Do animals have morals?

Thread originally posted on the Aeclectic Tarot Forum on 07 Jun 2003, and now archived in the Forum Library.

wavebreaker	07 Jun 2003
Another issue I was thinking about the other day... ;) Some people claim that morals are one of the things that distinguish man from animals, thereby implying that animals don't have morals. I'm not sure about this. I don't think animals have morals in the sense that they will think over an action beforehand, to judge whether it's right or wrong. But in the animal world there are, as far as I know, no such things as war or murders. Of course, animals kill each other, but there is always a reason for it or some sort of gain (food, power over a territory), reasons which are valid in the animal world. Generally speaking (and I'm sure there are exceptions to be found), animals don't kill just for the killing, there are no psychopaths or serial killers in the animal world. Does that make animals moral?

Diana	07 Jun 2003
tarotlady: My sister-in-law lived with a psychopathic cat. Not for long though. The vet put it to sleep. The cat would literally attack and try to scratch and bite to death anyone that came within its vicinity. If it were left alone in a room, it would destroy everything it saw - like knock down the plates, things like that. It was a very scary cat. I have also read that some male lions are known to eat the baby cubs. Not only the weaker ones - but the whole bunch. And not in times of famine either.

wavebreaker	07 Jun 2003
Like I said: I'm sure there are exceptions to be found, but those exceptions are not what I'm interested in. Besides, there may have been a reason why that cat reacted that way. Maybe it was treated badly by someone before, which made it act viciously towards all humans? If that is the case, then, from the point of view of the cat, it's a purely protective reaction.

HOLMES	07 Jun 2003
what about the belief that possibly we souls may choose to incarnate as animal to learn those lessons for animal lifetimes. to think of our favourite animal and we can imagine acting as they do right ? and have emoitions and feeling with those imaginations, that could be spiritual proof that it could of been the case like some cultures believe. so that cat may of been an incarnated negative soul seeking to balance out his nature. i find it an romantic ideal to think of dying and being a bear for a life time , or a horse, or possibly squirrel. for the animals go through their own lessons as well, an dog get abused, get rescue and learns to trust again. or a horse loses his master and dies from a broken heart.. or worse a dog turns vicious and never recovers due to the pain it sufferd never learning to forgive and has to be put down. and these lessons can be reflected in our lives as well.

rostie	07 Jun 2003
a time ago i heard of a scientific study about it with proof that some animals show moral behaviour...but can't remember much about it, it was my mother who talked about it to me...i will ask her more :) personal i believe every living being has a soul...so why wouldn't they be moral or not...every living being is totally different and has his own character...and react in same circumstances different...and like holmes said or suggested every animal just like us have to learn his lessons in his life on earth...so...why not?

coldsuns	07 Jun 2003
re:Diana Male lions eat their own clubs as they are afraid that the younger ones will fight with them for food in the future when the male lions grow older. I think animals have morals. When humans are in trouble, dogs came to rescue. Not only dogs..but sometimes other animals too. They seems to be.. 'bad' as self-defence only. There are news that a female lion 'adopt' a abandoned puppy. Sometimes when a person is rich, he will adopt child or donate money to orphange. But when he is poor, he will even give his child away. So..animals have morals!! =P

Inana	07 Jun 2003
I don't believe animals have morals in the strict sense of the word, but they have some aspects given by an instinctual behaviour that tells not whats right or wrong, but what their feelings claim to do. Usually, the only morals they have is to help loved ones protecting the group, and not to kill individuals from the same specie. This last with the exceptions when compiting for food, power or sex (survival and territorial aspects mainly). Well... doesnt sound like morals if we see morals like conducts agreed to be right by all the individuals of a comunity. Seems more like natural instincts and sounds similar to what humans do...

coldsuns	07 Jun 2003
For this topic..we have to really know what does moral mean to each of us. What does moral mean to you? Animals with Moral means that they know whats right and wrong. They have judgement. Thats what i think. Maybe in the animal kingdoms. Killing own species are their so-call traditionals? It is something alright to do for them. Maybe to them if get another own species into trouble then is something really wrong. So..the animal always try their best to help the rest of the teammates and be a good leader. But sometimes the so-call traditional will make the animals harm their own species and to human beings is a form of 'no morals'?

wavebreaker	07 Jun 2003
I keep getting new idea reading all your replies, which was why I posted this in the first place, so thanks! ;) I'm wondering whether there's a difference between animals in the wild and pets. Pets are influenced by human behaviour, so wouldn't that apply to whether they know the difference between right and wrong as well? I'm thinking now of how, for example, dogs can react to being reproached: they react as if they are feeling guilty. But are they really feeling guilty, or is it just acquired behaviour ("my owner is not happy with me, so now I'm supposed to show this behaviour")? Inana: you're right about the definition of morals, maybe that's not the right word here. I basically meant: do animals know the difference between right and wrong. Does that make it clearer?

Macavity	07 Jun 2003
Aside from dangers of anthropomorphisation (phew), I think it's difficult to assign such similar emotions and thought patterns to animals, whose perception of the world is, I suspect, very different from our own. I believe "higher" animals share many characteristic with us e.g. a basic sense of right and wrong etc. and that these perhaps decrease on a sliding scale, down to the level of bacteria? ;) Male Lions kill cubs in taking over prides from incumbent males. This is to ensure THEIR OWN genes are carried through to the next generation and competition for food resoures from "foreign" genes is wiped out. Sad, but true. The loss of cubs prompts females to become (immediately) receptive to mating with the "new" male(s). Research has also found this behaviour in FERAL cat colonies. In the domestic situation, there is (presumably) less competition to initiate this... As kittens, my two cats (now 16) fought continuously. This was no bad thing, except that HE was much bigger than a (slightly runty) SHE - He would beat up on her incessantly. At the worst incidents, I would intervene - with a (quite severe!) reprimands... and he would stop, only to become more "sneaky" about the timing of attacks. The matter was resolved one day, when finally she "lost it" and raked her claws across his face and pursued him under the bed. Both later looked surprised and she "triumpant" - No more fights, but a state of "armed neutrality"! I would not call them friends, but they do share resources (food!) and "defend" SOME common territoral areas ;) I believe e.g. elephants, dogs and dolphins(?) have a sense right/wrong and of... humour? In the latter, Cats, less so. But, chasing (locally) is more stylised these days and often initiated by HER provoking HIM! She makes these special detours to "kick" his basket, while he is asleep, safe in the knowledge that being smaller has now paid dividends in her greater agility. Poor old (these days) chap! :laugh: Certain religions believe that SOME animals can gain individualisation apart from the "collective soul" through contact with humans? Slightly egotistical on our part, but I believe right/wrong can be "taught"... and e.g. in my cats: "HE" knows now that a sharp reprimand of "claws" will suggest he might like to sheath HIS, while caressing my anatomy. :D He knows the drill now and, I believe, now anticipates. But then he, like all animals, sometimes forgets in the heat of the moment... and sometimes he thinks *I* might "deserve" a reprimand too? Macavity If cats had opposable thumbs, they would rule the world. Anthropomorphise... Moi? })

coldsuns	07 Jun 2003
re:tarotlady Animals dont have the IQ as high as humans. Humans learn when they make mistake and can think about small mistake they made and dont really need people to teach. But animals in the wild doesnt has anyone to teach them. So they dont know how to learn from their mistake. But those animals as pets learn their mistake when the owner punish them. Then the animals know what they did are wrong.

