Do animals have morals?

[obfuscator]

Animals definitely have emotions - as assassin said morality is a human construct, so no, they don't understand the difference between right and wrong.

 

They do what they do for attention - if being a good pet gets them fed, they'll do that.

But isn't whats right or wrong based on emotions? If you look at morality as a human construct then there is no point in even debating this topic because the very definition of the word provides the answer.

 

Not at all. Does this mean a remorseless killer is immoral just because he doesn't have a negative emotional feeling when he commits an immoral action?

 

In terms of emotions - I think it's blatantly obvious that animals have basic ones. A dog who has been shunned will be sad, a cat in a bath will be angry, etc. But yes, morality is a human construct.

 

I think my post was badly worded - morality being a human construct, emotion being separate.

[Alg]

An animal isn't going to have remorse over killing and eating a smaller animal because it's survival.

[Alg]

That's not a moral. A moral is, "Wow, that was a mean thing to do. I won't do it again."

 

What the dog developed was fear. "Wow, I peed in the garage and that guy beat the hell out of me with a stick. Better not do that again."

According to a psychologist whose name I can't remember, that kind of thing carries over to humans too. Was something with development stages...

Authority stage (Morals determined by strength of authority) For the first few years.

Group stage (Morals defined by group beliefs) From then until death for most.

Personal stage (Morals defined by personal beliefs) From previous until death in a few individuals.

 

Or something like that.

In general, most people are going to have the same beliefs as the group they're a part of, and they aren't going to speak out for fear of being ostracized from it. Early on, people won't do things out of fear of punishment, and that even carries over to modern life in some cases.

 

I probably butchered that theory, too. If anyone knows it, feel free to correct as necessary.

[KittyKat]

Some primates have a rudimentary sense of morality and have been shown to share food with one another without any reward or benefit in return.

POW!

[Dupin]

Sorry, I didn't read all of the posts in the thread.

 

Morality is an invention of the weak to rule the strong. As mentioned, it is a human construct, and does not really exist.

 

Many animals have a natural instinct for the preservation of their species, but this is different. Morality is extremely subjective, so it's hard to provide a clear answer.

 

So I would answer "No", but the truth is more complicated than that.

[KittyKat]

Sorry, I didn't read all of the posts in the thread.

 

Morality is an invention of the poor to rule the rich. As mentioned, it is a human construct, and does not really exist.

 

Many animals have a natural instinct for the preservation of their species, but this is different. Morality is extremely subjective, so it's hard to provide a clear answer.

 

So I would answer "No", but the truth is more complicated than that.

 

Morality has no basis in socioeconomics. Behavioral conduct has existed for far longer than currency has.

[Dupin]

Sorry, I didn't read all of the posts in the thread.

 

Morality is an invention of the weak to rule the strong. As mentioned, it is a human construct, and does not really exist.

 

Many animals have a natural instinct for the preservation of their species, but this is different. Morality is extremely subjective, so it's hard to provide a clear answer.

 

So I would answer "No", but the truth is more complicated than that.

 

Morality has no basis in socioeconomics. Behavioral conduct has existed for far longer than currency has.

Fix'd. I didn't mean to say anything about money.

[fakeitormakeit2]

That's not a moral. A moral is, "Wow, that was a mean thing to do. I won't do it again."

 

What the dog developed was fear. "Wow, I peed in the garage and that guy beat the hell out of me with a stick. Better not do that again."

According to a psychologist whose name I can't remember, that kind of thing carries over to humans too. Was something with development stages...

Authority stage (Morals determined by strength of authority) For the first few years.

Group stage (Morals defined by group beliefs) From then until death for most.

Personal stage (Morals defined by personal beliefs) From previous until death in a few individuals.

 

Or something like that.

In general, most people are going to have the same beliefs as the group they're a part of, and they aren't going to speak out for fear of being ostracized from it. Early on, people won't do things out of fear of punishment, and that even carries over to modern life in some cases.

 

I probably butchered that theory, too. If anyone knows it, feel free to correct as necessary.

I think I know what theory you're talking about. Is it Kohlberg's six stages of morality? Stage 1 is based on punishment and obedience orientation, stage 2 is individualism and exchange, stage 3 is interpersonal relationship development, stage 4 is maintaining social order, stage 5 is social contract and individual rights and the final stage is universal principles of morality.

[Giordano]

But isn't whats right or wrong based on emotions? If you look at morality as a human construct then there is no point in even debating this topic because the very definition of the word provides the answer.

