Do animals have morality?

Matias66

Do animals have morality? - - - -

No. One may say that they show 'pro-social behavior', but this would be a kind of behavior that we - the only moral animals on earth! - interpret as 'moral'.
Morality is a set of norms, rules, commandments and values. These 'exist' in a counterfactual world of what ought to be, but animal do not live in such a world. Their world is full of things that are what they are.

Morality has to be distinguished from strategic behavior (If I want to acheive this goal, I have to behave in a way that help me to acheive this goal), which is quite common among highly social and intelligent animals, like apes, dolphins or crows.

Animals may show empathy and fairness, but not because some norm or commandment tells them to do so. No chimps does ever learn You have to groom other members of your group - This behavior is hardwired - by evolution - in their brains because it pays off. Most of it is basically tit-for-tat: If I groom you, you'll groom me. If I am friendly towards alpha, this will improve my status in the group.

In a truly moral framework, it would be wrong to ask "what's in for me?". "Why should I always tell the truth, or : Why am I supposed not to steal, if this would benefit me and if nobody is looking and I'm confident to get away with it?". In a moral world, you should not do X, and you should do Y, just because it is the right thing to do, not because it somehow benefits you.

Chimps do not have anything comparable, they have no rules, no norms to follow. As highly social animals they have pro-social instincts, and they are intelligent enough to practice some strategic thinking, but that's all.

There is a sort of common human behavior that does not exist in other species and that could be seeen as a litmus test for true moral behavior: so-called third-party punishment: When I witness someone violating a moral norm, I feel obligated to punish the evil-doer, even - and this is crucial - if that punishment entails some disadvantage for me. Why ? Because I feel loyal to the norm / rule / value, not necessarily to this very person that is harrassed by the evil-doer. This identification with moral norms and values is typical for human beings as moral animals.

T Clark

Welcome to the forum.

No. One may say that they show 'pro-social behavior', but this would be a kind of behavior that we - the only moral animals on earth! - interpret as 'moral'.
Morality is a set of norms, rules, commandments and values. These 'exist' in a counterfactual world of what ought to be, but animal do not live in such a world. Their world is full of things that are what they are. — Matias66

This and the rest of this post have a lot of unsupported presumptions.

Animals may show empathy and fairness, but not because some norm or commandment tells them to do so. — Matias66

Moral behavior does not require a "norm or commandment."

No chimps does ever learn You have to groom other members of your group - This behavior is hardwired - by evolution - in their brains because it pays off. Most of it is basically tit-for-tat: If I groom you, you'll groom me. If I am friendly towards alpha, this will improve my status in the group. — Matias66

I'm skeptical. Do you have backup for this?

When I witness someone violating a moral norm, I feel obligated to punish the evil-doer, even - and this is crucial - if that punishment entails some disadvantage for me. Why ? Because I feel loyal to the norm / rule / value, not necessarily to this very person that is harrassed by the evil-doer. — Matias66

This is not true for me and for many, perhaps most, other people. I think you're talking about moralistic, not moral, behavior.

Tim3003

When I witness someone violating a moral norm, I feel obligated to punish the evil-doer, even - and this is crucial - if that punishment entails some disadvantage for me. Why ? Because I feel loyal to the norm / rule / value, not necessarily to this very person that is harrassed by the evil-doer. This identification with moral norms and values is typical for human beings as moral animals. — Matias66

'Obligated'? If I see somene being mugged at knife-point I don't feel obligated to tackle the assailant and put myself at risk. I want to help of course, but not by risking my own life. Someone who did rush in would be hailed as a hero. But is heroism expected of us all? I don't think so.

In differentiating human morality from the pure instincts of chimps I think you need to show that the different behaviour is learned by humans rather than simply being the effect of more sophisticted (invariably social and altruistic) instinct. Human morality is often put down to the existance of choice. I.e. I have the choice to tackle the mugger, or not. Of course that choice is heavily influenced by my emotions - fear of harm vs desire to help. Which one wins out would differ from person to person. So is that really a 'choice'? I can by force of will ignore my prevailing urge for self-preservation and rush in; or I can slink away. I'm guessing chimps would act similarly to save members of their own group from attack by another group. But would they all? Maybe some would hang back, scared..

In a moral world, you should not do X, and you should do Y, just because it is the right thing to do, not because it somehow benefits you. — Matias66

Surely what makes it 'the right thing to do' is that it benefits society, as opposed to benefitting you individually. And the knowledge of what benefits society is hard-wired in us as part of the way we as social animals have evolved. Most of us know what is right and what is wrong, regardless of what benefits us personally. Even the burglar knows what he does is 'wrong', but his desire for the cash he'll raise outweighs his sense of guilt. In that sense he/she is an outlying minority in social evolutionary terms, not a disproof; dangerous but small enough not to harm the majority too much.

In addition I think what divides us from chimps is language. We can use it to develop a far more subtle and sophisticated morality which can be better taught and understood. Other than language and the conciously controllable will language allows I see little difference.

