Morality in animals

[celo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GcJxRqTs5nk

Discuss.

EDIT: I didn't just come on this video, we watched it in one of my Biological Basis of Behavior (pre-med) courses.

 

[handy]

Hi, Welcome to the forum and thanks for fascinating video!

I'm a rancher and have a gazillion animals.. (OK, maybe not that many, but it can sure seem that way when it's time to feed the critters.)

We have cattle, a horse, dogs, cats, goats, chickens and a snake. With the exception of the cats and the snake, all the animals are "social" animals, with more on the cats, later....

The horse used to have other horses around, we gave up the mares a while back. He's a gelded male. We've always had a number of cattle, but not a huge amount and we don't have any other pasture except right at our ranch, so I can observe them... same with the other animals.

Once one understands the social order, one sees that animals most certainly have sense of justice, fairness, and empathy for one another. With the cattle, the social order tends to be: Eldest female rules the herd, with the hierarchy going from the eldest female through her adult daughters, then other adult cows, the babies of the eldest and her daughters then the other babies. This hierarchy is well established and maintained. Bulls and steers can more or less come and go as they please, and when a bull is courting a young heifer, all but the eldest female will defer to her. Until the mating takes place and the bull no longer is all that interested in just her... then she takes her accepted place in the hierarchy again.

When it's winter and the herd cannot eat until someone goes out and feeds them... the younger of the heifers will be the "designated mooer"... the one whose job it is to stand by and moo, moo, moo until someone comes out to feed.... Once somebody comes to get the hay, the moo changes from calling out to the humans to calling the rest of the herd. The reward for doing all this calling is that she gets to eat last.

There is also the "babysitter"... when the calves are born, one cow will stay with the babies while the other go graze... then someone will come and relieve the babysitter and she'll go and graze...Rarely is the eldest female the babysitter... however, our eldest cow, Molly has more or less "retired" and her eldest daughter, Sarah is now the matriarch. Now Molly is becoming a babysitter more often...

It really is fascinating to observe animal society... again, one needs to observe enough to understand each animal's society and understand how they are interacting within the rules of that society... but when one does, a whole new understanding of God's creation opens up!

As for empathy...one sees it as well... Take grief for instance: The cows, chickens and horses don't show a lot of grief.... however the dogs and cats certainly do. I believe this is because death is so much more a part of life for the prey animals than for the predator animals. The cattle, chickens and horses are fairly matter of fact about death... the dogs and cats grieve, withdraw, refuse to eat and show signs of depression.

Obviously, as a Christian, I don't believe that the morality we see in the animal kingdom is due to "evolution" as much as it is due to the way God created them... I'm not sure how science would even be able to establish an evolved morality... as the fossil record cannot show us things like the co-operation of chimps, designated mooers of ancient cows or the fact that a dog grieves for it's dead companion.

There is an ongoing debate around here as to whether or not animals have souls and will they be a part of the resurrection and new earth we Christians believe in. I believe they do and I believe that God created all the souls in His kingdom to have morality that is appropriate to their particular species.

 

[jasoncran]

dora go to chabad.org and look the word for soul on their search engine. it has alot to say on that. one world i like is the nephesh chaya(body that breathes).

 

[stovebolts]

Can animals laugh?...

 

[celo]

Handy, thanks for writing all that out! Very interesting. I never really "spent time" with cows and bulls so I find that fascinating. I suppose I never considered them to be a social creature but it makes perfect sense considering that they are a herd species!

I also find your idea of the ability to mourn being linked to a more hazardous lifestyle very interesting. In fact, this thought process is the basis of evolutionary psychology.

I'm an Jewish agnostic myself, as I don't personally know of any "conclusive" evidence for God. (Although I must say I like the idea, but let's leave it at that, I heard every argument and I do not wish to argue the point). But I am content with not knowing. For me, it is almost irrelevant, as I just happen to agree with many religious values on a personal and societal level.

But back on point. I have a different view on morality, evolution, and religion in that I don't see them as being mutually exclusive at all. As far as I know, the Bible is not a history or a science book. As such, I don't believe that the Bible concerns itself with scientific specifics. For example, the whole 6 day creation. The point, IMHO, is not the process by which the world was created, but the fact that God was responsible for its creation, and the days give a different sense of "importance" or progressive perfection of his design. Whether this was 6 days of different elements magically appearing out of nothing, or 13 odd billion years of stellar/organic evolution, I honestly don't see how it is relevant to the point the Bible makes in Genesis. After all, God is what he is. If that was his best answer to Moses, why would we think he would care to describe exactly how things work in other circumstances?