Uh, no. Beating up and eating a cute little bird seems wrong, but to the dog it's pretty enjoyable thus he is happy.

 

The owner arrives home from work, I know MY dog doesn't think for a walk or food or anything else because we don't give it to him once we arrive, but he likes our presence. Our presence isn't right or wrong its just something he likes and thus is happy.

 

We hit him with a broom because he peed inside the garage, it wasn't a morally wrong thing to do but he's taught not to do it so he's scared when we come out because we'll be upset and probably hit him.

 

Animals don't have morals. But saying they don't have emotions is the stupidest thing I've heard. Thinking emotions = human intelligence which leads you to say animals don't emotions is stupid as well.

Well, maybe its just not morally wrong for the dog to kill the bird, animals probably just have a different level of empathy.

 

Its not going to attack you because you give it food, and that makes the dog realize that that would be a wrong thing to do, so it becomes a moral.

 

And if I got hit every time I did something, I'd probably soon realize its not a good idea as well.

That's not a moral. A moral is, "Wow, that was a mean thing to do. I won't do it again."

 

What the dog developed was fear. "Wow, I peed in the garage and that guy beat the hell out of me with a stick. Better not do that again."

I wasn't talking about the dog peeing in fear; what about those animals that help their weak and feed their sick that somebody said a few pages back. What would that be?

[Bloodstain]

 

I wasn't talking about the dog peeing in fear; what about those animals that help their weak and feed their sick that somebody said a few pages back. What would that be?

 

Well my guess would be it could possibly be that they are pack animals, so the more healthy members they have, the more they theoretically prosper so to speak. If they're related, then ensuring the sick live would mean their families genes get passed on. Some sort of evolutionary reason.

 

There doesn't seem to be concrete evidence one way or the other, but I'm inclined to believe that an organism that can't reason, isn't self aware, and has a low brain function and small brain doesn't have emotion, or morals (which are unique to humans as I see it). That's probably part of the reason a wolf/dog/whatever trapped in a trap will chew it's leg off to get out, they experience pain different because of a lack of emotion. That's how I see it.

[Dupin]

But isn't whats right or wrong based on emotions? If you look at morality as a human construct then there is no point in even debating this topic because the very definition of the word provides the answer.

Uh, no. Beating up and eating a cute little bird seems wrong, but to the dog it's pretty enjoyable thus he is happy.

 

The owner arrives home from work, I know MY dog doesn't think for a walk or food or anything else because we don't give it to him once we arrive, but he likes our presence. Our presence isn't right or wrong its just something he likes and thus is happy.

 

We hit him with a broom because he peed inside the garage, it wasn't a morally wrong thing to do but he's taught not to do it so he's scared when we come out because we'll be upset and probably hit him.

 

Animals don't have morals. But saying they don't have emotions is the stupidest thing I've heard. Thinking emotions = human intelligence which leads you to say animals don't emotions is stupid as well.

Well, maybe its just not morally wrong for the dog to kill the bird, animals probably just have a different level of empathy.

 

Its not going to attack you because you give it food, and that makes the dog realize that that would be a wrong thing to do, so it becomes a moral.

 

And if I got hit every time I did something, I'd probably soon realize its not a good idea as well.

That's not a moral. A moral is, "Wow, that was a mean thing to do. I won't do it again."

 

What the dog developed was fear. "Wow, I peed in the garage and that guy beat the hell out of me with a stick. Better not do that again."

I wasn't talking about the dog peeing in fear; what about those animals that help their weak and feed their sick that somebody said a few pages back. What would that be?

Preservation of the species. They instinctually feel the need to preserve their companions. There are also many who do not feel this need, or who intstinctually feel the opposite.

[Zygimantas]

[hide]

But isn't whats right or wrong based on emotions? If you look at morality as a human construct then there is no point in even debating this topic because the very definition of the word provides the answer.

Uh, no. Beating up and eating a cute little bird seems wrong, but to the dog it's pretty enjoyable thus he is happy.

 

The owner arrives home from work, I know MY dog doesn't think for a walk or food or anything else because we don't give it to him once we arrive, but he likes our presence. Our presence isn't right or wrong its just something he likes and thus is happy.

 

We hit him with a broom because he peed inside the garage, it wasn't a morally wrong thing to do but he's taught not to do it so he's scared when we come out because we'll be upset and probably hit him.