180 Proof

↪Matias66

From an old thread on a related topic:

Only expressions of morality (codes of conduct, or normative conventions) are "social constructs". Humans are eusocial animals and instincts for (a) reciprocal harm avoidance, (b) burden-sharing and (c) discouraging free-loading / burden-shifting – my terminology – constitute human eusociality. Studies in early human development demonstrate fairness (b, c) and inclusivity (a, b) preferences (i.e. empathy instincts) are expressed prior to 'normative' socialization ...

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/do-kids-have-a-fundamental-sense-of-fairness/

Our manifest 'moralities' are then socially constructed, with all the cultural-ecological variation (drift) this implies, extending as well as supervening on these empathy instincts. Studies in primates, cetaceans, elephants and other eusocial mammal species have also shown similar degrees of empathy as well. Consider ...

https://yoursay.plos.org/2012/03/27/should-chimpanzees-have-moral-standing-an-interview-with-frans-de-waal/ — 180 Proof

Agent Smith

Good points OP.

I've myself pondered upon the vexing issue of how even altruism in the end is selfish.

The way I (attempt to) save the phenomena as it were is to take a more nuanced approach. True, altruism is selfish, but contextualize that within the following undeniable truths:

1. Can one truly remove oneself from the equation of altruism? It, as of the moment, is impossible (no matter how altruistic you are, you're gonna reap some benefits). Do you begrudge a tiger if it attacks you? The tiger can't help it, it's nature is not something it chooses to be. Likewise, we too can't avoid acting in our own interests, but we must acknowledge that an altruist, all said and done, uniquely and distinctly, also deems the interest of others as equally or more important than his/her own. That's something that counts in my book.

2. The altruist also, if all goes well, reduces (quantitatively) his gain from an action i.e. if s/he could've got $50, s/he's willing to accept less (monetizing a problem is as good as mathematizing it; things begin to make sense).

Summary:

1. The altruist, despite an innate selfishness, seeks to aid others. Me = Others. Point earned!

2. The altruist, for the simple reason that profit for himself is ineluctable, attempts to mathematically reduce them. Me < Others. Another point earned!

1. I value others
2. I value others more than myself — Altruist

Hillary

I just have to look at my dog to know they have mores, moral. She comes by close, while we don't watch, takes a piece of food that's mine, and runs of fast to hide under the bed with the stolen piece of chicken.

They even know how to act. I turned my attention to another dog and she dropped to the ground just like that. Crying like a baby. Her poor hind leg... She bit me when I tried to help (not hard). The jealous bitch!

Varde

No.

It is delegated to them through sentient beings, such as by taming or training.

Morality is cerebral equality first ascribed to newborns prior to any other data. Good is anything considered equal and evil is unequal where morality is concerned. Cerebral equality takes sentience which is mental roaming, animals are technically different than man as they experience pre-sentience. If we are sentient then we can judge 'what is/isn't', thus finding what is equal, cerebrally. Sentience- a measure of all things in the universe; sentient beings must quarry themselves to pay for the luxury of mind in economical equinox. Evil is opposite to good integrally but in an opposed Boolean manner is solipsism, which is what succumbing to evil deeds is like.

Merkwurdichliebe

No.

It is delegated to them through sentient beings, such as by taming or training. — Varde

I agree. And it is rather simple, animals cannot be moral because they display an insufficiency in thought capacity, which indicates they are incapable of the type of abstract thinking that ethics is dependent upon.

But I disagree that it's delegated to them by "sentient" beings. Rather, it is projected onto them by "ethical" beings, quite anthropocentrically.

FrankGSterleJr

↪Matias66

I don't know about animals, but higher human intelligence seems to be accompanied by a proportionate potential for evil, or malice for malice’s sake.

And there's a subconscious yet tragic human-nature propensity to perceive the value of animal life (sometimes even human life in regularly war-torn or overpopulated famine-stricken global regions) in relation to the conditions enjoyed or suffered by that life. With the mindset of unwanted-cats disposability, it might be: ‘Oh, there’s a lot more whence they came’.

Yet these mammals’ qualities, especially their non-humanly innocence, make losing them such a great heart break for their owners.

Agent Smith

For morality to be meaingful, the following conditions need to be met:

1. Free will is necessary
2. Ought implies can

Neither of them are fulfilled in/by animals. Truth be told, doubts have been raised whether humans themselves possess free will and it's no secret that we're, many times in our lives, victims of circumstance.

Olento

And it is rather simple, animals cannot be moral because they display an insufficiency in thought capacity, which indicates they are incapable of the type of abstract thinking that ethics is dependent upon. — Merkwurdichliebe

We said the same about animal intelligence and feelings, not long time ago. Is moral something totally different?

If I'm not mistaken, according to natural sciences, there's nothing special in human beings in any regard. So whatever is intelligence, all animals have that sort of thing, to some degree. Why would moral be any different? I think the only argument would be something like humans being literally God's image, supreme special being and animals are just some kind of biological machines.

Of course we can define moral as somehing very human specific.

Relativist

Morality is a set of norms, rules, commandments and values....Animals may show empathy and fairness, — Matias66

Personally, I don't believe there exist "objective moral values" - in the sense of existing transcendantly - external to human beings. My theory is that morality is rooted in empathy. Empathy is a plausible basis for the "golden rule" - a formalism that seems to have developed independently in various cultures. We also know that psychopaths have an absence of empathy, and their behavior demonstrates an absence of morals.

