationships “social animals”, but as opposed to what? Are there any truly solitary, “anti-social animals”? I know certain animals have reputations as “loners”, but I am curious; are they really? We see “social”, or at least familial, relationships in Birds, Fish, Reptiles, and all manner of Mammals, are there any truly self-serving animals out there?
Social animals aren’t just those that associate with other animals (every animal has to do that), but those that regularly cooperate with other animals as a matter of survival. Many of those categorised as social animals are obligate cooperators.
What is an example of a non-social animal, though? It seems they are outnumbered by at least moderately social species. The pack/tribe/herd/school/flock mentality seems to be a big winner, genetically.
An animal would have to have some other VERY helpful traits to offset the lack of social support.
Appart from bees and ants, I would consider very few insects as “social”. Of course they mate, and some even care their offspring, but that’s all, no co-operation between adult individuals. So, that’s a very large part of the animal world.
Some fishes swim in groups, but I’m not sure if that cooperation goes beyond the security of the number. Lots of fishes, tough, doesn’t. the same with reptils. Appart from breeding periods, I can’t remember now any social species -it should have exceptions.
Indeed, most birds are social in some way, and a large part of the mammals. But not all… bears? large cats? (appart from lyon and to some extent guepards).
A big carnivorous animal is pretty forced to be a looner because of food, specially males.
“lyon” and “guepards”?
What, you *never* make any spelling mistakes? In any language?
Logan:
one, Francesc isn’t a natural English speaker.
two, “guepard” is an actual word for cheetah in my native language. I’m sure it’s the case in many others. In fact, it is French for cheetah as well (much as lyon is French for lion).
So, yeah.
Oh. My mistake. As a Spanish speaker, I understand perfectly how difficult English is to spell in comparison to other languages.
Sincere apologies, Francesc.
at least you have spellcheck, there’s no equivalent for when I had to learn Spanish grammar. Why do you need so many tenses?
For the purpose of efficacy. Every language has its distinctive characteristic: English’s is the ability to express any given concept with many shades of subtle nuances.
Spanish, however, is a language of economy – you can express in one or two words what would take an entire phrase or sentence in another language. This is partially accomplished with a large variety of verbal conjugations.
Example:
Vivía solo. = I used to live by myself.
lol, sorry, i speak some languages but none of them right :-)
Make that two of us; I can butcher English, German AND Portuguese!
All morality comes from intention for ourselves, our culture, or our society. Things that are contrary to our intentions will automatically be deemed “wrong” or “immoral”. Many people argue over differing morality but that conflict is created only when someone else decides to dictate the intention. Other animals do have morality even thought they have no concept of it. “Morality” is a human construct and so are “right” and “wrong”. Animals have morality to the extent that they have intention but a given species’ ability to reason limits how far that can go. Normally animals do not impose their own intentions onto others as humans do. In-group cooperation is more conducive to survival and Evolutionarily speaking all animals, including humans, are programmed with the intention to survive. There have been instances where pets wake the humans in the house because the house is on fire. I’ve read about this several times. For as amazing as that is it’s plausible that pets often take the humans they live with as part of their in-group and the survival of the group helps to ensure their own survival. This is rudimentary morality. Is waking up the people in the burning house “right” and “moral”? It would be if they could reason well enough to understand those concepts but since even human morality comes from intention, and all animals have intention, the higher concepts are really unimportant.
My cat knows right from wrong. The problem is he doesn’t care.
The question is does your cat know “right” from “wrong”, or as seems more likely, does your cat know what makes you happy and unhappy by your reaction to their own actions but doesn’t care whether you’re happy or not?
Well whatever he knows or doesn’t know, I’m fairly certain he doesn’t care about any of it.
Do you know what’s wrong or right, or do you know by your experience with other humans -i.e. parents- what you should and shouldn’t do? Is our morality so different from other animal’s morality?
In fact, as you have acknowledge before, there is not “wrong” and “right” -well, that was another thread’s discussion- but it’s a human construction, so you can’t know that. You know what’s an acceptable behaviour in your in-group and what’s not
Yes my cats and dogs did know when I was unhappy and then they came and tried to make me happy by laying with me or starting to lick or other stuff.