fairyhedgehog	07 Jun 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Macavity If cats had opposable thumbs, they would rule the world. Anthropomorphise... Moi? }) But cats do rule the world :) Well, they must think they do, our cat is fed and pampered and has nothing to do all day except accept the occasional cuddle, which she sees as homage.

firemaiden	07 Jun 2003
Morality is a slippery concept, it requires establishing what is right, what is wrong, and dinstinguishing between them. The tenets of the worlds basic religions are not far behind. Do animals have religion? Do they honor the miracle of birth and the mystery of death? Some think elephants do, they visit and handle ancestor's bones, and I will never forget the elephant birthing ceremony I saw on PBS, the elephant family all standing round encouraging the mother as the baby is born, and then, the mother elephant's tenderest, most gentle of carresses of her newborn baby, with her humongous elephant foot! Enough to bring tears to my eyes even now!

coldsuns	07 Jun 2003
re:firemaiden What you say about elephants..i think thats feelings and emotions..? -.-'' However, what's your meaning/denifintion of moral?

firemaiden	07 Jun 2003
Exactly my point, coldsuns, morality is a slippery concept. To decide what is moral, you need to decide what is right and what is wrong. According to what criteria then, will you establish right and wrong? Some people link morality with religion. I do not, because I do not have a religion, yet I consider myself moral. Why am I moral if I do not believe in hell and heaven? I am moral, because I have empathy for other human beings, and I do not wish to harm any living creature, because I can see in another creature a part of myself. For animals to be moral according to my criterion, they would need to be capable of empathy. Certainly elephants show that they are. Of course there are among elephants, just as among people, all kinds of personalities -- in addition to the kind, wise and good, there are also rogue elephants, cranky elephants, teen-age hood elephants, and elephants that go insane.

Kiama	07 Jun 2003
I think morals only exist when there is a possibility that actions could be taken by the beings living in that culture/society/group which would be contrary to survival either individually or socially. For instance, the morals of killing/not killing would not exist if people did not know how to kill. I do not think morals are the judgement of right or wrong by the being itself. Therefore, I think that animals do not have morals, per se, because they are not in the position of being able to take action which would cause extinction of their species or family group, etc. This does not mean that the animals are evil/not good however. It just means they don't live by any set of rules which says 'This is right, this is wrong, you mustn't do the things which are wrong.' It has been noted by many that any behaviour we observe with animals can be traced to the fact that the behaviour would promote the survival of either the individual or the group. Ants display altruistic behaviour in that a small group of ants will willingly form a bridge from themselves over a gap in the path, in order to let the rest of the colony get over safely. The ants that formed the bridge always die, because they cannot get back up, however, they performed a seemingly 'good' and 'moral' action... In order to help the larger colony survive. Survival of the fittest. We see this sometimes in some human cultures, where the weak elderly people are left to die when they can no longer help provide for themselves. It isn't 'one for all, and all for one' here... It's survival of the fittest. Kiama

wavebreaker	07 Jun 2003
Quote: Originally posted by coldsuns Animals dont have the IQ as high as humans. Humans learn when they make mistake and can think about small mistake they made and dont really need people to teach. I don't agree, we humans need other humans (parents, teachers) to teach us things as well. If you would leave a new-born baby to its own devices, it wouldn't learn anything, apart from the instincts it has. Actually, it would die, because human babies aren't used to looking after themselves, as opposed to some animal babies, who can, for example, stand up and walk immediately after birth. Quote: But animals in the wild doesnt has anyone to teach them. So they dont know how to learn from their mistake. But those animals as pets learn their mistake when the owner punish them. Then the animals know what they did are wrong. May animals in the wild need to learn things too from their parents, for example how to hunt and which food is good for them. What pets learn from their owners is, more often than not, unnatural behaviour, I think.

coldsuns	07 Jun 2003
Quote: Originally posted by tarotlady I don't agree, we humans need other humans (parents, teachers) to teach us things as well. If you would leave a new-born baby to its own devices, it wouldn't learn anything, apart from the instincts it has. Actually, it would die, because human babies aren't used to looking after themselves, as opposed to some animal babies, who can, for example, stand up and walk immediately after birth. May animals in the wild need to learn things too from their parents, for example how to hunt and which food is good for them. What pets learn from their owners is, more often than not, unnatural behaviour, I think. Humans and animals do need the older ones to teach. But humans can actually anaylysis better. As the generation goes, the better they can work. But animals are staying at the same point. Humans from using hand to do things until now using machines that are so complicated. So what im trying to say is that the pets are much advance than those in the wild. ^-^''

Ruby Red Slippers	07 Jun 2003
2 things that I have learned from my friends who are animal communicators and re-inforced by Sonya Fitzpatrick, a life-long animal communicator, is that animals are more emotional than humans and translate their world through emotions more than any other communication, seeing the world in pictures & feelings, and they don't recognize "negatives". By this I mean, if you tell your cat, "don't pee on the couch", he hears "pee on the couch". Then when he does, you are angry and he doesn't understand. Try getting through the day re-phrasing everything to "not" contain a negative....I find it difficult.... I'm with Firemaiden on her take on the "morals" issue....ditto This is Sonya Fitzpatricks web site in case any one wants to visit. She fascinating and talks to all sorts of animals, not just the usual. www.sonyafitzpatrick.com. Ruby Red Slippers

oceanpoetry	07 Jun 2003
Ruby Red Slippers, That makes a lot of sense! Animals have a different form of intelligence. I don't think animals ask themselves if something is right or wrong, but they are definitely aware of their world and their environment and respond positively to love (I am referring to domesticated animals here). On the topic of cats, I read somewhere: "Dogs have owners, cats have staff" so true! :D

Ruby Red Slippers	07 Jun 2003
Oceanpoetry.... Yea, I've read "you own a dog, but a cat owns you" LOL So true :D

Baby Owl	07 Jun 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Ruby Red Slippers This is Sonya Fitzpatricks web site in case any one wants to visit. She fascinating and talks to all sorts of animals, not just the usual. Ruby, I have enjoyed watching Sonya's program on Animal Planet. Like many who have already commented, I believe animals have more than just "instinct" going for them. However, I'm not sure I would use the word "morals." Different human cultures have different standards for what is right and wrong (until the Christian missionaries get hold of them anyway!) (j/k) I don't think there is any way to tell if animals or species of animals have their own "moral codes" since we can't ask them (well, maybe Sonya Fitzpatrick can...) :D BabyOwl