If you want, I can explain to you how morality could very well be a result of evolution. Again, I must stress that I find this subject independent from faith.

God created man on the 6th day IIRC.

Evolution created man towards the end of the universal time line.

Why couldn't God create the process of evolution?

The end result is identical.

I feel by focusing too much on the specifics, it is easy to forget the message.
The actual process is a bonus that is nice to know, but really irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

 

[celo]

Can animals laugh?...

There are some scientists who believe that they can. What is important is a common neural circuitry that allows for the concept of humor.

The actual "laugh" itself will be species-specific as not every animal projects social information in a similar fashion. (Dolphins communicate, but they don't speak in English ;))

If you want, I can post some actual information on the subject, if you don't want to take my word for it.

 

[handy]

When it comes to psychology... even morality, I don't have a problem with micro evolution... the idea that God set creation in place.. but then changes have happened...

Society changes a lot, and morality is influenced by one's society and one's culture...even though I don't think we ever get too far from God's standards that He put into us.

I would imagine these kinds of changes can take place in the animal kingdom as well.

I watched a show a while back about dogs... sorry, I can't remember the name of it or even which channel or if it was Netflix... but they compared the way adult dogs act when it's owner comes home and the way wild dogs and wolves act when they are young...

It involves the habit of the dog jumping up and trying to lick it's owners face. This is common behavior for most dogs, regardless of breed or size (although one probably needs to sit down for a chihuahua to lick one's face). Owner comes home and the dog goes ballistic, trying to jump up and lick.

Adult canines don't do this in the wild, but... the puppies do. This is a behavior that basically means, "Mom, Dad, I'm so glad you're home because I'm starving...FEED ME, FEED ME, FEED ME!!!!!" The licking will prompt the adult canine to ether spit out or regurgitate whatever food there is for the pups.

Since domesticated dogs don't have to learn to go hunt for food, but simply wait for the owner to get home to feed them... this juvenile behavior remains. However, I don't think the adult dog is saying "I'm starving, feed me!!!" My dog gets all happy dancing when I come home (has long since been trained not to jump or lick) and his food dish is filled pretty much all the time. He's not hungry, just genuinely glad to see me.

This is one example of a behavior whose meaning has morphed from one thing into another.... Back before dogs were domesticated, they probably did the same thing as puppies, licking the face of the adult in order to be fed... but now the behavior is no longer tied to food, but a genuine gladness that someone who was away is now home.

I think this is a fairly decent example of the evolution of emotional behavior... Again, I think that God did create the animals with emotions and moral behaviors. The Fall not only corrupted man, it had it's effect on the animal kingdom as well.

 

[celo]

I like that.

I believe I saw the same documentary on Netflix streaming. Was that the one where they showed how dogs read human faces in an identical manner that humans read faces, yet the dogs do not exhibit this behavior towards their own species? (in other words, they learned and imitated how humans read emotions despite having a different mechanism relative to their own species)

Back to morality though. The field of evolutionary psychology, which isn't even accepted by some psychologists (especially the Freudian variety), takes the position that morality evolved as a social cooperative strategy. If you are familiar with game theory, the classic prisoner's dilemma, which can be equated to social choices in general when there are limited resources and competition, is best approached and is most successful with the "Tit for Tat" strategy. (Technically, it is Tit for two Tats lol).

Tit for Tat basically says that you will cooperate and behave unless someone cheats and violates this cooperation. The best response then is to respond in kind until the cheater conforms to cooperation. (Similar to the MAD, or Mutually Assured Destruction, doctrine of the cold war in regards to strategic nuclear strike protocols).

That's basically what morality is in the evo psych view. It is a set of values held in a society that elicits some level of third party condemnation or intervention when said values are broken. The values are defined as offering the most nurturing environment for reproductive fitness or success. (Incest, for example, is morally wrong because it interferes with reproductive success; the resulting children lack genetic diversity, which may lead to dangerous expression of normally recessive alleles). Asexual organisms who reproduce via replication, like many bacteria and certain plants, would have no concept of incest (if they could think), and would never have a moral code relating to sex.

The benefits of this strategy is that social cooperation is normally upheld due to fear of third party intervention, and the satisfaction a social creature will feel by conforming. For example, you don't steel if someone is looking because this is not only illegal, but is morally unacceptable. People observing may act, and may report you to the authorities. However, people jay walk all the time when people are watching, despite it being illegal. This is because there are no (or close to zero) moral values breached by jay walking, and the fear of third party intervention is minimal.

