Do animals have morality?
Do animals have morality? - - - -
No. One may say that they show 'pro-social behavior', but this would be a kind of behavior that we - the only moral animals on earth! - interpret as 'moral'.
Morality is a set of norms, rules, commandments and values. These 'exist' in a counterfactual world of what ought to be, but animal do not live in such a world. Their world is full of things that are what they are.
Morality has to be distinguished from strategic behavior (If I want to acheive this goal, I have to behave in a way that help me to acheive this goal), which is quite common among highly social and intelligent animals, like apes, dolphins or crows.
Animals may show empathy and fairness, but not because some norm or commandment tells them to do so. No chimps does ever learn You have to groom other members of your group - This behavior is hardwired - by evolution - in their brains because it pays off. Most of it is basically tit-for-tat: If I groom you, you'll groom me. If I am friendly towards alpha, this will improve my status in the group.
In a truly moral framework, it would be wrong to ask "what's in for me?". "Why should I always tell the truth, or : Why am I supposed not to steal, if this would benefit me and if nobody is looking and I'm confident to get away with it?". In a moral world, you should not do X, and you should do Y, just because it is the right thing to do, not because it somehow benefits you.
Chimps do not have anything comparable, they have no rules, no norms to follow. As highly social animals they have pro-social instincts, and they are intelligent enough to practice some strategic thinking, but that's all.
There is a sort of common human behavior that does not exist in other species and that could be seeen as a litmus test for true moral behavior: so-called third-party punishment: When I witness someone violating a moral norm, I feel obligated to punish the evil-doer, even - and this is crucial - if that punishment entails some disadvantage for me. Why ? Because I feel loyal to the norm / rule / value, not necessarily to this very person that is harrassed by the evil-doer. This identification with moral norms and values is typical for human beings as moral animals.
No. One may say that they show 'pro-social behavior', but this would be a kind of behavior that we - the only moral animals on earth! - interpret as 'moral'.
Morality is a set of norms, rules, commandments and values. These 'exist' in a counterfactual world of what ought to be, but animal do not live in such a world. Their world is full of things that are what they are.
Morality has to be distinguished from strategic behavior (If I want to acheive this goal, I have to behave in a way that help me to acheive this goal), which is quite common among highly social and intelligent animals, like apes, dolphins or crows.
Animals may show empathy and fairness, but not because some norm or commandment tells them to do so. No chimps does ever learn You have to groom other members of your group - This behavior is hardwired - by evolution - in their brains because it pays off. Most of it is basically tit-for-tat: If I groom you, you'll groom me. If I am friendly towards alpha, this will improve my status in the group.
In a truly moral framework, it would be wrong to ask "what's in for me?". "Why should I always tell the truth, or : Why am I supposed not to steal, if this would benefit me and if nobody is looking and I'm confident to get away with it?". In a moral world, you should not do X, and you should do Y, just because it is the right thing to do, not because it somehow benefits you.
Chimps do not have anything comparable, they have no rules, no norms to follow. As highly social animals they have pro-social instincts, and they are intelligent enough to practice some strategic thinking, but that's all.
There is a sort of common human behavior that does not exist in other species and that could be seeen as a litmus test for true moral behavior: so-called third-party punishment: When I witness someone violating a moral norm, I feel obligated to punish the evil-doer, even - and this is crucial - if that punishment entails some disadvantage for me. Why ? Because I feel loyal to the norm / rule / value, not necessarily to this very person that is harrassed by the evil-doer. This identification with moral norms and values is typical for human beings as moral animals.
Comments (100)
Quoting Matias66
This and the rest of this post have a lot of unsupported presumptions.
Quoting Matias66
Moral behavior does not require a "norm or commandment."
Quoting Matias66
I'm skeptical. Do you have backup for this?
Quoting Matias66
This is not true for me and for many, perhaps most, other people. I think you're talking about moralistic, not moral, behavior.