HudsonGray	07 Jun 2003
Someone once tried to convince me that animals have no ability to know who they are because they won't think of themselves via a name. For one thing, how would we ever know their name -- if they had one or not, we only know the ones we assign to them verbally. For another (and this defeated his argument) I personally don't think of myself by MY name, I'm 'me', not my name. I identify myself by 'me' or 'my', nothing else, when I think to myself. Once he thought that one through, he deflated...HA! Morals assume 'guilt' and other emotions have an effect on behavior. Not just trained behavior either, which is what makes them pretty slippery. A dog can act guilty when it breaks housetraining, but that's learned behavior. Would it feel guilty if it wasn't housetrained & didn't know what you were talking about? No. It's the non-learned behavior that shows things the best. The only one I can think of at the moment is one our cat did about 8 years ago. He loved playing 'fetch' with little paper balls. I'd do this with him for 10 minutes at a time, and so would Steve. But Steve wasn't as much fun to play with because he'd do 4 or 5 'fakeouts' with fake throws before throwing it, whereas I did only one, and not all that often. He was playing with the Merlin one night, tossing the ball, using way too many fake outs, as I was trying to get to sleep in the other room. Suddenly I hear a bunch of laughing & Merlin jumps up on the bed by me & drops the ball in my face. Apparently he'd had enough retrieving with Steve, dashed after the last throw, and made a dash for the bedroom to have ME do it for him, but had come to a hard skidding stop halfway there, gave a guilty look at Steve that said 'he threw the ball, I should bring it back to him......no!' and finished running into the bedroom by me & dropped it on my face instead. Was there a need for guilt? Not in house rules training, this was strictly his decision in how he wanted to have fun--Steve was an old poop about doing it right so he made a decision, then had second thoughts, thought it through & continued on his first decision.

isthmus nekoi	07 Jun 2003
Can you be moral if you lack the faculty of consciousness? I think these two are very closely related. Empathy too, is probably another related trait. Empathy (unlike sympathy) requires you to feel from a perspective that is alien to yourself. To do this requires a consciousness; an understanding that others are different from you. I don't think morality something you can discriminate via species. I think young human children lack morality as well and this is why we don't punish them the way we punish adults for doing amoral things. Human children also have a very fascinating perspective on morality b/c it can be so different than ours. ie. usually our morality is based on *intent*, whereas the child's will be usually be based on *result*.

oceanpoetry	07 Jun 2003
HudsonGray, my cat definitely knows his name! :D he comes when I call, when he wants to, that is.

HudsonGray	08 Jun 2003
Oh yeah! They do learn their names, but I'm sure they don't think of themselves by that name when they think about who they are. All ours will answer to their names if they're lonely or hungry or sometimes just bored. Not 100% of the time though (it's a cat thing I think). As for empathy, isn't the abilty to co-exist peacefully something that r equires that? At least to a certain degree? Multi-pet households would require that ability to run smoothly. Three ways, too-- pet to pet, and pet to human, and human to pet.

coldsuns	08 Jun 2003
Ok..animals have morals. But do humans know about morals? I dont think some humans know morals. Have you guys heard about -bonsai kittens-? It sounds cute or maybe a new breed. But it is the most cruel and disgusting matter i ever heard of doing this to poor little cute innocent kittens! They..i mean the so-call professor will put the 1 week old kitten into the..bottle and the kittens soft bone will actually grow like the bottle shape. The poor little cute innocent kittens dont have freedom when are they are born. Poor rite!? Their anus will be closed using Super Glue. As the kittens might infected by diseases in the bottle. They are feed by a hole. And there is another hole for them to pass motion. Just to enjoy your OWN NEW shape of kitten..you waste a precious life. Read more from -www.bonsaikitten.com I think we should talk about humans morals..before we talk about animals'...~>,<~ Poor kittens!

coldsuns	08 Jun 2003
Poor kittens pictures!

Diana	08 Jun 2003
coldsuns: This web-site is just a joke. Not a very good joke, maybe, but a joke all the same. I think some people waste their precious lives doing the most stupid things, but that is their problem, not ours. So don't worry about it! (Did you write to your Environment Minister yet about the rubbish problem in the world?)

coldsuns	08 Jun 2003
Re:Diana Is a joke?? I dont think so. But..those poor little kittens! ~>,<~ They dont even have a chance to jump or even walk and they are already stuck in the bottle. (Write to which e-mail or website?)

Diana	08 Jun 2003
coldsuns: I'm sure the guy removes them from their bottle very quickly. Still, it's very stupid to stick a kitten in a bottle even if its just for a few minutes. But don't worry - his karma will get around back to him.

Inana	08 Jun 2003
Quote: Originally posted by isthmus nekoi Can you be moral if you lack the faculty of consciousness? I think these two are very closely related. Empathy too, is probably another related trait. Empathy (unlike sympathy) requires you to feel from a perspective that is alien to yourself. To do this requires a consciousness; an understanding that others are different from you. I don't think morality something you can discriminate via species. I think young human children lack morality as well and this is why we don't punish them the way we punish adults for doing amoral things. Human children also have a very fascinating perspective on morality b/c it can be so different than ours. ie. usually our morality is based on *intent*, whereas the child's will be usually be based on *result*. I like a lot the way you've expressed it. And i also agree with what Kiama and others have said. Animals do what's better for the survival aspects, be their own or the group they belong too. Thats ruled by feelings, instincts, and the results of their experiences, not by the concept of whats good and wrong. Animals can learn,like us. So their behaviour change when they are our pets. They learn different things that when they're in freedom.

coldsuns	08 Jun 2003
re:Diana Hope so..~>,<~ I saw the news that 300 over tiger clubs in Thailand Zoo , actually drink milk from the female pig with the piglets. When the tiger clubs grow up, they are not that fierce and actually play with those little piglets. So..maybe in future, we can actually have tigers as pets. ^_^

Kiama	08 Jun 2003
I still would not say that animals have morals. I don't think it is at all possible to apply our paradigm to theirs, simply because they are so different. As I said before, morals in the human world do not apply in the animal world, because they don't need them: Animals don't do anti-survival things such as murder or theft, like humans do, and I strongly believe that morals only arise when there is a need for them: In other words, when there is the possibility that the species (In this case humans) can perform actions which are contrary to the natural way of things. But, just because animals do not have morals in the same way as humans do, doesn't mean we should make value judgements about them. I know alot of people who use the 'animals don't have morals like humans do' argument as an excuse to say that animals are therefore lesser than humans... Which personally I wouldn't place any bets on, since I'm still waiting for the indubitable proof which will say that. Animals don't have morals, but they do behave in what we would consider a moral way, simply because they do not murder, steal, ruin their environment, etc. What looks like morals to us, in my opinion, aren't actually animals saying 'There is a law against murder, therefore I won't murder'. It's simply animals instinctively being uncapable of performing actions which are anti-evolutionary. Kiama