Animals have morality in the same sense Christians do.
When trained properly, they avoid doing “bad” things because there is the threat of pain or punishment. For dogs, it’s the newspaper, or a shock collar, while for Christians, it’s an imaginary never-ending human barbecue.
So, not really. It’s just a programmed response.
I don’t know if animals have morality. If so, it would be very basic. It mostly seems to be based on the need for self preservation. A dog will protect its owner not out of a moral sense of loyalty I think, but out of a need to protect its meal ticket.
But it could be that animals have the very basic seeds of morality. I think morality in humans is the result of an evolution in though, much like our understanding of law has evolved from the Code of Hammurabi to the Magna Carta to the US Constitution.
It is interesting that both law and religion always seem to trail the evolution of morality. People with a higher, more evolved morality objected to slavery long before the Civil War and subsequent 13th Amendment. Even the Southern Baptist Convention – the largest Protestant denomination in America – was formed on the basis of protecting slave owners’ rights. Once again I think we can see law and religion trailing the evolution of morality in both the struggle against segregation and racial equality, and again in the struggle for marriage equality.
Class equality?
Socialist!
I agree. Law and religion are based on tradition, and are big mountains to move even when the populace has evolved.
This article (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/02/050212191635.htm) mentions a study that indicates chimpanzees have a sense of “fairness”, but that’s not the same as right and wrong.
No, animals do not have the capacity for “morality” as you call it, they live by instinct.
“
I was pretty unsure about how to tackle this issue intellectually…it’s difficult to have a reference into (non-human) animal morality when I’m just a human. I know a lot of people are writing that they understand animal morality by watching their pets, but this seems like a stretch. Instead I woke my dog to ask him what he thought of the whole debate. We rescued him about 4 months ago and in the time I’ve gotten to know him I’ve found he’s quite religious, well, more spiritual, like John C. In fact, his response sounded eerily similar to what I remember JC stating in recent comments the Spiritual Encounters In Your Head post.
As a reference, my dog (Professor Barkington) ascribes to an ancient dog religion similar to some you may be familiar with…here is his response to me – I had to type it for him.
“There is no “coming to” [morality] at all for as Savior Pup said…this kingdom of Father Dog is within each of us. So rather, it came “from” his own depths within, that seed of Pup born of spirit and original and true paternity in that Lord Dog is spirit (Rover 4:4). That same “Source” is hidden within every dog. It is only through this understanding that we may find true Canine Morality as He instructs us.”
I had issue with his beliefs so I questioned his ability to know this Father Dog and his instructions.
“…the concept of “Lord Dog” being “up there” and dogs being “down here” is a fallacy and not what Pup taught (see Rover Ch 17). Pup re-enters the scene decalring that “the kingdom of heavenly dog park has come”. The mutts say (paraphrased) “where? we cant see it”. Pup responds…”its not a visible kingdom, for the Kingdom of Dog is within you”. Spot 17:21″
“…journey with Pup the internal Light (Pup IN you being the mystery of the ages, Fido 1:27) we are “awakened” to the true nature of Dog, a spiritual being but we only “see” with our natural eyes and snouts this external, physical self and so we THINK that is all there is. A closer inspection reveals there is more than our natural eyes and snouts can detect. Hence the spiritual (not religious) journey commences and we find ourselves following our spiritual Snout all the way home leading us back to where we came from, which is Father Dog’s great wagging tail of love.”
“So He says “follow me” to the Dog Park.”
“But this requires a mighty trust, a puppylike condition is a pre-requisite as Pup taught. If we really want to know and are willing to die to our own beliefs, positions and earthly mindsets, then we will surely know and be known.”
It sounded kind of out there, a little much for me, and tough to understand…but he really believes this stuff. Who am I to question him? He was raised for 3 years in someone else’s home; also, who am I to question his the morality, spirituality, and belief structure of a species that is so wonderful to us humans? Whether he could find his morality without his God Dog is his issue I guess, not mine. At least he doesn’t try to convert me.
That was awesome.
lol
My cat kept saying “How do you dare? Of course we have morality and a soul. You inferior species are going to go to hell, where you will drown endless in cold water!”