'Obligated'? If I see somene being mugged at knife-point I don't feel obligated to tackle the assailant and put myself at risk. I want to help of course, but not by risking my own life. Someone who did rush in would be hailed as a hero. But is heroism expected of us all? I don't think so.
In differentiating human morality from the pure instincts of chimps I think you need to show that the different behaviour is learned by humans rather than simply being the effect of more sophisticted (invariably social and altruistic) instinct. Human morality is often put down to the existance of choice. I.e. I have the choice to tackle the mugger, or not. Of course that choice is heavily influenced by my emotions - fear of harm vs desire to help. Which one wins out would differ from person to person. So is that really a 'choice'? I can by force of will ignore my prevailing urge for self-preservation and rush in; or I can slink away. I'm guessing chimps would act similarly to save members of their own group from attack by another group. But would they all? Maybe some would hang back, scared..
Quoting Matias66
Surely what makes it 'the right thing to do' is that it benefits society, as opposed to benefitting you individually. And the knowledge of what benefits society is hard-wired in us as part of the way we as social animals have evolved. Most of us know what is right and what is wrong, regardless of what benefits us personally. Even the burglar knows what he does is 'wrong', but his desire for the cash he'll raise outweighs his sense of guilt. In that sense he/she is an outlying minority in social evolutionary terms, not a disproof; dangerous but small enough not to harm the majority too much.
In addition I think what divides us from chimps is language. We can use it to develop a far more subtle and sophisticated morality which can be better taught and understood. Other than language and the conciously controllable will language allows I see little difference.
Quoting 180 Proof
I've myself pondered upon the vexing issue of how even altruism in the end is selfish.
The way I (attempt to) save the phenomena as it were is to take a more nuanced approach. True, altruism is selfish, but contextualize that within the following undeniable truths:
1. Can one truly remove oneself from the equation of altruism? It, as of the moment, is impossible (no matter how altruistic you are, you're gonna reap some benefits). Do you begrudge a tiger if it attacks you? The tiger can't help it, it's nature is not something it chooses to be. Likewise, we too can't avoid acting in our own interests, but we must acknowledge that an altruist, all said and done, uniquely and distinctly, also deems the interest of others as equally or more important than his/her own. That's something that counts in my book.
2. The altruist also, if all goes well, reduces (quantitatively) his gain from an action i.e. if s/he could've got $50, s/he's willing to accept less (monetizing a problem is as good as mathematizing it; things begin to make sense).
Summary:
1. The altruist, despite an innate selfishness, seeks to aid others. Me = Others. Point earned!
2. The altruist, for the simple reason that profit for himself is ineluctable, attempts to mathematically reduce them. Me < Others. Another point earned!
[quote=Altruist]
1. I value others
2. I value others more than myself[/quote]
They even know how to act. I turned my attention to another dog and she dropped to the ground just like that. Crying like a baby. Her poor hind leg... She bit me when I tried to help (not hard). The jealous bitch!
It is delegated to them through sentient beings, such as by taming or training.
Morality is cerebral equality first ascribed to newborns prior to any other data. Good is anything considered equal and evil is unequal where morality is concerned. Cerebral equality takes sentience which is mental roaming, animals are technically different than man as they experience pre-sentience. If we are sentient then we can judge 'what is/isn't', thus finding what is equal, cerebrally. Sentience- a measure of all things in the universe; sentient beings must quarry themselves to pay for the luxury of mind in economical equinox. Evil is opposite to good integrally but in an opposed Boolean manner is solipsism, which is what succumbing to evil deeds is like.
I agree. And it is rather simple, animals cannot be moral because they display an insufficiency in thought capacity, which indicates they are incapable of the type of abstract thinking that ethics is dependent upon.
But I disagree that it's delegated to them by "sentient" beings. Rather, it is projected onto them by "ethical" beings, quite anthropocentrically.
And there's a subconscious yet tragic human-nature propensity to perceive the value of animal life (sometimes even human life in regularly war-torn or overpopulated famine-stricken global regions) in relation to the conditions enjoyed or suffered by that life. With the mindset of unwanted-cats disposability, it might be: ‘Oh, there’s a lot more whence they came’.