Macavity	08 Jun 2003
I think there WAS a guy who had a pet tiger once - It killed him. The tiger was (thankfully) reprieved. But, wave anything around in front of most felines, and the reaction is (moral or not) predictable? The rest is, as often asserted, a size matter ;) Macavity Envisages a LARGE transparent box with a person-sized hole in the top. We get to specify number/species of cat. The lucky "candidate" gets to choose marmite or vegemite. Dress code optional... :D Checkout George Orwell's 1984 (qv) for inspiration })

WolfSpirit	08 Jun 2003
Interesting thread, this. I agree with Kiama: "morals" is just not a word I would use for animals. If you are moral that implies you have a choice to be immoral as well and I think animals can never be immoral. Although to us they may seem cruel, all cruelty in the animal kingdom has a function, they would never kill for fun or out of sadism. I don't think animals are less than humans because they don't have morals either; it is in their nature to do the right thing. And Macavity: I am not sure what you are proposing here, you put a person and a feline in the box ? Well it is something else from the tv shows where candidates have to eat a bowl of maggots (now that is not very moral behaviour either is it, unless you produce the maggots again alive and well }) ) Well Mac I will do it with Karel he is my buddha-like lazy cat and just sit humming all day, if he has enough energy he may open his eyes sometime.

Macavity	08 Jun 2003
NO, I was thinking of the the cat-in-a-bottle website person - and (say) a Siberian Tiger. :laugh: Might give a new perspective on the term "Endangered Species" - Not that we would really want to confine... any CAT }) (with regards to Karel) Macavity (+ 2) ;)

HudsonGray	08 Jun 2003
It's amazing how many people thought that site was 'real'. It's a little like people stumbling on the site of The Onion and thinking it's a legitimate newspaper (it's an 85% spoof, though they do excellent interviews in their interview section, and have good movie reviews). Remember, people can put ANYTHING online & claim whatever they want to claim. It doesn't make any of it true.

WolfSpirit	09 Jun 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Macavity NO, I was thinking of the the cat-in-a-bottle website person - and (say) a Siberian Tiger. :laugh: Aha, the Bonsai webmaster, but I'm afraid his skull will be too thick to be adaptable to the bottle :D Karel sends his regards back, he was out on an mosquito hunt and has gone back now to his contemplating mode, thinking esoteric thoughts we humans will never understand.

rostie	10 Jun 2003
just a thought... wasn't there a time that we 'humans' just acted like animals, when we were still primates? our thoughts and conditions were a lot more different than now...could we talk then about moral/immoral humans??? Quote: I like a lot the way you've expressed it. And i also agree with what Kiama and others have said. Animals do what's better for the survival aspects, be their own or the group they belong too. Thats ruled by feelings, instincts, and the results of their experiences, not by the concept of whats good and wrong. Animals can learn,like us. So their behaviour change when they are our pets. They learn different things that when they're in freedom.

isthmus nekoi	10 Jun 2003
Hm. The clear distinction humans have created b/w themselves and animals is a really social construct. I'm not sure you can talk about humans and animals as if they are discrete, separate things, nor if we can really speak of morality (and consciousness) as if it's a black and white issue. These are not things you do not have and then suddenly have. Even among humans there is a wide range of levels of consciousness/morality esp when you are talking about fetuses vs babies vs children vs adults.

Kiama	10 Jun 2003
Quote: Originally posted by rostie just a thought... wasn't there a time that we 'humans' just acted like animals, when we were still primates? our thoughts and conditions were a lot more different than now...could we talk then about moral/immoral humans??? It all does depend on where we say that 'this is a human'... Where do we draw the line between ape and human? Some would even say that morality is what makes us human. Kiama

wavebreaker	10 Jun 2003
Morality or not, I think the way most animal communities live together is a lot more civilised than how some humans behave...

Kiama	11 Jun 2003
I think I'd have to agree with you on that one, Tarotlady. It seems to be the down-side to being 'intelligent', that we can't live in harmony and choose to wreek havoc on the planet and other species instead. :( Kiama

Umbrae	11 Jun 2003
I am always amazed at how many folks get their knowledge, from a television – where the narrator tells you how to think…and draws conclusions about wildlife, for you. Extinction – how many animals have run themselves into extinction due to overspecialization – and how many ‘naturalists’ blame humans. A while back, rabid environmentalists, with nothing better to do – virtually stopped logging operations in Oregon and Washington because of threats to the spotted owl habitat. It was ‘proven’ that the spotted owl could only live in old growth forests. Families who had been in the logging industry for years became destitute…lost everything (extinction from overspecialization? Perhaps!), unemployment skyrocketed. Oregon and Washington retain the highest percentage of unemployed in the States. Then…Spotted owls were observed nesting in a store sign (K-Mart if memory serves) in Bellingham, Washington – they seemed to be enjoying themselves. Then folks looked at the report ‘proving’ spotted owls required old growth forests…seems it was ‘doctored’. Who lacked the morals? Who judged the value and worth of another at the expense of many? Do animals have morals? Unanswerable as asked – Morals is a human construct. In the animal world, if you screw up – you are called food. In the Human world, screw up and you are a politician. …it all goes back to the blame game…irl: you should do the follow-up and find out just how many folks reacted in outrage over Bonsai Kitty – it’s alarming. Most animal communities live together in a balance of predator/prey, with protective behaviors and colorings. It’s not gracious, kind, or forgiving. There is constant fear of becoming food. Then you can add encroachment of man into the mix. But morals?

wavebreaker	11 Jun 2003
Whether you believe that animals have morals or not, that doesn't relieve you from showing respect to nature. We are dependent on nature; if we destroy it, we won't have a place to live left. And I don't really see what the environmentalists have to do with this. You seem to bring that up in every discussion about wildlife. Where do you get that information from? Television?? You shouldn't believe everything they tell you...

firemaiden	11 Jun 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Umbrae Do animals have morals? Unanswerable as asked – Morals is a human construct. That is sort of what I was trying to say, but couldn't quite find the words. :) My little doggie didn't know the difference between destroying a 250 dollar camera, and destroying a hamhock. Or, did he? Should I have been mad?