When I asked how can she know, she answered:
“Well duh, It is written in the bowl of Revelation
Can’y you see the world around you? It was created like an inmense ball of wool, clearly proving a designer”
Then she tried to exorcise a demon out of me by scratching my eye…
Good information. Who, pray tell, are my cats supposed to worship. I have to warn you, they are not terribly inclined to bow to anyone.
Ooh, I’d have to disagree with that, John C. Many mammals and birds have the capacity for some kind of “reasoned” behaviour, just not to the same extent as humans. There is no sharp dividing line between human behaviour and animal behaviour, only a matter of degrees and neocortex size, particularly the frontal lobe. Social animals in particular have a component of behaviour that must be taught by a parent and/or group, which shows that behaviour is not solely instinctual.
As to the question about animal morality, I agree with others that it depends on how you define morality. I don’t think you can separate morality from social behaviour very easily. If that is the case, then clearly some animals have some form of morality.
Animals can be taught “morality.” They can learn what is right and wrong to do (bite their owner, sit on the couch) and then intentionally transgress when they think you aren’t looking. Or hang their head when they know they’ve done the wrong thing. They are expecting a remonstrance or a retaliation, but making that connection between the wrong thing and punishment and the right thing with its reward is a learned “morality,” at least on their level of intelligence.
I made a little point about dogs in my other post… not knowing much about dogs except what people have said about them. I was thinking mostly about how dogs are structured in the pack, and that the owner has to assert themselves as alpha dog, and actual dog or dogs thrive on obeying the master if the master has control. Chaos is unpleasant for the dog and the dog will choose “morality,” or pleasing the master. They might be trained not to bite or climb on strangers… like I’d said, this is similar to how we are trained to control our impulse to react to anger or frustration with punching and shoving. Later it is that people learn why they shouldn’t hit or push people when they are angry or frustrated, and consider that the moral choice.
As for dogs, I don’t think they understand why we don’t do that. The only reason they don’t bite or attack is because the master doesn’t like that. Some masters train the dog to attack. The dog fights because it pleases the master. Some dogs are taught to round up sheep or cattle, some are taught to lead blind people around, some are trained to go through obstacle courses. So is the not biting or attacking “morality” or just a trick they learned to do? Dogs who are taught to attack or not trained against the urge to do so will not give up even when they are hurt. You have to do something pretty extreme to get him to let go of the toddler.
As for lions, another example, they can be trained not to act fierce all the time, but their relationship with human handlers is still that they pretty much want to eat them and they don’t know that they shouldn’t. It’s a degree of how trainable they are not to do that, so dogs are more trainable than lions. Then there’s elephants. I know squat about elephants, but I think they’re more “personable” than lions in that they tolerate human company until they are taunted or startled. This upsets the elephant who roundly stomps on the offender. Like I said, this is how it seems and may not be realistic about elephants. I think they are more like humans this way – you don’t always want to punch someone, but humans learn not to punch someone who upsets them, whereas an elephant is mellow and would just not feel like stomping someone most of the time, and then when they’re upset, they lack the ability to suppress the urge to maul a person. I think the lion might be more trainable than the elephant not to attack on instinct, but also degrees more ferocious about what kind of handling they tolerate before they do.
That’s not really teaching “morality” though. Its teaching acceptable and unacceptable behavior. For instance, we are taught as children, to raise our hands in class when we want to say something. Is raising your hand the morally right thing to do? Not really, it just makes the life easier for the teacher. The same goes for teaching a dog not to sit on the couch: it makes life easier for the human.
I don’t think you can really teach morality to anyone or anything. There is a difference between morality and man-made rules.
I have to tell you guys about my cat Snowball. He is sweet and gentle, but tends to get carried away with energy and likes to spill and break stuff. I say sternly “in the bedroom”, and he runs into the bedroom for a time-out. About 5 minutes later, I will hear a banging on the door. It’s snowball bringing me a shoe – it’s a present for me. He does this every time – he’s trying to make it up to me and show me he’s a good boy. I think the more animals are treated like people, the more they act like people it seems….
Anthropomorphize much?
Just a bit, yeah.
This site has been taken over by people with unreasonable faith. Ironic, isn’t it?
Anyone else hear an obnoxious whining noise?
Animals have more than just instinct… they have consciousness as well, even if is is less developed than ours is (at the very minimum we grant them cognition):
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness-animal/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cognition-animal/ (See section 4.3.2 of this article for a discussion on empathy and morality)
So I agree that a definition of morality would be helpful, and luckily here is one:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/
From that same article:
“Recently, some comparative and evolutionary psychologists (Haidt, Hauser, De Waal) have taken morality, or a close anticipation, to be present among groups of non-human animals, primarily other primates but not limited to them. “Morality” has also been taken to refer to any code of conduct that a person or group takes as most important.”
In other words, if morality has a basis in empathy, and empathy is observed in animals, then I think it is fair to say that animals show some form or morality, or at the very least, a form of proto-morality.
Except cats. Regardless of how smart they are, it is clear that they are moral nihilists.
Or dogs – Bolt (2008)
That’s what makes them so cool.
Dogs look at humans and think, “They feed me, they shelter me, they love me… they must be gods.”
Cats look at humans and think, “They feed me, they shelter me, they love me… I must be a god.”
lol :) Cats were worshipped in certain cultures as gods for many years, and it seems they have not forgotten.
I dunno, Nope, teh LOL catz bible is proves yur wrong:
http://www.lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=Main_Page
OMG thats ihncrehdabel wbste! I cante beeleev pepl ackshlly wnt two oll tht wurke! Srsly! Pkcher uf Ceiling Cat iz nau ahn mah dsktahp!
LOLZ! I luvs teh ceilin catz.
First, let us all agree that humans are in point of fact animals. Therefore, the point being made by the author is on it’s face disinginuous.
Second, at least a few other animals (the great apes) have been shown to recognize breaches of fairness (a subcategory of ethics and morality).
Third, the author really does need to research his positions a little more carefully.
The author of the article is a newspaer reporter, the author of the study is a professor emeritus at the University of Colorado. The reporter may not have made an adequate representation of his argument but the professor is highly regarded in the field.
I would like to also point out that religious groups are taking a new interest in dogs and theology. I found that the most interesting suggestion in the article.
I think it’s sort of hard to look at this question, because we’re approaching it from the context of human morality. We define that in all sorts of ways, that includes codes of conduct and higher brain function, etc.
But if you accept that the roots of what we think of as “morality” are empathy and altruism, I think you could easily argue that animals experience morality as well, as those things are seen in animals. Just because their morality is different from ours, doesn’t mean it’s not the roots of the same thing. After all, we can argue about human morality being superior all day long, but what would cattle say about feedlotting, corn feeding, and the slaughterhouse? If they could talk, anyway. But that scenario is not so different from the dog that bites the human hand- in the dog’s world, it is justified due to some threat it perceives, even though from our perspective it’s “mean.”
In any case I feel like this blog entry is anthropomorphizing a little tiny bit, by comparing the rudimentary “morals” expressed by animals to what we consider morality. Just because they’re not the same or don’t fit the same mold doesn’t mean there aren’t some interesting things there.
I really believe that morality, as humans express it, is all rooted in a need to survive. Any creature that depends on some form of social organization for survival develops rules and codes of conduct – at some point in our evolution it became beneficial for our survival to be altruistic and empathetic. Because animals can’t vocalize that or recognize it doesn’t mean it’s not there on some level, right?
I used the example of punching people as a human instinct we’ve mostly learned to suppress. Nonverbal children often act out their frustrations physically, and we generally teach them “don’t” and give them language to express their thoughts. Some people don’t learn that so well, they are either abused or witness abuse at the extreme or are allowed to develop a temper too quick to calm down and use not just words, but non-insulting words to react to anger and frustration. In the example, I imagine a society where it is the norm to punch someone if they are out of line, instead of being polite or not saying anything.