Yet these mammals’ qualities, especially their non-humanly innocence, make losing them such a great heart break for their owners.
1. Free will is necessary
2. Ought implies can
Neither of them are fulfilled in/by animals. Truth be told, doubts have been raised whether humans themselves possess free will and it's no secret that we're, many times in our lives, victims of circumstance.
We said the same about animal intelligence and feelings, not long time ago. Is moral something totally different?
If I'm not mistaken, according to natural sciences, there's nothing special in human beings in any regard. So whatever is intelligence, all animals have that sort of thing, to some degree. Why would moral be any different? I think the only argument would be something like humans being literally God's image, supreme special being and animals are just some kind of biological machines.
Of course we can define moral as somehing very human specific.
Personally, I don't believe there exist "objective moral values" - in the sense of existing transcendantly - external to human beings. My theory is that morality is rooted in empathy. Empathy is a plausible basis for the "golden rule" - a formalism that seems to have developed independently in various cultures. We also know that psychopaths have an absence of empathy, and their behavior demonstrates an absence of morals.
If I'm right, then animals share the foundation of morality - empathy, but they lack the powers of abstraction to codify it into a "rule".
Quoting Matias66They have limited powers of abstraction and limited ability to speak to one another.
This makes sense to me.
Which shows the relative non-efficacy of "rules" ...
Mirror neurons, those that assume the state of other neurons, hypothesized to be the basis of empathy, do animals lack them? It would be a miracle if animal brains are that different from ours.
The worst part is that even equipped as we are with empathy, we perform so poorly in the moral department. What hope is their for animals if they're empathy-less?
So animal brains have the basic structure (mirror neurons) for empathy, assuming empathy is so effected. Perhaps an additional feature is needed to, you know, close the circuit so to speak and turn on empathy. Pure speculation of course.
Has nothing to do with morality. Morality is more than simply imitation. And it is more than simply rule following or empathy.
Show that animals can comprehend the universal and I will concede that they have morality. Until then, all talk of animals and morality is flapping ass cheeks
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/699762
What have you exposed? I predict no explanation.
The key term is "expressions of morality". I can easily explain how mechanical devices express morality. However, the pertinent question is not how morality is expressed, but what morality is in itself? How is it lived and experienced by the moral agent? For instance, what is it that binds one to an ethical code? Why does a person hold oneself accountable to particular ethical principles regardless of consequences or rationale? If nothing else, this would require a very sophisticated self identity, one that far exceeds a survival instinct based on empathy and mimicry.
Quoting Olento
That is exactly what it is and for very clear reasons.
Isn't the golden rule an objective rule for moral values?
Personal empathy, more or less of it might be a secondary guide that overrides an objective rule in men, how does that work for animals?
What makes it objective?
By me, absolute is unconditional, supreme; and objective is mechanical, mind independent.
The golden rule assumes that all men are objectively reasonable and dependable, meaning all men want 'good' for themselves (derived from Plato).
Quoting magritte
Theists define Objective Moral Values (OMVs) as objectively existing (ontic) objects that exist independently of human beings. By asserting the existence of OMVs, they infer that a God must exist as their source. I don't believe such things exist.
We have moral beliefs ("x is wrong"), and I propose these beliefs are rooted (non-verbally) in feelings of empathy. It feels wrong when we see someone being hurt. We apply abstract reasoning to verbalize this into a "rule".
The golden rule is "objective truth" in the sense that it feels right to all proper functioning humans - all have the root feelings, and therefore agree with it. It's a property of humanness; it's part of our makeup. But the rules don't exist independently of us.
2. Animals are not moral agents (they either lack free will or are less free than us; ought implies can).
3. We are animals – which delude themselves that they are not, or more than, animals – "not moral agents" ... :chin:
What do you mean by "moral agent" and how does this differ from "moral subject"?
Moral agents havta possess free will!