WolfSpirit	11 Jun 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Umbrae [bmost animal communities live together in a balance of predator/prey, with protective behaviors and colorings. it’s not gracious, kind, or forgiving. there is constant fear of becoming food.[/b] Yes, I agree with you here. This is why animals don't have morals, they follow their natural behaviour. You cannot call a crocodile vicious, because he attacks his prey. He is just being a good crocodile, if he doesn't he cannot survive. Putting kittens in a confined space purely for amusement, on the other hand, I would call vicious. Or other animals with less "cuteness-value", for that matter. I hope you find the outrage over the bonsai kitten alarming because so many people are gullible enough to believe it, not because people react against cruelty to animals. And about saving the endangered species: soon we will all be endangered species. I don't want to be gloomy, but it is a fact icecaps are melting, ozone layer is thinning, woods are disappearing fast...I am grateful man has so much mastery over nature that I don't have to live in a cave and don't have to send my pigeons out to give you all this message, but we are nearing the point where our civilization becomes a burden rather than a blessing. (I think this is a different discussion though...)

jema	11 Jun 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Umbrae Then…Spotted owls were observed nesting in a store sign (K-Mart if memory serves) in Bellingham, Washington – they seemed to be enjoying themselves. Then folks looked at the report ‘proving’ spotted owls required old growth forests…seems it was ‘doctored’. OT but I figured I post it anyway: Human children need a safe home, at least one adult who provides for his or her needs. Yet so many children are seen living on the streets or in homes with abusive adults. Some of them even grow up!

Diana	11 Jun 2003
I think that humans are just a certain species of animal anyway. I suppose that one could say that ethnic cleansing is one way that human-animals protect their territory and their sub-species. Yuk. Who can say whether the Spotted Owls were happy in the KMart? Did they tell anyone? I was speaking to someone the other day of the hell in Calcutta. And the person said to me "but you know, the poor are very happy there. They smile a lot....." Cutting down trees in order to protect someone's job sounds rather unsound to me. To me a Spotted Owl is just as important as a Human Animal. Killing dolphins in order to get cheap fish onto the market is also rather unsound. If we don't start realising that we are to live in harmony with nature instead of abusing it for our own material comfort, then I think we deserve all the natural disasters that befall us. Poor little planet. People who speak to animals will tell you that they do indeed have morals. I don't speak to them, unfortunately. jema: excellent point you made.

zorya	11 Jun 2003
well said diana! why are we so afraid to admit that we are animals ourselves? why do we feel we have to separate ourselves from the rest of earth's creatures? cutting down old growth forests just because daddy and grandpops did, doesn't make it ok. there are many alternatives for getting wood in a sustainable way today. we certainly no longer need to use trees for paper. we have to share and take care of our home. no part of it is separate from the rest.

Umbrae	11 Jun 2003
Quote: Originally posted by tarotlady …relieve you from showing respect to nature. And I don't really see what the environmentalists have to do with this. Environmentalists (some, not all) often tend to impost human values on non-humans, as they imply cultural values upon those of other cultures. Both actions come from a judgmental standpoint, “Our group is better and/or more aware than your group.” I brought environmentalists into the mix as a response to a specific post. I am an environmentalist! I not only respect, but value our earth and all of its creatures – huge amounts of my life have been spent in nature, backpacking the Oregon cascade wilderness areas; observing wildlife en situ. What do environmentalists have to do with it? Everything. From their moral standpoint, they imposed a logging and forest management program that destroyed huge amounts of western forests and their inhabiting wildlife. That was a moral imposition upon nature. And the results were devastating. Killing dolphins to acquire cheap food is a crime, and yes respect for this planet is required. Wait! Why do I have to explain or justify my position? I don’t.

wavebreaker	11 Jun 2003
Quote: Originally posted by zorya why are we so afraid to admit that we are animals ourselves? why do we feel we have to separate ourselves from the rest of earth's creatures? Very good point. We are all animals. Some species have evolved further than others. But does that make them better than other, less evolved species? I don't think so, all species are part of the big picture, if you take one out, the whole system falls apart. And as for environmentalists interfering: they are only interfering to repair the damage done by others who have thoughtlessly interfered before... Just an example: several years ago, the amount of herring in the Dutch waters had become alarmingly low. Environmentalists called for fishing quota, to prevent the herring from becoming extinct. Of course, all the fishermen protested, because fishing quota meant less money for them. This year, it turns out the amount of herring has increased again, thanks to the quota. They are even talking about increasing the quota. So the fishermen get to keep their jobs, thanks to the environmentalists. If we had left it to the fishermen, there would be no herring today and a lot of unemployed fishermen... We have to keep the big picture and the long term effects in mind, or there will be nothing left for our children and grand-children. Maybe animals don't have morals, but we have!

Kaz	11 Jun 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Umbrae Wait! Why do I have to explain or justify my position? I don’t. well, then why do you? usually people do that because they feel the need to either defend themselves against something they experience as an attack, or they want to convince others to their point of view. take your pick :P

sagitarian	11 Jun 2003
What seperates us from the animal kingdom is reason, logical thinking. Animals go by instincts, not logic. They don't know how to set up a tent, nor why we do set up a tent when we go camping. The observation that there are no animal serial killers, or psychopaths in the way that we have killers and psychopaths is b/c of this logica and reason thinking. It's when someone knows something is wrong, but they don't care. Animals have no sense of what's right or wrong, and although they have emotions, their emotions work differently then ours. Some animals will kill their newborn babies, and others won't, why? Some vets say b/c the mother can tell that something is wrong with the liter, and there are other theories to it as well. In any case, murdering does happen in the animal kingdom, and done so by no reason necessary in our logical thinking, furthermore, we have yet to discover why. But it does happen, however, they don't have the logical reasoning that we do as humans. However, humans are animals too. :)

Kiama	11 Jun 2003
Before we go any further, will everybody please tell me what their definition of 'morality' is please? It would clear alot of things up, and would explain why each of us has taken our particular standpoints. It seems that some would define morality as good actions. Others, including myself, define morality as the reasoning and choice between different possible actions. So, according to my personal definition of morality, to have morality, one also needs to be capable of abstract thought, and have logic, and the capability to do immoral things. Non-human animals do not possess this. Therefore, according to this definition, non-human animals do not have morality. According to the former definition however, animals do have morality, because they do good actions. Though I feel we need to look at the reasoning and motivation behind those 'good actions' before we can say whether this denotes morality or not: I would say that they are only morals if the animal who performed the good action though about it, and made the choice between one action and another, based on the consequences for itself and others and based also on whether or not that action was in itself intrinsically good. If the animal did do this (Which I seriously doubt) then I would go so far as to say non-human animals (Or at least that particular animal) have morality. But if not, I wouldn't. As I said before however, this does not mean animals are not good. It does not mean they are less than humans. It does not give man an excuse to exploit them. I agree with Umbrae when he says that morality is a human construct, and so it doesn't apply to animals. My earlier posts said this in more detail. I wish I understood the rest of the thread though. Umbrae, I am a little confused as to what you're getting at it your post... Maybe it's because it is so late in the evening... Kiama

wavebreaker	11 Jun 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Kiama Others, including myself, define morality as the reasoning and choice between different possible actions. A real-life example: there are several stories known of dolphins who protected swimmers or divers against sharks in the same way they protect the young and the weaker dolphins in their pod. What's in it for the dolphin to protect a human? The human is not part of the pod, the human may even be their enemy. All they can get out of this is being attacked by the shark themselves. The dolphins had the choice between two possible actions: flee or protect the human. They chose to protect the human. Could it be that the dolphins mistook the human for one of their own? I doubt it, dolphins are too intelligent for that. As a matter of fact, it has been shown that dolphins have a certain amount of consciousness: if a dolphin sees himself in a mirror, he knows he's looking at himself; most animals will think their mirror image is a different animal and start to try and attack or befriend the "other" animal. So yes, I do think that some animals have a certain level of morality. Much simpler than that of humans, but I suppose their choices in life are much simpler than the choices we have (created for ourselves).