So if it were this way, and I think in some cultures it is close to this way, people stay “good” over the threat of a beating, or worse. Punching wouldn’t be unsociable behavior if it were normal, it would be a moral reaction. Being “too good” to avoid being punched would also be normal, instead of someone saying hey, this is kinda insane. We have some regions of the US where it’s normal to carry a gun, it’s the same thing – people will swear by the ability to carry guns as if it’s the only way we can have a civil society, it’s an agreed-upon standard, you don’t mouth off or you could get shot. I really think some animals are all about that, so much for anthropomorphizing them. They learn not to get whipped or smacked with a newspaper or sprayed with the water. Whatever the human tells them is good is what they want to do to get the treat and attention and avoid the swat.
In the wild, is another different question. Animals have an eco-system, they don’t know the way it really works, but they know what kinds of things to watch out for, for survival, they share with their group if they live in a group. If an animal doesn’t need “morality,” like a turtle laying so many eggs at the beach, so only a small fraction of the hatchlings make it to safety when they’re born and never know their mother, that’s how the ecosystem works. Turtle doesn’t really know why they have so many babies or think maybe this time, they’ll stay around and protect their babies. I think animals know the consequences they need to know or learn to expect them, and behave accordingly.
I think that brain complexity and the resulting behavior of an animal has a lot to do with morality. Take a soldier ant, for example. The brain of a soldier ant is genetically programmed for a single behavior: to attack the enemy when the colony is under siege. It cannot decide to head for Canada in times of war. As brain complexity increases in higher animal forms, genetic control becomes more lax, allowing these animals a wider range of behavioral freedom. The human species, I believe, is living evidence that as brain complexity continues to evolve, a tipping point is achieved where an animal that possesses such a brain can literally make up its own mind about how to behave. At this point, behavioral imperatives become behavioral incentives that can be overridden by the brain. Given this power of choice among behavioral alternatives, the species to which such an animal belongs becomes, of necessity, a species of moral animals and must establish moral codes of behavior among its members, and abide by them, or eventually go extinct.
We can try asking the animals.
Typing mistake.
Some anthropomorphizing going on about the nature of animals, especially cats.
This sounds a little like the koan “Joshu’s Mu”: Does a dog have Buddha nature? (Damfino.) It also reminded me of a bunch of students sitting around pondering “what’s the difference between looooove and ‘being in love?’”
Heavy, mannnnn…..
Like, if cats had wheels, you could race them! I love threads like this.
No, for the same reason that you say. Animals have emotions, and instincts, and have some capacity, depending on the species, to determine social effects, but the concepts of right and wrong are human concepts. If my dog does something I have labeled as “wrong”, and he knows it (even if all we do is say his name, he “looks” guilty and sometimes acts with appeasement behavior), this is not an example of him knowing that it is inherently wrong, just that when he has done it in the past, he has been punished.
I would say that there are norms that we would consider ethical (the monkey – I forget which species – that refused to push the button and get food if it caused it’s fellow monkeys to scream in pain is an example), but I have serious doubts we can call that morality. Morality implies the conscious evaluation of the positions, at least to me.
Since we have the Joshu bit, I like to give my favorite version that as far as I know, I came up with “Does a cow have Buddha-nature?” “Mu” (pronounced “moo” in this case, had to explain that). :)
I think that animals know “what gets punished” versus “what does not get punished.” My dog knows not to pee in the house, not because I taught her it was wrong but because I made it clear to her if she did I’d shove her nose in it and spank her. I think that when an animal does something against his owner (i.e. drink from the toilet bowl, dig a hole in the yard, etc.) and hangs its head down to show you that it is “ashamed” after the action has been committed, it is reacting to the owner’s body language and tone of voice. I don’t think that a dog drinks from the toilet and then think “oh crap, that was wrong.”
Could you teach Mme Metro’s cat not to pee anywhere but its box please? I offer you a libation in wine.
“It begins with looking for emotions central to morality, such as empathy — understanding of another’s situation, feelings and motives.”
This reasoning is worrying to me.
I grew up on a farm and have witnessed a lot of animal behavior. One thing that I will ALWAYS remember is seeing my old rooster risk his life to try and save a rival younger rooster (for those who don’t know, roosters have territories and rankings. They usually beat up on each other) who was being attacked by a dog. The old rooster rushed in and started attacking the dog, and as a result suffered injuries that almost killed him.