Moral subjects only need possess the capacity to suffer (and enjoy).
Empathy is psychologically subjective condition that we share with other advanced animals. It is itself rooted in ability to assess the mental state of another being. Aren't values more permanently independent of our temporary psychological states? How do we get from a condition of empathy (or hate) to values that can guide us in our actions?
I don't agree that empathy entails assessing the mental state of others. Rather, it is a vicarious feeling - reacting as if it were happening to ourselves (hence it is also tied to self-preservation).
[Quote]Aren't values more permanently independent of our temporary psychological states?[/quote]
Why think they exist independently of the minds that hold them? The concept of Spider-Man can be shared despite there not existing such a person.
[Quote] How do we get from a condition of empathy (or hate) to values that can guide us in our actions?[/quote]
We develop semantic moral guidelines by abstract reasoning and language.
The relevant language is grounded in our common set of perceptions and emotions, and shaped by our social environment.
Quite obviously, morality does not exist in animals, by definition.
So, what more are you looking for with your question and topic Do animals have morality?
Are we?
Definitions of "animal":
"A living organism that feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli." (Oxford LEXICO)
Something that lives and moves but is not a human, bird, fish, or insect (Ccambridge Dictionary)
A living thing that is not a human being or plant (Britannica Dictionary)
It's indeed very straibge to meet this kind of view about humans in an intellectual place as this (is supposed to be)!
Yes.
Sentience, or mental roaming, allows one to judge themselves. Sentient species often create laws, and laws make sense because of morality. For example: Morality is the reason(ref. Super frequency) we do not support killing in the civilized world.
To kill is an act that is commonly detested, because it causes pain to the victim; we do not kill because it is agreed upon and enforced that it would be less productive and unethical, and how we reach an agreement is through our sense of morality. Consortia preserved to the present day because past elements were moral, and in effort to continue this pattern, we amend our lifestyles to fit the consort. Considering all beings and their way of life, it befits that we do not kill each other, so that we can continue to exist as members of the consort; it's not a random thought- it's rooted in logic- technically we ought not kill- not killing isn't a question of morality but an answer to a former question: how do we do good?
Great argument!
Plus, while you seem to not know what an "animal" is, you still ignored the three definitions of the word "animal" that I took the trouble to bring up for you. What a fruitful discussion!
I assume you mean your quote from an old thread on a related topic: "Only expressions of morality (codes of conduct, or normative conventions) are "social constructs". Humans are eusocial animals and instincts for (a) reciprocal harm ..."
Well, this contains an arbitrary personal statement --Humans are eusocial animals-- based on no evidence, proof or definition/description of "human" or "animal". In fact, it is based on absolutely nothing.
Someone else could well say that "An animal is any living creature that does not fly!" and whatever other crazy stuff.
So, do you really prefer such arbitrary and unfounded descriptions than standard definitions? Can a sensible discussion be based on them?
I know, a lot of people hate or disprove of dictionaries, esp. some "philosophical thinkers". Let's follow this attitude, throw away all encyclopedias and disctionaries and start living in a Tower of Babel!
It's hard to imagine animals developing semantic moral guidelines by abstract reasoning and language. Until we can observe animals doing this, there is no reason to assume they are ethical creatures
:sweat: Okay, whatever ...
If "ethical" = adhering to semantic statements of "oughts", then you're right. My point was that many animals exhibit empathy, which I propose is the pre-verbal basis that grounds morality.
Abstract reasoning and language are the necessary interface by which the ethical is accessed and apprehended. For a creature to be ethical, it would require it to be capable of abstract reasoning and language which could then be developed into ethical ideas.
Ethical ideas of course begin as conceptions of good and evil, which are universal principles that can be codified into a specific set of rules that often become convention. Everything ethical is based in a knowledge of good and evil, and an irrational conviction in that knowledge. If rule following is to be considered ethical, it must refer back to that knowledge and conviction, otherwise it is simply rote behavior - nonethical.
