Animals exhibit moral behavior

[cardw]

Here is a TED talk that shows research on animals and their ability to determine fairness and morality.

This would seem to refute the idea that one needs a god to establish morality.

[Liz]

That really was very interesting.

[Tom Wetmore]

Moderator note:

OK. Fresh start time. Let's restart this conversation without rancorous and fallacious off the topic debates. And remember that this is the no quote zone.

That was an interesting video clip. It's hard to draw a definite conclusion, but it certainly does demonstrate another common denominator between man and so-called lower animals. Is it a common root of origin? Is it the product of genetic coding in common? Is the result of being from the hand of common external design? Is it evidence of a code of morality outside of the life forms in which it is manifested?

[cardw]

I have worked with horses in different capacities over the years. When I was working at summer camp we had 60 horses that we kept as a herd in a corral during the night since we didn't have a barn.

One morning we found a horse dead in the corral. It appeared that the horse died from a blow to the head. We immediately knew which horse was the guilty party because every other horse in the herd was turning their back to him and would not let him rejoin the herd. It was apparent that you could bite and tussle and even kick in the competition to get food, but if you didn't hold back and caused real harm you would be kicked out of the herd.

Now the horses didn't need to read the bible to know this. They didn't need a 10 commandments to know this. In fact they didn't need religion at all.

This seems to indicate that religion doesn't really inform us of morality at all. Some religion seems to teach us practice violence. And this violence is not directed against others because they have done anything wrong, but because they believe differently.

For example, if horses can detect that murder is wrong, why can't they detect the requirement to keep the Sabbath? And why would Moses be instructed by god to kill a man who was simply gathering wood? No animal would come up with this idea.

I would argue that religion makes people less moral, not more moral.

[cardw]

Another experience I had with a horse was when I was invited to treat a horse that was in pain. This horse had a reputation for being difficult. I chose to treat him in a large area so I wouldn't get stuck with an angry horse in a stall. And sure enough when I walked up to the horse he gave me that wary horse eye and when I touched him I could feel his body shift so he could give me a good kick.

I backed off slowly and looked at his posture. I could tell that he was placing a lot of attention in his left hip. I moved over toward his left hip and put my elbow into an area that should have been soft, but was hard as bone. At first he looked a little shocked, but then began to push back against my elbow. We pushed back and forth for about 20 minutes until he was standing with his eyes closed and his head down. The area in his hip was completely softened.

He then looked at me and walked off. I thought well it looks like we are done. When I went to leave the corral he circled around to block my exit. As I stood there he walked up to me and gently placed his forehead into my chest. We stood there for a few minutes and then he let me out of the corral.

To me it was clear that he was expressing gratitude. I could feel it come off of him. And there wasn't a dry eye among those who witnessed this.

You don't need religion to make connections like this. Religion is about fear and when you work with horses you cannot have any fear. They pick that up right away and began to wonder where the danger is.

People who are fundamentalist in their religious beliefs think what I do is evil. They aren't concerned with the evidence or the results. They are only concerned that it doesn't fit with anything their bible tells them. They operate out of fear.

I understand that. I could never present Christianity without a reference to fear and shame. It's impossible.

People wonder why I don't believe in the god of the bible. I keep telling them that it's a lack of evidence. And the response I continue to get back is, well you are going to be lost.

[debbym]

animals have emotions, they love, they are loyal, they play, they sorrow, they protect, they nurture, they learn, they fear, and they can be frustrated, and become provoked.... not by decision but in response.

this is part of their physical nature that we share with them.

when our relationships rob us of these things we have been robbed indeed, and our relationships to living creatures can help us heal and restore these experiences to us.

animals give, unconditionally give, without strings attached they give, without contracts and agreements, and deals, they give and give some more. it is my view that they express Gods giving nature. In relationships with them we experience God's love, whether we ever think so or not.

debjm

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

All creatures exhibit Pavlovian conditioning, including humans - but not in their all-inclusive behavior. I disagree that animals are unable to make decisions. At the risk of inciting wrath by extending anecdotal evidence, I had several dogs that made decisions on where to go for their walks. Sometimes they'd want to go left, sometimes right. There was no stimulus making them decide....it was merely an action of preference at the time.

And I don't think a creature (human or otherwise) needs to worship a God/god in order to exhibit moral behavior. But then, I'm also of the opinion that non-human animals don't sin.

[Stan]

Often those who do not worship a deity will have higher moral standards.