This "moral" code is found in numerous species. The vampire bat, for example, is a highly social species that regularly preforms reciprocal altruism. The bats who found food will regurgitate some of their meal to feed those who didn't find food. Later, the bat who was helped will willingly share their meal with those who fed them in the past.

Again, I don't see how this conforms or denies religion.

One could argue that God instilled our ability to perceive morals with or without evolution as easily as one could argue that morals are a product of the environment and have nothing to do with God. [(EDIT: but then again, one could argue that God made the environment, so any product of the environment is indirectly (or directly! if you believe God knows what will happen) related to God) my point here is to show that coming to objective truth on this issue is a fruitless affair...either you have faith, or you don't. We can't agree on something of this matter like we can that 1+1 =2)]

I prefer the former personally, yet this debate is inconclusive as long as you have people on both sides. There is no "standard" of evidence that everyone will ever agree on, especially with regard to the interpretation and validity of scripture. So to each his/her own!!!

 

[Pard]

Clearly there is something going on. That's evident. My younger dog holds the door for my older dog because she doesn't know how (or is afraid, or whatever). My older dog has taught the younger dog a lot of various tricks. Last year my younger dog went to our place in Maine for the first time and the very first morning we were there they both disappeared. We later got a call from my cousin saying he saw two poodles walking around down his way (about a mile or so). Turns out my older dog was showing the younger one all the foot paths and game trails.

My younger dog won't go anywhere unless the older one goes along. And she is really good at getting him in trouble for things he didn't do. Like she will sometimes get up and pull stuff off of the counter and than walk away for him to come and get caught.

They are not stupid and they have some sense of what's what. No disputing that, however I wouldn't call it "morality". They are social, as are pretty much all living things. Animals watch out for one another, that's for sure, and they have structure, I've seen it in the critters I hunt. When you come on a pack of deer one is always designated as the "spotter" and then that one gets a break to graze while another deer comes to spot. They are usually the younger ones.

I just hesitate to call it "morality". It sure looks like it, but it isn't our, human, morality. It's instinct. It's just that we see our own ways in their ways and try to apply what we know to what we see.

Scripture-wise, I see no issue with this. The Bible clearly defines humans as different than animals, we are made in His image, and such. It doesn't say "Animals are mindless, thoughtless, logicless beings". I know my dogs think and are smart. I have poodles, apparently they are really smart, and you can see it. My dog is a terrible bird dog because he has to map out his route from his spot to the duck in his mind and he just takes FOREVER. Other breeds just go and deal with that stands between them and the duck. He sits and figures out the easiest route.

 

[celo]

They are not stupid and they have some sense of what's what. No disputing that, however I wouldn't call it "morality". They are social, as are pretty much all living things.

I just hesitate to call it "morality". It sure looks like it, but it isn't our, human, morality. It's instinct. It's just that we see our own ways in their ways and try to apply what we know to what we see.

Scripture-wise, I see no issue with this. The Bible clearly defines humans as different than animals, we are made in His image, and such. It doesn't say "Animals are mindless, thoughtless, logicless beings".

How, exactly, is what you described different from human morality? We sure are more intelligent, so any comparison will usually place the human version in a more depth. But what, do you believe, is the fundamental difference?

 

[Pard]

Well, what we have so far described isn't even morality by human standards, so that's a good point to start...

 

[jasoncran]

if an animal ie cat and lion and wolves kill their cubs why cant humans do it too?

oh yeah we are already to make that legal.

 

[Mike]

How, exactly, is what you described different from human morality? We sure are more intelligent, so any comparison will usually place the human version in a more depth. But what, do you believe, is the fundamental difference?

I know this was addressed to Ian, but I have a response here. Likely, we've all seen documentaries where a animals in the wild will put their own lives at risk by protecting a weaker or injured member of their pack. Some don't even do that. They simply escape danger themselves.

But have you ever seen an animal literally risk death for another animal it has never known or isn't a part of its pack? I haven't. But, this happens often among humans. Why? Do you agree that an animal risking its life for a member of its pack is driven more by its own interest than the person who risks his for someone he doesn't know? Even when they don't spring into action, there is still some level of guilt later on that they should have. I believe this is the morality that God has placed in our hearts that separated us from the rest of His Creation.

 

[stovebolts]

There are some scientists who believe that they can. What is important is a common neural circuitry that allows for the concept of humor.

The actual "laugh" itself will be species-specific as not every animal projects social information in a similar fashion. (Dolphins communicate, but they don't speak in English ;))

If you want, I can post some actual information on the subject, if you don't want to take my word for it.