My point is that, at its core, ethics depends on and is based in a belief in ethical ideas, not in feelings like empathy. In fact, if feelings were the basis for morality, feelings of fear, or love are as equally valid? Empathy is as arbitrary as any other.
Yes, free will is necessary for ethics, because it is the only criterion by which an ethical creature can be held accountable. The notion of accountability is as necessary as good and evil insofar as ethical ideas are concerned.
The interesting part is when we consider perfection. Is it possible for a moral agent to be unwavering in all ethical matters? Personally, I don't think so. It's only speculation, but this suggests to me that free will is something exercised (or, perhaps, accessible to us) only sporadically or contingently. Or, perhaps, we're all hopeless sinners as the judeochristians assert. Who knows?
That's pretty far fetched. where did you come up with that?
We're born sinners, (slightly) more evil than good. Evil it seems is the default (re selfish genes); plus the good too are ultimately selfish (altruism is a sham). Hence, to be moral, one must resist our nature, our innate instinct to think only about our own welfare. Free Won't instead of Free Will.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
Perplexing indeed.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
Let's just agree: humans are only animals. But then it must also be granted that: no other animals are human but humans. That alone puts humans in a unique place in the animal kingdom, one that may have exclusive access to ethics.
Its the worst kind of selfishness.
Quoting Agent Smith
There is speculation in various belief systems that our original nature is thrown out of balance at birth or shortly thereafter. Nevertheless, the overwhelming evidence shows that people are constitutionally fucked in the head.
"Free won't" is what Socrates did with his Socratic ignorance. And Diogenes did to an extreme with his cynicism. It begins with a special kind of doubt called the suspension of belief.
I would be curious to know what you thought of that video of a monkey getting outraged by unequal pay. Is the monkey just experiencing sympathy? Seems like he has some strong ethical opinions about what ought to be done. I doubt he's read the bible yet.
( https://youtu.be/meiU6TxysCg )
"Two Monkeys Were Paid Unequally: Excerpt from Frans de Waal's TED Talk"
I wouldn't say that. Which is more impressive, a sinner trying to be good or a saint doing good?
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
That's a good one! Epoché! The assumption being knowledge is impossible! The words "might", "maybe", "possibly", "could be", etc. exist for a very good reason then, oui?
Well first, great video. Monkeys are hysterical.
What I noticed intitially, was that there was no mention of ethics or morality in the entire video. So im curious where you made the connection that, anything the monkeys did, demonstrated their behavior to be of an ethical nature.
I would be interested to see a post experiment interview, and hear what those monkeys had to say about their experience with unfairness.
I don't believe in saints, but that's me, I could be wrong, it's a terrible tragedy. I just don't trust people that over-advertise their righteousness and benevolence. And a sinner trying to be (sincerely) good always impresses me. I have soft spot for redemption.
Quoting Agent Smith
Those are my favorite words to use here on tpf.
That is philosophical speculation's Achilles heel. The postmodernist got that one, a really rigid and uptight version. But Socrates had it first, and a much cooler version.
Quoting Agent Smith
I like the phase: "I don't not believe it".
Of course, dummy . :kiss: Just kidding, you're not dumb.
But I agree, values are less transient than feelings. They are the elements of moral conviction, the ideas that bind the moral agent to his knowledge of good and evil.
True! Like I suspected, there's evil (openly malicious) and then there's evil evil (mimicking good, doubling the sin).
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
I wouldn't say they're my favorites too, but my general ignorance doesn't permit me to abandon their use.
If I were to give philosophical advice, I would say: lean into it... embrace your ignorance and cultivate the use of such sophisticated terminologies.
Ok! Danke.
Well, if the monkey was just experiencing sympathy (mirroring), then it might feel hunger when it realized another monkey was eating food; and I'm sure it did experience that. But it seems to take it one step further with the anger: "I should be fed if that monkey is being fed!"
Seems like an ethical situation when the monkey starts thinking about abstract ideas of what should or shouldn't be done. And if such thoughts aren't passing through its head, then what do you think is the source of its anger?
