Are animals moral beings...

[subscuck]

Animals will do things out of emotion as well. They have been shown to clearly show such emotions as stress (parrots plucking feathers); anger (pack species defending the pack); mental problems (yep animals get them too - both as a result of breeding upbringing); sport - well cats and killer whales will happily play with food and even choose not to eat that food after play provided that they have sufficient food not to be desperate for the next meal.
Animals will also overkill if they can - many predators go into kill frenzies when they hunt; mostly to ensure that they will kill something in the attack. When this happens (oft on captive and movement constricted animals) they can kill far more than they will eat - even if they were to put the food into storage in hidden spots.
The balance they achive however that humans fail to, is mostly a byproduct of the fact that they both have to risk their own life in hunting and also switch prey species as the food becomes more rare. If they predate on one species that becomes fewer in number they have to shift to another otherwise they won't find enough to survive. The difference is that humans have a stable food source (farming) which allows us to spend far more resources (time; energy) in hunting that one last dodo for the table*. Further we also hunt in manners that put us at far less personal risk and also increases our chance for a kill - many predators actually fail far more than they succeed (we just see the good kills on the BBC and the like because it gets the views) whilst humans shift the balance a lot more in our favour - and as such are the only species currently capable of overkilling to the point of actively removing our own food source from the ecosystem.

I should have been more clear in my choice of wording. When I said humans kill out of emotion, I was speaking of things such as revenge, hatred, etc. I will be the first to agree that many animals are fully capable of certain emotions, and mammals seem to have a much larger capacity for emotion than non mammals. However, emotion and morality are separate from each other. Morality, as I define it, is a system to keep negative emotions and behaviors in check for the greater good of society. Further, we pass laws to enforce our cultures definition of said morals and mores. As already pointed out, morality is very fluid in its manifestation. In North America and Europe, if you urinate in public, you'll get a summons and a court date followed by a fine. In other countries, it's an acceptable practice.

When humans kill for sport it's a conscious choice. We don't need to kill that deer, we can go to the local and buy what we need to eat. When my cats get hold of a mouse and play with it to death, they are simply being cats. Cats are hunters and that's how they are wired. When they see prey, it's not a conscious choice. They don't have the capacity to look at the situation from a moral perspective and say, "food bowl's full, I'll let this one go". You can call it instinct or whatever you wish, but it's simply how they are wired. Morality doesn't enter the picture, because they are doing what they are wired to do. We are wired to evaluate situations and make decisions based on all factors involved, and this is where, IMHO, morality springs from. I agree fully with you that we don't have the grasp on right and wrong that we think we do, but we are getting better at it, albeit slowly.

So without being further wordy, I guess the point I was trying to make is animals do what they are wired to do, nothing more or less. We do what we choose to do, right or wrong, for good or ill. Because we have the choice, morality is applicable to us. Since animals don't have the choice, it doesn't apply to them. It's actually nice to have some thought provoking debate here.

 

[mwcfarms]

I agree, thanks for making us think. And very valid and thought provoking answers to both Overread and Subsuck.

 

[Overread17 5]

Ahh but if morality is based - at least in part - on the concept of choice you now have to wonder. Do humans really have any choice in things and do animals really lack the capacity for choice?

 

[mwcfarms]

I do believe animals are capable of choice but however I don't believe the are influenced by the same spectrum of emotion that humans suffer from. Humans definitely have the ability to make their own choices. Free will and all rah ra rah.

 

[subscuck]

Ahh but if morality is based - at least in part - on the concept of choice you now have to wonder. Do humans really have any choice in things and do animals really lack the capacity for choice?

I wouldn't say animals lack the capacity for choice, rather their choices have more to do with actions that affect their continued existence. For instance, a smaller animal will choose to flee from a Kodiak bear knowing it has no chance of survival. I doubt you'd see a Puma leap across a 50' chasm to get to prey on the other side, because it realizes it can't make the jump. But this has nothing to do with morality as I define it, and it has nothing to do with their actions based on how they're wired.

As far as humans, we always have a choice. Certain environmental conditions may make one choice more likely than others, but it's still a choice. Everyday there are inner city youths who join gangs because the environment makes that the more likely choice. At the same time, everyday there are inner city youths who choose not to join gangs. To some extent, our lives are nothing more than the sum total of our choices.

 

[JohnMF]

some interesting thoughts on the subject here.

As I understand it, an instinct for, or a sense of right and wrong, or morality (or whatever you want to call it) is a manifestation of natural selection. Selection favours altruistic behaviour within a species as it offers the best odds for gene survival/replication. Therefore this must be true, to some degree, across all the animal kingdom including ourselves.

 

[JohnMF]

I wouldn't say animals lack the capacity for choice, rather their choices have more to do with actions that affect their continued existence. For instance, a smaller animal will choose to flee from a Kodiak bear knowing it has no chance of survival. I doubt you'd see a Puma leap across a 50' chasm to get to prey on the other side, because it realizes it can't make the jump. But this has nothing to do with morality as I define it, and it has nothing to do with their actions based on how they're wired.

As far as humans, we always have a choice. Certain environmental conditions may make one choice more likely than others, but it's still a choice. Everyday there are inner city youths who join gangs because the environment makes that the more likely choice. At the same time, everyday there are inner city youths who choose not to join gangs. To some extent, our lives are nothing more than the sum total of our choices.

Good point. But do you think that these two examples are essentially the same thing? A choice about increasing likelihood of survival in each subjects relevant environment?

 

[subscuck]

That may be the end result, more or less, but I think the driving force behind the choice is different. When an inner city kid joins a gang, he or she knows it's morally wrong, knows it will inevitably lead to jail and quite possibly an early death. But other factors, like easy money, sex, status of a sort, come into play in that choice. These factors sometimes outway the morality of the choice. An animal faced with the prospect of becoming lunch has no moral issues to weigh, it simply flees out of it's drive to survive. Likewise, the animal seeking lunch has no moral issues to weigh. It is simply acting in the way it needs to survive. Again, from a purely spiritual perspective, they act in perfect accord and harmony with nature. We don't.