I had also seen a story on the news recently about a dog that had been hit by a car on the freeway and another dog risked his life to pull the injured dog to the side of the road.
So say what you want about whether or not animals have morality, emotion, ect. but I know what I have seen in my life and there is no question for me.
That dog should have shown courage by arguing about the danger of traffic with humans instead of disappearing.
I’ve seen that story too, about the dog. I was awed.
Fun fact: I have seen lots of stray dogs crossing the street in the right place (I’ve no idea how you call it in english, but near the stop light…?) when the light was red (even when there was no human about to cross the street at the time). I have seen lots of humans do the exact opposite.
Clearly, some stray dogs are wiser than some people.
Well, that’s really an Americanism. People from Britain and other English-speaking countries may offer alternative names for the thing in question.
Siberia,
Please forgive me if I come across as pedantic, but since you asked (sort of)… :-)
The common English term is “crosswalk”, which is a portmanteau of two words cross (as in “to cross the street”) and walk.
Your command of English seems to be outstanding, otherwise.
As long as we’re being pedantic, ‘crosswalk’ is an example of a compound word, not a portmanteau. A portmanteau would be more like “crolk,” but nobody calls them that.
Thanks :) I’m always for learning new words.
As usual with this sort of question, there is no answer without a clearer definition of “morality.”
Obviously, talking about the morality of an animal, one must normalize one’s expectations to the animal’s domain of cognition. When a dog bites someone, it’s pretty much always because the animal felt provoked for one reason or another. In criminal law, the intention of the perpetrator is almost always taken into account, so from the dog’s point of view, biting would only be immoral if unprovoked.
Although anecdotal evidence is not really evidence at all, the dogs I’ve had have displayed behaviors consistent with human contrition when they had done something wrong — even if we hadn’t yet discovered what the dog had done.
To some extent, the problem of other minds prevents us from ever really solving this one. When someone claims to feel guilty about something, there’s no way for me to actually be sure that person feels guilty and is not simply claiming to feel guilty because that’s what people do in those situations. People are quick to use this argument against animal morality, but never seem to realize it applies equally well to human morality. Do all people have a moral sense, or is it just some of us and everyone else is faking it? How could we tell?
I wanted to follow up after reading the whole thread. It seems like a lot of people above are pretty sure what isn’t morality, but I’m curious if anyone can tell me why they think that way? I think a lot of people are using the word to refer to different things, so I want to try to clarify what it is we’re asking.
Let’s talk about the meaning of the word “morality.” Is morality prescriptive or descriptive? In other words, is it a code that dictates what actions are incorrect or correct for various situations or is a post hoc account of whether particular actions were justified in different situations? Is it a property of a person (”he is moral person”) or a property of an action (”that was the moral thing to do”)?
By “morality,” do we mean by definition our natural inclination towards “correct” behavior or a learned inclination towards “correct” behavior? Can we be sure there’s a difference?
This is muddied by the fact that we can’t really even say what is “correct” behavior systematically. Obviously, some people think that premarital sex and social drinking are immoral. Is that the sense in which we are speaking of morality? Is taking heroin immoral, seeing as it is a victimless crime (it doesn’t obviously violate the golden rule)? What if the user has a wife and a child?
I think there were a lot of good ideas above that were poo pooed by people quick to say that learned behaviors aren’t morality, but could those naysayers tell me why not?
And once more, I’ll point out that given the many different functional definitions of the word “morality” that the question could be answered with equal justification, “yes,” “no,” or “we’ll never know,” rendering it relatively meaningless if we can’t specify more clearly what is meant by “morality.”
In order to soberly approach the question of morality in animals, we must first subject ourselves to the concept of morality. This is the answer that I have arrived at:
Animals do not possess morality, because morality is an absract concept that does not truly “exist” in reality. There is no concrete moral code. In that same respect, human beings do not possess morality, because it’s not necessarily real.
I say this for a number of reasons. First, it is clear that cultural influence and tradition have a tremendous impact on morality. What is moral in one society is an abhorration in another. Second, morality is not inherent in the nature of man. We are not born with morality. Rather, we develope a (our own) moral code through conditioning and exposure. For instance, as a small child, misbehaving or acting in some way immoral is not evident to us. We do not realize our actions are in any way “wrong” until we face the consequences. We develope our sense of morality through exposure to consequences, and it is this code that we presume to hold other individuals to, because, well, if you couldn’t do it, then neither can they.
