Do animals have morals?

[Zygimantas]

the way we see morality.

And how is that?

[obfuscator]

the way we see morality.

And how is that?

We see morality as something that is of two states, "right" or "wrong". As others have posted, some things are generally considered to be immoral, but with many things there are many differing opinions about the morality of something.

 

An animal cannot comprehend right or wrong the way we see them. An animal does something for reward or by instinct (which humans do to a degree as well).

[Zygimantas]

the way we see morality.

And how is that?

We see morality as something that is of two states, "right" or "wrong". As others have posted, some things are generally considered to be immoral, but with many things there are many differing opinions about the morality of something.

 

An animal cannot comprehend right or wrong the way we see them. An animal does something for reward or by instinct (which humans do to a degree as well).

Ah, so the argument is that animals do not have morals because even though they do what is instinctively good for them, they don't necessarily know that what they are doing is right, they just do it.

 

Right?

[Omar]

Emotion yes. Morals, no. Long post when I am not drunk.

 

I like the way you think. :thumbup:

I don't, that could have been pretty funny.

 

I remember reading something about animals having some type of morals not long ago, but I can't for the life of me remember where.

[Edit] Found it. This article just keeps being relevant... http://artofmanliness.com/2010/07/25/our-disembodied-selves-and-the-decline-of-empathy/

Recent research has lent much evidence to the latter view. Especially interesting is the discovery of “mirror neurons” in the brains of humans and some other animals.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/5373379/Animals-can-tell-right-from-wrong.html

According to this article, animals who live in groups have some kind of morality. And that makes perfect sense if you think morals is a social survival system. They allow us not to be kicked out of a group. I think it was Freud who said that, on disillusionment and war.

[obfuscator]

the way we see morality.

And how is that?

We see morality as something that is of two states, "right" or "wrong". As others have posted, some things are generally considered to be immoral, but with many things there are many differing opinions about the morality of something.

 

An animal cannot comprehend right or wrong the way we see them. An animal does something for reward or by instinct (which humans do to a degree as well).

Ah, so the argument is that animals do not have morals because even though they do what is instinctively good for them, they don't necessarily know that what they are doing is right, they just do it.

 

Right?

 

Exactly. It's just the concept and understanding of what they're doing that they're missing, not the actions themselves.

[Zygimantas]

the way we see morality.

And how is that?

We see morality as something that is of two states, "right" or "wrong". As others have posted, some things are generally considered to be immoral, but with many things there are many differing opinions about the morality of something.

 

An animal cannot comprehend right or wrong the way we see them. An animal does something for reward or by instinct (which humans do to a degree as well).

Ah, so the argument is that animals do not have morals because even though they do what is instinctively good for them, they don't necessarily know that what they are doing is right, they just do it.

 

Right?

 

Exactly. It's just the concept and understanding of what they're doing that they're missing, not the actions themselves.

So then how could we go about finding out if they have this "understanding"?

[Skully]

They feel no emotion

 

Can a dog not have its day?

 

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?

It's not emotion, it's instinct. When master gets home, the chance of going on a walk increases, and the dog knows that going on walks feels good, so it get excited.

Hahaha that's so hypocritical.

[Omar]

Hahaha that's so hypocritical.

Something can feel good and not be emotional. For example, eating strawberries. Also, that's not what hypocritical means.

[re4p3r1]

Something can feel good and not be emotional. For example, eating strawberries. Also, that's not what hypocritical means.

i don't understand that, feeling good (aka happy) has nothing to do with emotions?

[Bloodstain]

the way we see morality.

And how is that?

We see morality as something that is of two states, "right" or "wrong". As others have posted, some things are generally considered to be immoral, but with many things there are many differing opinions about the morality of something.

 

An animal cannot comprehend right or wrong the way we see them. An animal does something for reward or by instinct (which humans do to a degree as well).

Ah, so the argument is that animals do not have morals because even though they do what is instinctively good for them, they don't necessarily know that what they are doing is right, they just do it.

 

Right?

 

Exactly. It's just the concept and understanding of what they're doing that they're missing, not the actions themselves.

So then how could we go about finding out if they have this "understanding"?

 

 

Well, to me it would seem that to understand something is morally good or bad (which I think is silly, morals are invented by humans), you'd have to be aware of yourself and the world around you. Not many animals are self aware, and none except humans are capable of reason, right?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i don't understand that, feeling good (aka happy) has nothing to do with emotions?

 

Fulfilling drives, like hunger, thirst, reproduction, exercise, etc. Physically feeling good and happy aren't the same anyway

[Zygimantas]

Well, to me it would seem that to understand something is morally good or bad (which I think is silly, morals are invented by humans), you'd have to be aware of yourself and the world around you. Not many animals are self aware, and none except humans are capable of reason, right?

 

How do we know that animals aren't self aware?

[Bloodstain]

Well, to me it would seem that to understand something is morally good or bad (which I think is silly, morals are invented by humans), you'd have to be aware of yourself and the world around you. Not many animals are self aware, and none except humans are capable of reason, right?

 

How do we know that animals aren't self aware?

 

Mirror test is the best we got.

[Quyneax]

Seriously... this is going on waay to far without even defining morals properly. Also, humans are animals. If 'animals' don't have morals, then the subset 'humans' obviously have neither.

 

If morality is "Sense of what is right and wrong" I tell you to look at the (insert mental disorder) person who sincerely believes killing is good. Look at extremists. You're not telling me Osama bin Laden doesn't sincerely believe 9/11 was good. Obviously, the sense of right and wrong is based on culture.