HudsonGray	11 Jun 2003
The online Webster Dictionary: 1 a : a moral discourse, statement, or lesson b : a literary or other imaginative work teaching a moral lesson 2 a : a doctrine or system of moral conduct b plural : particular moral principles or rules of conduct 3 : conformity to ideals of right human conduct 4 : moral conduct : VIRTUE So--a code of conduct? Wouldn't herd behavior fall into this category? Every predator also has certain rules of engagement they follow (likewise dog behavior). Stylized, partially learned, partially instinctive. That still leaves us in the same boat--what differentiates us from the animals?

Umbrae	11 Jun 2003
They used to state that Humans created and used tools, and that set us apart from animals – then studies showed that Apes, Ravens, and Crows – all use tools; that definition got quietly buried. It used to be that Humans were capable of emotions and animals weren’t – that’s gone… Then it was that Humans cared for other species – Tarotlady has done a wonderful job of illustrating that dolphins care for us… Perhaps the difference is that humans have the power to destroy – utterly and completely, the earth – each other – and treat each other with a lack of compassion… Perhaps the difference between animals and humans, is that we have an unexplainable need to measure, define, classify, create boundaries, ask questions that create a need to measure, define, and classify… Don’t mind me…I’m rambling…

Diana	12 Jun 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Kiama So, according to my personal definition of morality, to have morality, one also needs to be capable of abstract thought, and have logic, and the capability to do immoral things. Non-human animals do not possess this. Therefore, according to this definition, non-human animals do not have morality. How do you know that they are not capable of abstract thought and logic? That sounds like a very Judeo-Christian line of thought to me. Sounds like something directly from Genesis. Again, I do not agree. I believe animals are capable of abstract thought, of logic, and that they do possess morals. Their moral standard is probably much higher than ours. (Umbrae: Clarifying one's opinions so that others understand them better is not defending oneself. And even if it were, there is nothing wrong with self-defense.....)

firemaiden	12 Jun 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Umbrae They used to state that Humans created and used tools, and that set us apart from animals – then studies showed that Apes, Ravens, and Crows – all use tools; that definition got quietly buried. It used to be that Humans were capable of emotions and animals weren’t – that’s gone… Then it was that Humans cared for other species – Tarotlady has done a wonderful job of illustrating that dolphins care for us… I think about this all the time, Umbrae. The next definitition that bit the dust was that only humans were capable of language.

Macavity	12 Jun 2003
I think an anthropoligist once stated confidently that e.g. CATS do not have spontaneous or abstract thoughts. He said "simply your cat does not spend it's time composing Shakespearean sonnets or dreaming about the queen next-door". I'd say, obviously the former, but I'd argue with the latter. Many animals dream and cats have been known to "just sit there" and then suddenly vocalise, run-about etc. prompted by some kind of... fantasy. I have one that finds sitting and staring 6" from a blank wall VERY entertaining :D I think it's claimed that a cat deprived of all sensory input (in a black box) gradually "shuts down" mentally - It's brain waves flat-line. Whereas human beings begin to experience hallucinations and may, eventually... go mad. I view as another example of this as feline common sense and economy of effort :) I imagine now "morals" come from a collective idea that is communicable between individuals - and, maybe without sophisticated communication are thus impossible, or likely irrelevant. Perhaps animals that DO communicate have morals? I don't see this from preventing animals that cannot from adopting some kind or personal "standards" in their own lives... I simply don't see "Step functions" in any of this. Macavity ("Cat-boring" at national level!) P.S. Aside: I appreciate that only "fools believe" the cat-in-a-box site and many like to be "rightously outraged" but I think that's irrelevant to the obvious - that it is inciting cruelty and probably treads the border of legality? But I do wonder what happened to good taste and find it mostly demeaning... to it's author. I do e.g. wonder that kind of individual uses a baby in one page - Is it his own child? But why worry - Simply not the sharpest tool in the box, I'll wager... There's a lot of it about })

isthmus nekoi	12 Jun 2003
Hate to make things more confusing... oh wait, I kind like it lol... Regarding the issue of murder... that one was blown out of the water by Jane Goodall who has documented 1) planned 'wars' between groups of chimps that are clearly premeditated and based on material gain. If this doesn't demonstrate cruelty, then it is certainly indicative of a general lack of compassion towards the party they are attacking. 2) planned murders. Chimps can gang up on each other, they'll kill each other, even canibalize. This is done in a manner that is premeditated ie. they *thought* about it. They didn't have to do it, and they weren't driven by instinct (unlike say, mother rabbits that eat their babies... or lions that kill cubs they didn't father). I remember Goodall describing how these other female chimps would gang up on her favourite female chimp and try to take her baby... but mom was smart and managed to dodge them every time :) Even w/o murder, chimps can gang up on other chimps, or snub them etc. I think the difference if you really need to have one, is that humans have a desire to expand their consciousness in all arenas of life. Everything keeps getting pushed, whether it's in science, religions, philosophies.... or even on the material plane: sex, food, dance etc. We just keep pushing it b/c we know if we get conscious enough, we can be liberated from consciousness itself. I find animals are more or less okay w/the level of consciousness they have, but I think I'm grasping at straws here.

zorya	12 Jun 2003
has anyone ever seen the films of elephants painting? using their trunks they grasp a paintbrush, choose a color, dip the brush and apply it to canvas. they do not just paint everything in site. they also appear to be deciding where to place the paint on the canvas. when you observe young human children learn to paint, they usually overpaint, mixing up the colors and turning the canvas a mud color. elephants don't do this. they apply the colors and stop before making mud. the first time i saw this on tv, my jaw dropped.