If I'm right, then animals share the foundation of morality - empathy, but they lack the powers of abstraction to codify it into a "rule".

Chimps do not have anything comparable, they have no rules, no norms to follow. — Matias66

They have limited powers of abstraction and limited ability to speak to one another.

T Clark

My theory is that morality is rooted in empathy. Empathy is a plausible basis for the "golden rule" - a formalism that seems to have developed independently in various cultures. We also know that psychopaths have an absence of empathy, and their behavior demonstrates an absence of morals.

If I'm right, then animals share the foundation of morality - empathy, but they lack the powers of abstraction to codify it into a "rule". — Relativist

This makes sense to me.

180 Proof

If I'm right, then animals share the foundation of morality - empathy, but they lack the powers of abstraction to codify it into a "rule". — Relativist

Which shows the relative non-efficacy of "rules" ...

Agent Smith

empathy — Relativist

↪180 Proof

Mirror neurons, those that assume the state of other neurons, hypothesized to be the basis of empathy, do animals lack them? It would be a miracle if animal brains are that different from ours.

The worst part is that even equipped as we are with empathy, we perform so poorly in the moral department. What hope is their for animals if they're empathy-less?

180 Proof

↪Agent Smith

Animals have mirror neurons ... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_neuron

Agent Smith

↪180 Proof

So animal brains have the basic structure (mirror neurons) for empathy, assuming empathy is so effected. Perhaps an additional feature is needed to, you know, close the circuit so to speak and turn on empathy. Pure speculation of course.

180 Proof

↪Agent Smith

No speculation needed. :point:

↪180 Proof

(Read links summarizing the science.)

Agent Smith

↪180 Proof

:smile: When one lacks knowledge, one compensates with imagination.

Varde

They may have mirror neurons but are different cerebrally which means they'll fire differently.

Merkwurdichliebe

Animals have mirror neurons ... — 180 Proof

Has nothing to do with morality. Morality is more than simply imitation. And it is more than simply rule following or empathy.

Show that animals can comprehend the universal and I will concede that they have morality. Until then, all talk of animals and morality is flapping ass cheeks

180 Proof

↪Merkwurdichliebe

:roll: Arbitrary (anthropic) criterion – "the universal" – that's just "flapping ass-cheeks" to me.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/699762

Merkwurdichliebe

↪180 Proof

I'm convinced. Great support of your position. You convinced me.

180 Proof

↪Merkwurdichliebe

Fuck "convincing" – exposing you is all I'm after.

Merkwurdichliebe

Fuck convincing you –exposing you is all I'm after. — 180 Proof

What have you exposed? I predict no explanation.

Merkwurdichliebe

Only expressions of morality (codes of conduct, or normative conventions) are "social constructs". — 180 Proof

↪180 Proof

The key term is "expressions of morality". I can easily explain how mechanical devices express morality. However, the pertinent question is not how morality is expressed, but what morality is in itself? How is it lived and experienced by the moral agent? For instance, what is it that binds one to an ethical code? Why does a person hold oneself accountable to particular ethical principles regardless of consequences or rationale? If nothing else, this would require a very sophisticated self identity, one that far exceeds a survival instinct based on empathy and mimicry.

Of course we can define moral as somehing very human specific. — Olento

That is exactly what it is and for very clear reasons.

↪Agent Smith

magritte

Personally, I don't believe there exist "objective moral values" - in the sense of existing transcendantly - external to human beings. My theory is that morality is rooted in empathy. Empathy is a plausible basis for the "golden rule" - a formalism — Relativist

Isn't the golden rule an objective rule for moral values?
Personal empathy, more or less of it might be a secondary guide that overrides an objective rule in men, how does that work for animals?

Jackson

Isn't the golden rule an objective rule for moral values? — magritte

What makes it objective?

magritte

What makes it objective? — Jackson

By me, absolute is unconditional, supreme; and objective is mechanical, mind independent.
The golden rule assumes that all men are objectively reasonable and dependable, meaning all men want 'good' for themselves (derived from Plato).

Relativist

Isn't the golden rule an objective rule for moral values? — magritte

By me, absolute is unconditional, supreme; and objective is mechanical, mind independent. — magritte

Theists define Objective Moral Values (OMVs) as objectively existing (ontic) objects that exist independently of human beings. By asserting the existence of OMVs, they infer that a God must exist as their source. I don't believe such things exist.

We have moral beliefs ("x is wrong"), and I propose these beliefs are rooted (non-verbally) in feelings of empathy. It feels wrong when we see someone being hurt. We apply abstract reasoning to verbalize this into a "rule".

The golden rule is "objective truth" in the sense that it feels right to all proper functioning humans - all have the root feelings, and therefore agree with it. It's a property of humanness; it's part of our makeup. But the rules don't exist independently of us.

Agent Smith

1. Animals are moral subjects (they can suffer and enjoy).

2. Animals are not moral agents (they either lack free will or are less free than us; ought implies can).

Do animals have morality?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions