

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

======
pj
I think this is a really important study. Humans are so arrogant to believe
that other species of animals, (humans _are_ animals, don't forget) do not
have emotions or thoughts or communicate with each other in a manner more
complex than what we hear as a bark or a chirp.

How do we know they aren't communicating concepts as complicated as "Be
careful there is a human approaching and it looks dangerous." with one
syllable?

If you look at trends in human communication, across all languages, then
you'll find syllable reduction increases as the word frequency increases.
There are only 9 words in the 100 most common english words that have more
than one syllable, and none with more than 2.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_common_words_in_English>

If you look up these words in the dictionary, they are the most difficult to
describe. Compare the definition of "the" to the definition of "superfluous"
<http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/the> <http://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/superfluous>

This pattern is not just found in English. Some, perhaps most, Asian languages
even include tones in single syllable words to indicate different meanings.

It could be argued then, that perhaps the consciousness of animals is actually
more advanced than human consciousness. Who knows? Just because we don't
understand them doesn't mean they aren't complex, perhaps the very reason we
do not understand them is _because_ they are more complex forms of
communication than human communication.

Why too then can't this same principle be applied to their concepts of right
and wrong? Their morality?

I don't know any animal, other than humans, that will kill another animal just
for the sheer pleasure of it. That seems quite morally corrupt. Animals kill
other animals for what appear to be rationalizable reasons, food, competition,
self-preservation.

Even when fighting for mates, the loser of a battle is allowed to escape with
its life. Sometimes accidents happen and the animals die of injuries, but
death is not the intent. Humans _intend_ to kill when they battle.

~~~
mrbgty
I have a chihuahua that (when left unsupervised) would kill chickens and
kittens for fun.

When all its doing is breaking a neck and moving to the next one, it's hard to
say that it was just hungry.

~~~
pj
Ah... that is interesting! I wonder why that is.

My first reaction is to think that perhaps the behavior you describe and that
behavior in humans is the result of surplus supply of prey. In the wild, prey
are difficult to find and so they are eaten when killed. When there are more
prey than can be eaten, the drive to play and gain hunting experience, becomes
killing for sport and a display of suitability for mating.

~~~
pj
Second reaction... If there is a range of moral "quality" so to speak of
decisions made by humans, and animals also exhibit morality in decision
making, then why might there not also be a range of moral quality in animal
decisions. Perhaps your murderous chihuahua was on the morally depraved end of
that spectrum...

~~~
mrbgty
She's definitely some form of demon.

------
philwelch
"Tell right from wrong" is a conjectural extrapolation. What this really tells
me is that animals observe social protocol. Now, perhaps morality is no more
than social protocol. But all of these "moral" behaviors have important
practical consequences.

------
ellyagg
How is this controversial? Anyone who literally thought that animals had
nothing analogous to morality or who didn't understand the evolutionary
underpinnings of morality was not being serious.

Nevertheless, the difference in intelligence (and thus scope of morality)
between humans and most animals is so vast in degree that it becomes a
difference in kind. Also, I still like eating tasty animals.

~~~
dejb
> Also, I still like eating tasty animals.

I think this is the 'logic' that has underpinned the previous dominant views
of animals as mindless automatons.

I like eating animals -> eating animals is morally OK -> animals don't have
consciousness

Merely trying to point out that animals do have concsiousness often causes
cognitive dissonance and is quickly dismissed.

------
req2
When in doubt, blame the journalist, not the scientist, but this is some
pretty deficient evidence.

> On three occasion the male monkey picked up tokens she dropped and inserted
> them into the slot and allowed her to have the food.

> As there was no benefit for the male monkey, Prof Bekoff argues that this is
> a clear example of an animal's actions being driven by some internal moral
> compass.

Primates participate in a good deal of social behavior based on reciprocal
exchange, e.g., social grooming. The lack of immediate obvious benefit for the
male monkey ignores the benefits of e.g., greater friendship, and ignores the
dangers of "stealing" food from an older, possibly more dominant monkey. This
example is interesting, but no more "moral" than any other one-sided
benevolent exchange that you can find in monkey societies.

> Recent research from Switzerland also showed that rats will help a rat, to
> which it is not related, to obtain food if they themselves have benefited
> from the charity of others. _This reciprocity was thought to be restricted
> to primates._

Next paragraph...

> Those who are successful in foraging for blood will share their meal with
> bats who are not successful. They are more likely to share with bats who had
> previously shared with them. Prof Bekoff believes _this reciprocity_ is a
> result of a sense of affiliation that binds groups of animals together.

(My emphasis.) The bat data has been known for over 15 years, and the lack of
internal consistency is likely the journalist, but the science is still...
stretching pretty far. It is not uncommon for vampire bats to find "bat
buddies" with whom they predominantly share their excess food. This activity
is easily traced through reciprocal altruism to selfishness.

> Some studies have shown that animals experience hormonal changes that lead
> them to "crave" social interaction.

Yes, like estrus, or ovulation in humans. This fact is unimportant and does
not relate to morality.

> They also have three times as many spindle cells compared to humans and are
> thought to be older in evolutionary terms.

We know so little of the workings of the brain or of spindle /neurons/ that
stating an absolute difference (without reference to the fourfold or greater
size difference (sorry, no reference to whale neuron count on hand))) as if it
means something is silly. They exist in whales, which is important, but in
humans they have been implicated in emotion, spatial awareness, and touch.
Would whales having a sense of touch be a radical notion?

> This finding has suggested that complex emotional judgements such as empathy
> may have evolved considerably earlier in history than previously thought and
> could be widespread in the animal kingdom.

So because whales are older than humans in evolutionary terms, this suggests
an earlier evolution of empathy? I think the fundamental mistake is thinking
that the whales did not evolve spindle neurons independently, but the whole
line of thinking is somewhat muddled.

------
Tichy
Isn't that just a matter of how one defines "morality"? I think morals are
just rules that are being followed without understanding the reasons why. Even
in human societies it is the same - we think we are all human and moral, but
really the moral rules only serve to make us establish a specific organization
of society (the moral rules are induced by society). In that way, why not
consider the behavior of wolves or whatever "moral"? They are evidently
following some rules.

Societies are subject to evolution - fair behavior among it's members might
give one society an advantage over another society, so the fairness rule
sticks and becomes inbuilt.

Not sure what is supposed to be new about this research then.