Kaz	12 Jun 2003
if you read steiner, he defines 4 "states" , in there he explains the difference between humans, animals, plants, and things like rocks. maybe jmd can describe this in english, its something i cant :-( what are morals? there is a difference between domesticated animals and wild animals.

firemaiden	12 Jun 2003
The mistake is to lump humans into one category and "animals" in another. Evolution shows a continum, a sliding scale of intelligent behaviours from one celled creatures to man. Humans have far more in common with dolphins, chimps, parrots, wolves, and elephants, and other very social animals, than any of these has in common with an amoeba. But then again, how do you define intelligence? Same question, whose critieria? Take a look at squid. It defies comprehension - how they can change their colors to match a background -- it's breathtaking. We can't do that. How do they know what colors to be and how to imitate it? Obviously not by writing a poem about it, or by doing a tarot reading. They have different kinds of senses, different ways of knowing. It turns out they also have very large brains, and use their changing colors as a way of communicating amongst eachother. Who'd a thunk it? I have had a long shared gaze with an octopus once, in an aquarium. I swear to you, he looked at me with curiosity, I could almost hear him thinking - "what a horrible camoulflage she has, that floral dress will get her eaten in no time flat. " See websites on -The nature of intelligence -cephalopod intelligence -What is this Octopus thinking? - fascinating, in depth article

Kiama	13 Jun 2003
I advise people to read Peter Singer's 'Practical Ethics', for his wonderful take on animals and morality. I believe he makes the distinction between humans and non-human animals through abstract reasoning and logic, and also the capacity to suffer. I fear people are falling into the trap which many psychologists have, and are anthropomorphising animal behavior. They see an animal doing something (Such as the elephants painting, as zorya mentioned) and they imagine that it is soething which involves rational thought/abstract thinking. The dolphins... Maybe we are imagining that their actions involve moral choice? We are taking what we understand of the world, and applying it to them, which is all fine and good, except that by doing so, we automatically throw out of the window all other possibilites. Notice also, that I said in my post... Quote: According to the former definition however, animals do have morality, because they do good actions. Though I feel we need to look at the reasoning and motivation behind those 'good actions' before we can say whether this denotes morality or not: I would say that they are only morals if the animal who performed the good action though about it, and made the choice between one action and another, based on the consequences for itself and others and based also on whether or not that action was in itself intrinsically good. If the animal did do this (Which I seriously doubt) then I would go so far as to say non-human animals (Or at least that particular animal) have morality. But if not, I wouldn't. I admitted that SOME animals (Such as those mentioned: Dolphins, elephants, ravens, chimps) if they do indeed show ratoinal reasoning and abstract thought, would be classed as having a moral system. But animals such as... sparrows, worms, penguins... They do not show the same activities as dolphins, and many people would agree that worms and penguins do not show reasoning or abstract thought. What IS abstract thought? I would say it is the ability to consider all the possible futures available. I would also say it is the ability to take a concept such as... 'God', or 'Evil', and reflect upon it, and look at the issues arising from it. Can cats philosophise? Do dolphins think about God? Do chimps reflect upon the problem of evil? I doubt it, though I do not have any proof of that, though to be truthful nobody has any proof otherwise either. And who's to say that Genesis is bad? ;) Kiama

wavebreaker	13 Jun 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Kiama I believe he makes the distinction between humans and non-human animals through abstract reasoning and logic, and also the capacity to suffer. But why do have to make a distinction between humans and animals? What's so scary about seeing us all as creatures of this planet, each in a different stage of evolution? True, we cannot apply just any human concept on animals, but does that mean animals do not have intelligence, consciousness, etc.? They may very well have, but in a different way from us. To go back to the dolphins: I have been fortunate enough to be able to dive and swim with wild dolphins on five occasions. It was absolutely awesome to interact with them, I couldn't help but noticing the inifinite wisdom these animals were radiating. Not in the "human" sense that dolphins could have deeply philosophical thoughts or something like that; more like a wisdom that is so deep that we humans cannot even grasp it. And no, I have no scientific evidence for that, it's just my personal experience.

Diana	13 Jun 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Kiama Can cats philosophise? Do dolphins think about God? Do chimps reflect upon the problem of evil? I doubt it, though I do not have any proof of that, though to be truthful nobody has any proof otherwise either. I don't doubt it for one second. There's no proof either how Tarot works. But it doesn't make me doubt it either. If I told people why I don't doubt for a second that animals reflect upon such things, the sceptics answer will be "that's no proof - where's the documentation?" The non-sceptics would probably believe me. One day, when you meet someone who is able to translate what Simon's cat is trying to tell you, you will be most surprised. And very happy!

wavebreaker	13 Jun 2003
Quote: Originally posted by firemaiden I have had a long shared gaze with an octopus once, in an aquarium. I swear to you, he looked at me with curiosity, I could almost hear him thinking - "what a horrible camoulflage she has, that floral dress will get her eaten in no time flat. The intelligence of octopus is amazing! Have you ever seen tests done with octopus where they would hide food in a jar, and where the octopus figured out, in no time, how to unscrew the lid to get at the food, even though the octopus hadn't been shown how to do this?

firemaiden	13 Jun 2003
Yes, tarotlady, that is what is so amazing. I saw a NOVA broadcast about cuttlefish, they are along with octopus and squid, unbelievably intelligent, affectionate, and expressive. The program considered the intelligence of squids as an "alien intelligence"- if we are looking for intelligent life in the universe, we need look no farther than the deep sea. The distinction some of us are hoping to make between man and animals, is itself a kind of trap, for we can only see ourselves at the top, but we are using our own criteria. From the octopus article: " Until the 1970s, researchers tried to classify the intellectual abilities of different animals and rank them within a universal intelligence scale with humans at the top. That view crumbled as it became obvious that the abilities of different animals were tuned to the circumstances in which they live. " Cephalopod Intelligence: Quote: In a sense, a form of alien intelligence on this planet. In 1947, funds from the Marshall Plan-the U.S. program to help rebuild Europe after the Second World War-were allocated to researchers at Naples Zoological Station to study the brain of the octopus. The results of this work, it was hoped, might help US Air Force engineers design better computers. To this day, however, cephalopod brains remain a mystery [...] Although unusually large, they seem to work along fundamentally different lines from those of primates, like ourselves. Much processing in the cephalopod nervous system appears to be done in ganglia distributed around the body. Part of the reason for this is that these creatures communicate via fast-changing patterns of body color for which a distributed processing network is essential.

Macavity	13 Jun 2003
I think that given mass extinctions and huge predatory arthropods, moluscs etc., it was indeed a miracle that the little creature that was to become the ancestor of all vertebrates escaped being eaten. Apparently it was rather good at hiding in the sand - Or all of us sitting here might have been... insects! :laugh: It may yet happen again... What was it they said about Cher, cockroaches etc.? :D Macavity