 

Animals don't have morals. But saying they don't have emotions is the stupidest thing I've heard. Thinking emotions = human intelligence which leads you to say animals don't emotions is stupid as well.

Well, maybe its just not morally wrong for the dog to kill the bird, animals probably just have a different level of empathy.

 

Its not going to attack you because you give it food, and that makes the dog realize that that would be a wrong thing to do, so it becomes a moral.

 

And if I got hit every time I did something, I'd probably soon realize its not a good idea as well.

That's not a moral. A moral is, "Wow, that was a mean thing to do. I won't do it again."

 

What the dog developed was fear. "Wow, I peed in the garage and that guy beat the hell out of me with a stick. Better not do that again."

I wasn't talking about the dog peeing in fear; what about those animals that help their weak and feed their sick that somebody said a few pages back. What would that be?

Preservation of the species. They instinctually feel the need to preserve their companions. There are also many who do not feel this need, or who intstinctually feel the opposite.

[/hide] Does this instinct not form the basis for our morals? I mean, we feel more empathy for people who are closer to us in genetic makeup because we want to preserve our species, which in turn leads most of us to thinking that murder is wrong. Its because of the emotions that are caused by instincts.

[Bloodstain]

Does this instinct not form the basis for our morals? I mean, we feel more empathy for people who are closer to us in genetic makeup because we want to preserve our species, which in turn leads most of us to thinking that murder is wrong. Its because of the emotions that are caused by instincts.

 

But morals aren't the same thing, nothing is inherently right or wrong. We decide what is right or wrong, and that takes a higher brain function than other animals have imo. Taking care of the sick in your pack isn't inherently right or wrong, neither is culling the herd.

[Perakp]

Ofcourse they have, what a silly thought to think otherwise.

[Guy]

Ofcourse they have, what a silly thought to think otherwise.

What sort of level of morals do you think they have?

 

I personally disagree with you, having morals such as 'killing is bad' is against their natural instincts. I would be interested to know what sort of morals you think they hold?

[Zygimantas]

Does this instinct not form the basis for our morals? I mean, we feel more empathy for people who are closer to us in genetic makeup because we want to preserve our species, which in turn leads most of us to thinking that murder is wrong. Its because of the emotions that are caused by instincts.

 

But morals aren't the same thing, nothing is inherently right or wrong. We decide what is right or wrong, and that takes a higher brain function than other animals have imo. Taking care of the sick in your pack isn't inherently right or wrong, neither is culling the herd.

But what in our brains makes us decide what is right instead of wrong? I just think that humans and animals make their morals based on their instincts and emotions, of course for humans not all morals are the simple, but some are. I could not make myself think that killing is right, because if I did kill someone, no matter how hard I would try not to, I would still feel bad. Why would I feel bad? Because I have empathy. Why do I have empathy? Because it stops me from killing or hurting people, and makes it easier to preserve the human race. Murder being wrong is not a moral we decide to have, it is a moral that we are forced to have.

 

Monkeys have also been shown to have empathy for other monkeys. There was an experiment done where the scientists put a chimpanzee in a room, and there was a lever. When the monkey smacked the lever it got some food. But then there is a window in the room that leads to another room, where another chimpanzee is placed. They have never seen each other before and are not relatives. Now, when the 1st chimpanzee hits the lever the 2nd gets an electrical shock. The first chimpanzee then stops hitting the lever and goes without food for a long time in order not to hurt the other chimpanzee that it doesn't even know.

 

It is not because the chimp simply decided that hurting the other is wrong, it is because he felt empathy toward the other which made him think that hurting the other is wrong. This is similar to why we have certain morals.

[magekillr]

Depends which kind of animal you're talking about. I'd say most mammals have a "moral code" among their species. In any case, I don't really believe in morality because my sense of right and wrong is different than a religious person's sense of right and wrong. I don't think it's wrong to take drugs or drink, a religious person might. However, those activities do become "immoral" when others are suffering because of it, especially children who have no control over the situation. So I think rather than asking if animals have morals it'd be more apt to question the idea of morality in the first place.

[Zygimantas]

Depends which kind of animal you're talking about. I'd say most mammals have a "moral code" among their species. In any case, I don't really believe in morality because my sense of right and wrong is different than a religious person's sense of right and wrong. I don't think it's wrong to take drugs or drink, a religious person might. However, those activities do become "immoral" when others are suffering because of it, especially children who have no control over the situation. So I think rather than asking if animals have morals it'd be more apt to question the idea of morality in the first place.

Some morals are more of a choice, but I still think they originated in a way that makes sense. Take homosexuality for example, some people might say it is wrong because of some religious teachings. But take into account that the majority of people are heterosexual, and that we usually fear the unknown and then it makes sense why religious texts would say that homosexuality is immoral. A lot of people view homosexuals as abnormal, and because many tend to fear the abnormal they decide that it is not a good thing. Therefore, because of their fear of something that seems unusual, people tend to believe that homosexuality is wrong.

[Alg]

Isn't morality the sense of right and wrong?

[Saru Inc]

Isn't morality the sense of right and wrong?

 

 

Eh, I see it more as is it right because you say so, or because humanity says so?

 

Or

 

Is it wrong because you say so, or because humanity says so?

 

It's a sense of right and wrong, but the terms "right," and "wrong," themselves tend to be vague. I'd say morals are what you personally believe to be right and wrong, thus killing could be a good moral to some people. However many people tend to interchange them with laws; for example, my mom believes in Universal morals, but actually all she wants in her morals everywhere. I'm prolife/prochoice (kind of a hybrid) because I believe it too be morally correct, however I know that just because it's my morals doesn't mean it's anyone elses.

 

Which is why asking if animals have morals isn't always a straight shot. You'd have to get their interpretations. After all, as I read in some post earlier about the gorillas sharing, they might not have been doing it to be morally correct, maybe they were receiving a reward. We don't know why an animal does what they do *if* you bring morals into the question. Maybe all mammals have selective morals, or simply intuitive instinct for the survival of their race (which may include sharing, life preserving, or just generally "morally" influenced actions.)

[Bloodstain]

 

Monkeys have also been shown to have empathy for other monkeys. There was an experiment done where the scientists put a chimpanzee in a room, and there was a lever. When the monkey smacked the lever it got some food. But then there is a window in the room that leads to another room, where another chimpanzee is placed. They have never seen each other before and are not relatives. Now, when the 1st chimpanzee hits the lever the 2nd gets an electrical shock. The first chimpanzee then stops hitting the lever and goes without food for a long time in order not to hurt the other chimpanzee that it doesn't even know.

 

It is not because the chimp simply decided that hurting the other is wrong, it is because he felt empathy toward the other which made him think that hurting the other is wrong. This is similar to why we have certain morals.

 

Uh, so how do they know it was because they had empathy? Seems like jumping to conclusions to me

[Furah]

They feel no emotion

Dogs get excited when their master returns from a long day of work. Is this emotion, or is it merely a biological response to an external stimuli? And if the latter, couldn't the same be argued for human beings?

Actually it is being submissive, dogs have a pack mentality. These displays of affection you see are actually ways your dog shows respect to you as the dominant male or female of the pack.

[Zygimantas]

 

Monkeys have also been shown to have empathy for other monkeys. There was an experiment done where the scientists put a chimpanzee in a room, and there was a lever. When the monkey smacked the lever it got some food. But then there is a window in the room that leads to another room, where another chimpanzee is placed. They have never seen each other before and are not relatives. Now, when the 1st chimpanzee hits the lever the 2nd gets an electrical shock. The first chimpanzee then stops hitting the lever and goes without food for a long time in order not to hurt the other chimpanzee that it doesn't even know.

 

It is not because the chimp simply decided that hurting the other is wrong, it is because he felt empathy toward the other which made him think that hurting the other is wrong. This is similar to why we have certain morals.

 

Uh, so how do they know it was because they had empathy? Seems like jumping to conclusions to me

Because we would most likely do the same thing if we were in the experiment, and a psychopath would probably not give a damn and keep hitting the lever to fulfill its own needs. The chimpanzee is aware that the other monkey is hurting, if it did not care for it then it would continue to hit the lever for food. But it did care for it enough to not hit the lever for a long time ( until the chimp was insanely hungry and hit the lever to insure its own survival, which we would probably do too). The best explanation would be empathy. Of course we can never know ANYTHING 100%, but this seems to be the most logical reason.

[Guest Rob]

Would the few stories of dolphins saving human lives count as "Moral", or other instances of humans being saved by animals?

[obfuscator]

Would the few stories of dolphins saving human lives count as "Moral", or other instances of humans being saved by animals?

It depends - it certainly shows emotion and empathy towards another living being, but I doubt they see saving lives as a "moral" thing to do the way we see morality.