 

If morality is absolute, then it's simple: I say it's not. Now prove who's right.

[Alg]

If morality is absolute, then it's simple: I say it's not. Now prove who's right.

The people who believe that morality is absolute are the ones that believe that it doesn't, or can't, exist because the evidence suggests that it isn't absolute.

And while I'm at it, being concise is very overrated.

 

Again I'd say that if they have morals, they aren't in the sense that we know them because most of our morals deal with life in a human society.

[Bloodstain]

Seriously... this is going on waay to far without even defining morals properly. Also, humans are animals. If 'animals' don't have morals, then the subset 'humans' obviously have neither.

 

If morality is "Sense of what is right and wrong" I tell you to look at the (insert mental disorder) person who sincerely believes killing is good. Look at extremists. You're not telling me Osama bin Laden doesn't sincerely believe 9/11 was good. Obviously, the sense of right and wrong is based on culture.

 

If morality is absolute, then it's simple: I say it's not. Now prove who's right.

 

It's kinda moved past morals and into emotions. Morals are a human invention kinda, so of course animals don't have it. And we're a special kind of animal

[Skeptical]

No.

 

They also do not have "souls": morality is entirely a human construct, although I do strongly suspect that if intelligent life is ever made contact with, they would possess a similar set of guidelines to the living of one's life.

[Zierro]

How do we know that animals aren't self aware?

 

Mirror test is the best we got.

 

How do they know animals don't react in the way scientists expect them to react (another question I have) because of the fact that they aren't self-aware? Maybe it's just because they don't understand the concept behind a mirror.

 

As for the other question, what kind of reaction to the reflection would suggest that the animal is self-aware?

 

If the mirror test is really the best we got, I guess we're clueless then.

[Alg]

How do they know animals don't react in the way scientists expect them to react (another question I have) because of the fact that they aren't self-aware? Maybe it's just because they don't understand the concept behind a mirror.

 

As for the other question, what kind of reaction to the reflection would suggest that the animal is self-aware?

 

If the mirror test is really the best we got, I guess we're clueless then.

The reaction would be the animal knowing that the reflection is its own reflection and not another individual of the same species.

Animals that pass according to the Wiki are great apes (bonobos, chimpanzees, orangutans, humans, and gorillas), bottlenose dolphins, orcas, elephants, and European Magpies.

Unreliable Source

[Zierro]

The reaction would be the animal knowing that the reflection is its own reflection and not another individual of the same species.

 

I was asking what kind of behavior proves that the animal knows it is its own reflection. Couldn't the behavior that "proves their self-awareness" imply something completely different?

 

Darwin seemed to have the right idea behind the flaws of the experiment:

 

While visiting a zoo, Darwin held a mirror up to an orangutan and recorded the animal's reaction, which included making a series of facial expressions. Darwin noted that the significance of these expressions was ambiguous, and could either signify that the primate was making expressions at what it perceived to be another animal, or it could be playing a sort of game with a new toy.

 

EDIT: I read more of the article and now it does seem like a pretty solid (although not foolproof) method of determining whether animals exhibit self-awareness or not:

 

Gordon Gallup built on these observations by devising a test that attempts to gauge self-awareness by determining whether an animal can recognize its own reflection in a mirror as an image of itself. This is accomplished by surreptitiously marking the animal with two odourless dye spots. The test spot is on a part of the animal that would be visible in front of a mirror, while the control spot is in an accessible but hidden part of the animal's body. Scientists observe that the animal reacts in a manner consistent with it being aware that the test dye is located on its own body while ignoring the control dye. Such behaviour includes turning and adjusting of the body in order to better view the marking in the mirror, or poking at the marking on its own body with a limb while viewing the mirror [instead of poking at the image in the mirror].

[Bloodstain]

Animals that pass according to the Wiki are great apes (bonobos, chimpanzees, orangutans, humans, and gorillas), bottlenose dolphins, orcas, elephants, and European Magpies.

Unreliable Source

 

Interestingly, those are the animals we consider most social.

[decebal]

People seem to become amazingly enlightened in the shower.

 

I personally believe they *do* have morals, however not as fierce as us humans, and quite honestly, their "morals" are more like "instincts". Dont forget dogs wont normally kill other dogs, that's in my opinion a sign of morality.

[Alg]

I personally believe they *do* have morals, however not as fierce as us humans, and quite honestly, their "morals" are more like "instincts". Dont forget dogs wont normally kill other dogs, that's in my opinion a sign of morality.

With an explanation. Wolves are pack animals, right? Killing off others in your pack isn't a good idea if you rely on them to survive. It's refraining from an action because it could have negative consequences.

Could say the same about human morals though.

 

(I do agree)

[Dizzle229]

Morals: I dunno.

Emotions: Yes.

[Skeptical]

Animals cannot have morals any more than they can have cities: they are both entirely human constructs. There is no all-knowing-pumpkin-in-the-sky who has created of a code of morality which all humans magically posses.

 

Having declared my position as a nihilist, I now withdraw from this conversation.

[Zygimantas]

Animals cannot have morals any more than they can have cities: they are both entirely human constructs. There is no all-knowing-pumpkin-in-the-sky who has created of a code of morality which all humans magically posses.

 

Having declared my position as a nihilist, I now withdraw from this conversation.

What if we look at morality as more than a human construct?