That's the best argument yet for animal morality. But it falls victim to the phenomenological dilemma, that we can never access morality in itself (noumenal), we are confined to morality as it seems to us (phenomenological)
I did not catch the part when the monkey was thinking (about abstract ideas of what should or shouldn't be done). Those thoughts never came close to occurring to me. I think the source of its anger was that it wanted to eat grapes over cucumber. I agree with the monkey. Grapes are tastier than cucumbers.
I just mean abstract in the simplest sense of the word: seeing scenarios in its head that aren't actually taking place in the world around it.
Grapes are tastier than cucumbers. But I found it interesting how the monkey's eyes are darting back and forth from the human to the other monkey. The sense of concern. It seems to be experiencing jealousy.
Isn't jealousy an inherently ethical notion? How can you feel that you are getting less than you deserve, without first having ideas about what is deserved?
Seems to be about exactly when the monkey gets angry, and the extent of how quickly the anger escalates. Strikes me as more than dissatisfaction with cucumbers.
Ha yeah I like the part where he rattles the wall of his cage like a prisoner.
Perhaps jealousy is an ethically based idea. Whatever the case, it can only have significance as an ethical term for the ethical creature.
All of our interpretation of the monkey behaving on some moral knowledge or intuition is merely us projecting our ethical nature upon them.
As far as I can tell, it has nothing to do with morality, and everything to do with the appetitive nature of the monkey. Perhaps it is acting selfishly, something we determine to be wrong as ethical creatures. For a nonethical creature, selfish behavior is a percieved means to acquire its want.
It was pretty funny. How can you not love monkey business :blush:
Sure, we can say ethics is based on ethical ideas, but it begs the question: what's the basis of the ethical ideas? Moral imperatives aren't merely arbitrary propositions stored in the memory bank. No one needs to instruct you to behave in ways that contribute to self-preservation, nor apply this vicariously. These are grounded in feelings, not in words.
[Quote]if feelings were the basis for morality, feelings of fear, or love are as equally valid? [/quote]All feelings lead us in intellectual directions. Words like "love" and "hate" have no meaning at all without the experience of the feeling. But sure, all feelings are valid and influence our intellectual directions. Hate and fear lead people to rationalize killing in war or for self-preservation.
I agree. ‘Morality’ is a concept born through complex language. The objective origins of ‘morality’ would be something different from what we general call ‘morality’.
To even begin to address whether animals have some species of ‘morality’ would first require us to outline, on an objective level, what/where morality is and then be able to apply some kind of empirical unit to it that remains constant.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to explain why so many people and even scientists believe humans are animals and describe them as such: It's the narrow view that characterizes them. They all consider one only part of the human being: the physical/physiological one. Indeed,
"Although humans and animals (technically “non-human animals”) may look different, at a physiological and anatomical level they are remarkably similar." (https://speakingofresearch.com/facts/the-animal-model/)
But another part of humans is ignored: the non-physical/physiological one. This is where "ethics", which you mentioned, belongs. This is where mind --thinking, logic, imagination, etc.-- belongs. This part classifies humans in a separate category of life and living creatures of its own.
That the belief that humans are animals is only superficial and not actual is reflected in everyday life in a lot of ways: animal protection, animal cruelty, people loving or hating animals, wild animals & zoos, animal life, can animals do this and that?, and so one. There's a single category of doctors that treat animals: the veterinarians. There are dozens of categories of doctors who treat humans. It's not just a question of complexity; it's a question of diversity.
All that clearly show the differentiation humans actual make between themselves and animals.
Tell me again then that "Humans are only animals".
A creature capable of abstract reasoning.
Conceptions of good and evil are quite arbitrary, which would make their corresponding moral imperatives arbitrary at their core because they are grounded in a knowledge of good and evil, and a conviction in that knowledge. Any feelings involved with moral imperatives are intuitive rather than emotive.
And, there you go, randomly bringing up "self-preservation", which has nothing to do with morality, unless you assign it an ethical value.