So, do animals have morality? No. They have conditioned response, as well as a presumed emotional response, as long as that response is not in conflict with a deeper instinctual response. (I say this because certain species of spider allow themselves to be ritualistically killed through the mating process, a process that is agonizing and gratuitous in its suffering, yet the male spider in these cases allows itself to be eaten my its mate or by its young in order to ensure the safety of the species, a purely instinctual response.) As human beings, we are endowed by nature with a large cranial cavity, allowing more advanced cognitive reactions that lead to the developement of rational thought. We more easily acquire conditioned skills and responses, and the juxtaposition of these responses results in a set of rules that we perceive we must follow, ie morality.
How is conditioned response in any way different from cultural morality?
Maybe they do not have human morality or morality-as-we-know-it, but I truly don’t see why the animal conditioned response is anywhere different from a human conditioned response, except in degree. Humans learn proper behavior, you say. So do animals.
I can grant you there are degrees of morality, using as reference our own (since we can’t find any other morality to compare to), but I don’t see the intrinsic difference. Among horse herds, it is acceptable for stallions to provide security and a territory while mares control the inner workings of the herd. Mares reprimand foals who misbehave. Mares educate the foals in what is acceptable within the herd and what isn’t. I could say that among horses it is morally required of foals toto obey the leader mare – the punishment for those who do not is exile from the herd. How is that different from a tribe where the women make the decisions while the men hunt and provide, and those who disobey are exiled? Maybe the human tribe is more complex, but I could argue that complexity is simply an after effect of our enhanced psychological capacity. I’ve read once, I think in Scientific American, that ants teach younger ants – even going so far as to change the teaching methods according to learning speed of the student!
I really don’t see the distinction you’re trying to make here.
That’s because you’re agreeing with me :)
What I am trying to say is that morality isn’t real. You’re not born with it, it’s not an existing thing. It is a concept that we have come to create for ourselves. The conditioned responses we have, the same as ants teaching ants, is something we simply call morality, when really its nothin more than learned social responses. The supposed “Laws of Morality” simply dont exist.
Thank you for restatin my argument in clearer terms. There really isn’t any real difference between the learned responses of different species other than cognitive capacity. I apologize if I didn’t make that clear. My main point, though, is that the contemporary concept of morality simply does not exist. It’s fabricated through human culture, just like the religions AND rules of law different moral codes adhere to. Morality, like language, is an arbitrary system.
Well said, Sean. Couldn’t agree more.
OH! *enlightened* I grok it now.
I dunno about right and wrong, as this would involve a lot of declarative consideration. But there have been great demonstrations of relevant features of moral agents in animals, such as empathy, reciprocity, and attributions of responsibility. Some relevant findings:
1. There are 3 animals. Two animals have lots of food, one has none. One of the animals with lots of food has the ability to share his left overs – or not share at all. It’s merely a physical possibility afforded by the physical structure of the environment. The animal often gives food to the animal that has none, but does not give to the animal with plenty of food. What else but empathy would do this?
2. In a community of primates, the pre-recorded sound of one of the mothers’ babies screaming is played over an unseen speaker. All the other mothers look at the mother of the child. So they’ve all recognized who the cry was made by, they know who the cryer is the offspring of, and they seem to expect that the mother of the given cryer is the one who should be aroused to action by the cry.
While I don’t know that these animals are making anything like *should* statements in their minds, they seem to have emotional and behavioural dispositions similar to those of humans. The emotional and behavioural responses could be well accounted for by such cognitive neurological features as mirror neurons, which simulate the internal states of others using our own cognitive systems (i.e., if we see someone pick up a stick, a subset of the neurons that fire when we pick up a stick go off; the activation of this cognitive-behavioural neural system can help us understand the other person’s thinking, emotions and behaviour by triggering representations of those that we ourselves have when we act in similar ways).