Post me a youtube video of any animal laughing. Would love to see it! Oh wait, I found one!

[video=youtube;4F-k84xyzeo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4F-k84xyzeo[/video]

Carry on now

 

[stovebolts]

if an animal ie cat and lion and wolves kill their cubs why cant humans do it too?

oh yeah we are already to make that legal.

You know Jason, several weeks ago I bought 10 baby chicks. I bought 4 of one kind, and 4 of the other kind. Both kinds were the same size. Then I bought two Bantums, which were much smaller, although they were the same age.

So I take them home and put them in a nice big cage in the basement. I lay down some nice newspaper so they have something comfy to walk on, I fill up their food and their water, give them a little box to feel secure in and even add a heat lamp so they are nice and warm.

I went to check on them the next morning and the two bantums were dead. The bigger chickens killed them.

Just a lesson on morality folks... don't compare us to chickens.

 

[celo]

I know this was addressed to Ian, but I have a response here. Likely, we've all seen documentaries where a animals in the wild will put their own lives at risk by protecting a weaker or injured member of their pack. Some don't even do that. They simply escape danger themselves.

But have you ever seen an animal literally risk death for another animal it has never known or isn't a part of its pack? I haven't. But, this happens often among humans. Why? Do you agree that an animal risking its life for a member of its pack is driven more by its own interest than the person who risks his for someone he doesn't know? Even when they don't spring into action, there is still some level of guilt later on that they should have. I believe this is the morality that God has placed in our hearts that separated us from the rest of His Creation.

Good point. I can think of two reason, one supporting human morality as being unique, and one that supports similarity to the animal kingdom.

1. A human who risks his life for a complete stranger is still acting selfishly, as the reward and satisfaction one feels of being completely selfless is not only a powerful feeling (positive reinforcement), but they are also securing their place in heaven by committing the ultimate good deed.

2. A human who risks his life for a complete stranger is unique to humans. This goes above and beyond simple animal morality and may be the result of some divine element that truly separates man from beast.


I got a feeling which one most people here would favor .

To answer your question, there are some species of animals that act in seemingly altruistic, non self-interested ways. In many flock species, for example, an individual will draw attention to himself when a predator is spotted. This is a Darwinian puzzle because the animal, in drawing attention, will alert the herd and the predator to its location.

Why would an animal risk its life to alert his group, many of which are not kin? There are several hypothesis to this seeming paradox. The one I like best is as follows:

As an evolutionary stable strategy, survival is better when using this system. While one animal will sound the alarm, the costs of the chances of any one animal being the first to spot the predator are less than the benefits of being alerted by a different individual who happened to spot the predator first.

So overall, it's best to cooperate in this strategy than to "cheat" and slip away unnoticed, as a "cheating" trait passed on would eventually jeopardize the entire species. (Imagine if every animal cheated, there would be no meaning to "safety in numbers")


In my animal behavior course, there were several examples of species who "punished" those who did not cooperate. Some were even expelled from the group. Most of these examples were found in several monkey species, as the concept of punishment, and the ability to remember and sense a breech in their "code" requires intelligence.

 

[Jesusfreak97]

Hmm...Mrs. Carmen would love discuss this in EME....or maybe we already did...? I can't rember.

I think animals do have morality on some level. If they didn't then how would they live in packs and not kill eachother...

 

[Mike]

Good point. I can think of two reason, one supporting human morality as being unique, and one that supports similarity to the animal kingdom.

1. A human who risks his life for a complete stranger is still acting selfishly, as the reward and satisfaction one feels of being completely selfless is not only a powerful feeling (positive reinforcement), but they are also securing their place in heaven by committing the ultimate good deed.

By the first part of this statement, I believe you're overlooking the instinct to respond before the pros and cons of such a response is considered. In this case, it has nothing to do with selfishness. As for securing our place in heaven... it's seemingly impossible to explain to a non-believer how nonsensical this notion is. It's understandable that you believe this, but it is not remotely close to the target.

2. A human who risks his life for a complete stranger is unique to humans. This goes above and beyond simple animal morality and may be the result of some divine element that truly separates man from beast.

You're taking the extreme example of risking death, but it is fairly common for humans to put themselves in harms way (injury) for a stranger when there is no benefit to them. You claim that animals do this in nature. What you go on to describe is the behavior of a creature in response to threat to his mate, pack or offspring. It is still on you to demonstrate that animals will be willing to risk death or injury for an unrelated creature.