Excellent analysis! :up:
Describe a scenario whereby ungrounded abstract reasoning leads to the golden rule. My position is that the relevant abstract reasoning is grounded in feelings. You disagree, and indicated the grounding is nothing more than abstract reasoning itself - no other ground.
Quoting MerkwurdichliebeCircular.
:pray:
Glad you agree with keeping and using disctionaries! :smile:
You make quite a tautology here.
[quote=Google]Fresh cucumbers Worldwide sales for cucumbers exports by country totaled US$2.84 billion in 2020[/quote]
:chin:
I don't mind a cucumber, but I do wonder why people continue to buy certain boring-tasting plants. Would it be off-topic to turn a discussion about animal morality into a debate about the ethics of cauliflower? Why are we still eating cauliflower in 2022? We aren't ancient peasants struggling to procrastinate starvation for one more week.
That's not a point I made. You omitted relevant words, and I think you know that.
If you're hinting that I did the same, I need you to explain. What I left out was your assertion that conceptions of good/evil are arbitrary, but this doesn't seem to change what you consider to be the grounding. You simply indicated it was arbitrary BECAUSE of being "grounded in a knowledge of good and evil". So it sure seemed to me you were saying the concepts were grounded in the knowledge, which makes no sense. If this is a misunderstanding, then please clarify.
Then... Another lion arrives and scares the hyenas off. The poor lion jumps his brother to thank him and both run away happily.
Dress it up with breading and buffalo sauce and you might change your mind :wink:.
Does an animal stop before it kills its prey and reconsider 'should I do this?', no, it doesn't have mirror neurons firing at necessary time consistencies.
Therefore, unless tamed or trained animals do not understand what's good, and do not have morality(i.e. free of moral burden).
That alone says nothing at all. "no other animals are turtles but turtles".
:snicker: The tables...they're forever turning aren't they? One day it's lions, the other day it's hyenas...up and down, to and fro, round and round we go!
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61803958
Some animals are capable of making judgements about fairness and can decide to work cooperatively with another of its kind for mutual benefit. These are examples of animal morality observed and filmed in labs.
A dog, for instance, who has been cooperating with an experimenter, will cease and disease if it observes another dog getting rewards for the same behavior for which it is not getting rewarded. It's pretty clear: the dog being unfairly ignored stops cooperating.
Primates who had been cooperating with other primates and an experimenter, will quickly stop cooperating if they see some primates getting better quality rewards than they received. For instance, if two primates get apple slices as rewards, and two other primates get slices of cucumbers, the cucumber primates will abruptly stop cooperating.
Primates will spontaneously cooperate to get a mutual benefit (they both get apple slices). Dogs have been observed cooperating on some task in order to get a mutual reward.
What these experiments reveal is that animals can recognize fairness/unfairness, and in some cases judge the quality o the reward. They can also recognize how to cooperate in some task in order to get something desirable (like a food reward).
My take on human behavior is that what we do is possible because other animals (in our evolutionary lineage) have made ever more complex behaviors possible. Perhaps we were subject to an evolutionary leap, but the ground still had to be prepared for that leap -- be it the way we see, hear, feel, think, or decide to complain to the management.
It's all hodge podge. I read the Wiki article on environmental personhood and certain natural features like rivers (e.g. the Ganges) and mountains have been granted personhood and that, as per the article, comes with legal protection and also, get this, responsibilities. If a river or a mountain or a patch of woods can be a person why can't Happy the elephant be one too?
"Granted" or not, I think being a person (i.e. having potentials for empathy & creativity and recognizing that others share the same potentials for empathy & creativity) is independent of political/juridical recognition.
Quite right! A person petitions for/demands rights! Happy the elephant or the Ganges didn't do either!
However, the US constitution guarantess the right to life (Happy the pachyderm is a living organism) and the right to pursue happiness (Happy can feel pain and joy).
So a human infant, feral human adult or human coma patient, for examples, are not persons because they can't "petition for/demand rights"?
One word: potential!