I wonder if animals rear their kids to abide by particular “values” – e.g., punishing them for engaging in behaviours that put off the parents. And I wonder to what degree such parenting influences the offsprings’ “moral” development (to what degree to behavioural/emotional changes stem from punishment and reward versus normal maturation – i.e., would natural cognitive neural development have brought about enhanced “moral” behaviour in some areas regardless of parental conduct?; perhaps it’s both).
I would probably want to know if it is of animals are asking humans the same questions.
I know its been a day or more since this was posted. This is the story I thought of when I read your article. I just now found it. lol
http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/AmazingAnimals/story?id=7761337&page=1
Great story! That reminded me of a youtube vid of a mother cat feeding a litter of pups. The mother dog was not terribly maternal it seemed. Imagine if we all treated “the other”, or our natural “enemies”, as well as this cat! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ndgx1onlDg
Thats a great story 2. Thanks
At the risk of getting carried away with this theme, I have to post one more video – this is a crow who took care of an abandoned kitten, even put food in her mouth! I have never seen a cat and a bird bond like this – incredible story. And I don’t think there is a better example of altruism. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fAGzY9rnaA&feature=related
In this context a sense of Right and Wrong is assumed the equivalent of “Morality”; so yes, animals (including people) have a sense of that. The difference between dogs and cats in this regard is that the definition of right and wrong for them is defined by us – not society at large. Well, assuming their indoor pets.
That doesn’t mean our definitions of right and wrong and good ones, just that they exist. One can just as easily teach a domesticated animal to bite, or not bite strangers. To sleep on, or not sleep on, a given piece of furniture. To beg, or not beg for food.
You cannot however, teach them not to lick their genitals. That doesn’t mean they don’t know it’s considered wrong – it just means there are some things in life more important than conforming to what’s been defined as morality for you, and genital licking is apparently one of them.
Which may also explain why Sara Palin’s daughter is pregnant.
Oi, what’s wrong with licking genitals? ;p
Just kiddin’.
Edward Abbey, from the wonderful book, Desert Solitaire, writing about two snakes he came across:
“I will feel their presence watching over me like totemic deities….
“How can I descent to such antrhopomorphoism? Easily – but is it, in this case entirely false? Perhaps not. I am not attributing human attributes to my snake and bird acquaintances. I recognize that when they serve purposes of mine they do so for beautifully selfish reasons of their own. Which is exactly the way it should be. I suggest, however, that it’s a foolish, simple minded rationalism which denies any form of emotion to all animals but man and his dog. This is is no more justified than Moslems are in denying souls to women. It seem to me possible, even probable, that many of the nonhuman undomesticaed animals experience emotions unkknown to us. What do coyotes mean they yodel at the moon? What are the dolphins trying so patiently to tell us?”
Then he quotes Walt Whitman:
“They do not sweat and whine about their condition,
They do not lie awake in the dark and weep for their sins…”
(The quote continues: “they do not make me sick discussing their duty to God, not one is dissatisfied, not one is demented with the mania of owning things, not one kneels to another, nor to his kind that lived thousands of years ago.”
I think it depends on how do you define ‘morality’. If you think a dog biting human is right for that dog, then the same goes for man killing another man from another family, or another country, or whatever the difference. But I don’t think so.
but the dog protecting the rapist does not know that his master is a rapist or a murderer. If I had just found out that my father was a murderer and someone tried to shoot him i would probably still protect him because the emotional ties are stronger than the information. The case is the same with the dog you mentioned.
Obviously animal morality isnt the same as human morality but as maintained by darwin it is ridiculous to propose that a being capable of feeling empathy, sympathy and love, as higher animals demonstrably can, does not have some sense of morality.
Also, to compare animal morality with human morality is fruitless as the term “rapist” means very little to a dog…
I believe that animals do have morality. The chimpanzee, for example, is a normally aggressive primate. Scientists at the Centre for Great Apes in Florida have a chimp called Knuckles who has cerebral palsy. He’s the only known captive chimp with cerebral palsy. The chimps don’t subject him to the intimidation that the older males usually subject each other to. Chimps understand that it is wrong to take advantage of someone who is unable to defend his-/herself. There’s a lot of examples of this kind of behavior in nature, which is evidence of animals having morality.