Kiama	13 Jun 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Diana I don't doubt it for one second. There's no proof either how Tarot works. But it doesn't make me doubt it either. If I told people why I don't doubt for a second that animals reflect upon such things, the sceptics answer will be "that's no proof - where's the documentation?" The non-sceptics would probably believe me. One day, when you meet someone who is able to translate what Simon's cat is trying to tell you, you will be most surprised. And very happy! Very true Diana, but we mustn't fall into the dangerous trap of getting 'belief' and 'fact' mixed up. To be honest, I don't yet have a clear belief on any of this, and would probably agree with you and Tarotlady, amongst others, but I felt the need to point out that many peopel would disagree, and give the reasons why. Very true aswell, and I'd agree with this. I know alot of people who are 'for' testing cosmetics on animals, who use the line of reasoning that animals are 'less' than humans, and then use their own criteria for this. My reply is usually... 'But how do you know elephants aren't judging us in the same way? You're using your own criteria, but think about the possibility that other animals may be using their own criteria... The elephants may be judging humans as lesser beings, because we don't have long noses as they do. Swallows may be judging as as lesser beings, because we don't have a wonderfully complex inner navigational system as they do. Dogs may be judging us as lesser beings, because our sense of smell and hearing is significantly less developed than theirs...' However, the fact remains that there is a distinction. NOT that we're BETTER than other animals, but that their is a difference between humans and other animals. After all, we're a different species! As I said above, humans are a different species. Simple as that. I'm not saying, and I don;t think anybody else in this thread is, that animals are lesser beings: Just that we are different. True, we are all 'creatures of the planet', but we have significant differences, as the examples of the swallow, dog, and elephant illustrate above. Please nobody lynch me! I feel like people in this thread are judging me based on my replies here, which is largely useless since most of the time I just give the opposite viewpoint, regardless of whether it's my own. Kiama

wavebreaker	13 Jun 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Kiama As I said above, humans are a different species. Simple as that. I'm not saying, and I don;t think anybody else in this thread is, that animals are lesser beings: Just that we are different. True, we are all 'creatures of the planet', but we have significant differences, as the examples of the swallow, dog, and elephant illustrate above. Yes, humans are different species. So are dogs, elephants, whales, cats, etc. Then why make that division between the human species on the one hand, and all the other species on the other hand? It's quite clear that all species are different, then why pick out man and compare it to all the other species? It just doesn't make sense to me. You can only compare one species to another, not one species to all other species. Quote: Please nobody lynch me! I feel like people in this thread are judging me based on my replies here, which is largely useless since most of the time I just give the opposite viewpoint, regardless of whether it's my own. Why don't you just give us your opinion instead of other people's opinions... I'm not interested in book science, I can look that up myself, I'm interested in what everyone here thinks! ;)

firemaiden	13 Jun 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Kiama . However, the fact remains that there is a distinction. NOT that we're BETTER than other animals, but that there is a difference between humans and other animals. After all, we're a different species! Humans are a different species from Chimps, just as chimps are a different species from gorillas, but we are all primates, and primates are all mammals just like bats and elephants; and mammals (including us) and fish and birds are all animals. Yes there are differences between every species of animal. We are the only species to read tarot cards, and surf the internet, to build railroads and collect postage stamps. Yet, as is turns out, the exhalted position accorded to man in the universe by renaissance humanists, who put man at the center, is slowly been erroded, as every domaine we reserve for man alone (as Umbrae pointed out) is being proven to apply to non-human animals as well. (language, tool use, capacity to learn, capacity to suffer, ability to plan and wage war, etc.) Our past hubris - (our tragic flaw, our fatal pride) is now coming back to haunt us. We have come a long way since Descartes wrote that animals were automatons, machines without a consience.

Kiama	13 Jun 2003
Tarotlady, I usually don't give my opinion, because often I still have not made up my mind entirely about what my opinion is. I enjoy looking at all the other possible opinions, and examining them, and one way I do this is through using them in discussion such as this one. Often, my opinion on things is one-sided and ill-informed, and I'd rather add a little fact rather than knowledge, and often I also like to give the other side of the discussion, since it would be pretty boring if somebody posted a question: Do animals have morals? I think they do. Because... (Fill in reasons) Then everybody replied: Yes, I agree with you totally. :D Also, I like to base my opinions on facts as far as I can, because there's more foundation in fact and 'book science'. As we can see from this thread, the person who says 'Animals are lesser beings than humans' and purports this as their opinion, would be wrong, and book science would prove them wrong. So, I like to look at what the facts are, then base my opinions on that, aswell as listening to all sides of the debate. You have an excellent point about the distinction many make between humans as a species, and all other non-human animals. I guess the reason it is done is because if we were to only make the distinction between one species and another, and then ask the question 'Does this species have morals', it would take forever... And most of us don't have time for that! ;) Though it woudl be interesting if somebody devoted their life to that question, and looked at each species individually. Though they'd still have to define morality, which, as we have found out in this thread, is a hellishly tricky thing to do! Kiama Edited to add: Firemaiden, I know a couple of cats wo use Tarot... ;)

firemaiden	13 Jun 2003
The distinction between opinion and fact is important to make. But it must be said, that when it comes to animal psychology, just as with human psychology, you are not going to have hard facts as you will with some other hard sciences. It is just not possible.

isthmus nekoi	13 Jun 2003
I think the continuum is probably a good way of looking at it. I still don't think there's an either/or category when it comes to things like morality, abstract thought etc. Some hard facts you can rely on though is the actual physical structure of the brain. I'm not trying to get all reductionist here, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe every animal has a comparable nervous system, and humans have (when counting the body mass: brain mass ratio) the largest or densest cerebral cortex. It is just *fascinating* what can happen to 'morality' and cognition in general when there is damage to the human brain. However, bigger isn't necessarily better. On a side note, that same hubris of humanism when taken to the opposite extreme as we find now in postmodernism/ poststructuralism.... these attempts to blast away the concepts of center/periphery....... results in the sad sort of fragmented, surface oriented, spiritually evacuated discourse you find dominates academia today. It's come to the point where I must use words like 'archetype' w/much caution (which I suppose is a good thing in a way...), or how any suggestions of spirituality can land your paper in some very hot water.

Shadow Wolf	14 Jun 2003
I would prefer the company of my dogs than that of some people I know. I have 2 dogs. Bear, we adopted from North Shore Animal League when he was 3 months old and he's become the best thing to happen to our family. He's a sweet-tempered lovable mush. And I am convinced that I would have lost my mind a long time ago if not for him. He does love us and protects us and the house with fierce loyalty. Max is a pure breed Shiba Inu puppy, he's about 6 months old. He's the original free spirit. He leaps off the floor to greet me when I come home he's so happy to see me. Do animals have morals ??? I believe that animals , like children live what they learn. If you give them an ounce of love and affection they will be the most steadfast and loyal of friends. (with the possible exception of phycopathic cats !!!!)

Brolga	16 Jun 2003
Hi, what a thread! I just wanted to share an amazing experience.... I had my canary outside in his cage, for some sun. I was inside and heard this great cacophany.... ran out to the window and on the trellis were literally dozens of blue-faced honey-eaters, all screeching and squawking at a cat! These birds are often seen alone, rarely as a small group, let alone dozens of them. It was an INCREDIBLE experience. I have no doubt in my mind the wild birds were banding together to protect my sweet canary. Bright blessings all

Diana	16 Jun 2003
This is a beautiful story, Brolga! Thanks for sharing it.

The Do animals have morals? thread was originally posted on 07 Jun 2003 in the Spirituality board, and is now archived in the Forum Library. Read the active threads in Spirituality, or read more archived threads.