[Stan]

For example, Porn is a product (most) of what is viewed as Christian Nations. China blocked google as google would not block porn going to China, that was a couple of years ago.

[LynnDel]

Stan, your example makes it sound like those in Christian nations view porn more than nonChristian nations just because the inhabitants are Christian. Don't you think it is more because porn is available in Christian nations because we have this idea of allowing personal freedoms? Animals don't seem to be interested in this stuff, so they are definitely more moral than we are, proving we don't need a god. Hmmmm....

LD

[Stan]

You can be moral without doing it to please a God.

The porn thing puzzles me.

[Woody]

Hey cardw - I was just wondering if this video was an original thought of yours.

[cardw]

In regard to this being a Christian issue I think there is some evidence that it is.

I have worked with a few hotel managers and they have all said that when there was a Christian convention at their hotel that porn rentals spiked.

I think it is because religion and its use of fear, particularly around sexuality, actually promote what they are trying to prevent. This illustrates the failure of religion to improve morality.

[cardw]

The video is not my original production. That is from a TED talk. The application to the LACK of evidence for idea that humans are only moral because of the Bible is my idea. This would suggest that morality is built in to our DNA through a process of natural selection.

This is played out in other types of evidence. For example selfishness will work for a single individual in a small group to some degree, but at a national level it is a severe disadvantage. You can also see this in sports such as hockey or basketball. A moderately talented team who works together will more often beat a team of superstars who don't work together.

[Windsor]

Actually this proves that God was just in punishing the serpent in Genesis. After all, Satan isn't the one forced to lie on his belly; the instrument he used is. Therefore God must have placed some morality even within serpents, otherwise it would have been unjust to punish it for allowing Satan to control it. Praise God. Even science is proving His word true!

[cardw]

Windsor,

I don't know if this is a joke or you are serious about this.

I guess we have Jesus dying for the salvation of serpents now. LOL

[whatisthis]

Jesus died for the salvation of the whole world that was lost by Adam's sin, didn't He? And, if the many plants and animals in this whole world were affected by Adam's sin ---

[cardw]

So if snakes are morally responsible for their part in the fall then exactly how would you suggest they accept Jesus as their savior?

[debbym]

i don't think the snake has any moral responsibility.

i think animals have limited capacity to experience relationships.

but i value the amazing qualities animals can express,

especially that we can have relationships with them.

elephants have extremely complex social relationships, i believe they were created with this capacity.

and we were created with the ability to have relationships with creatures, but then this will get me onto my topic, the four relationships.

all of our relationships (healthy relationships that is) have much to teach us, to help us heal and grow.

Ideally we are morally responsible towards animals.

deb

[JoeMo]

I don't know if you call a "conscience" moral behavior or not; but when my dogs do something wrong, I know it before I even find out their "sin". As soon as I walk in the front door they have the ears-down, tail-between-the-legs look that says "busted". I look around the house; and usually find an "accident" on the carpet or a turned-over wastbasket.

Cats on the other hand, have no conscience. Bit I'm not judging them!

[JoeMo]

cardw,

Loved your "horse" examples. We had horses years ago; and I generally found them to be the most loving, communicative animals ever. There were exceptions.

[Igakusei]

A sort of common-sense rebuttal to the argument that animals exhibit moral behavior without possessing a conscious belief in God is that God created them this way. This has been expressed or alluded to a few times in this thread already, so I thought I might offer my two cents on it (stay with me until the end, because I know what the knee-jerk answer to where I'm going to start is):

By looking at only the positive social behaviors in social or domesticated species, we're missing a big chunk of the picture. Many species of animals commonly engage in cannibalism. Many parasites are programmed by their genetics to destroy the bodies of the hosts the mature in. David Attenborough famously recalled as a boy seeing a mother otter rip open a pregnant fish so her babies could feed on the thousands of fish eggs inside. Mother and children being nourished by mother and children.

None of this behavior is fundamentally any more evil than the moral behavior of horses or dolphins is good. It's just nature. Without predation, predators would starve. Without predators, herbivore populations would explode (driving many local plant species extinct), and then most of them would starve.

We as a civilization of social and intelligent humans have no problems understanding that things like murder, theft, cannibalism, rape, and other activities that cause suffering to others are generally harmful to the continued existence of a healthy social order, in similar fashion to how species that have developed social networks have also developed ways to control or correct the behavior of members of their species that violate the basic principles of trust and reciprocation that enable those networks. We came up with concepts like good and evil to categorize types of actions which are helpful or harmful to our social order. Altruism is good, murder is bad. These classifications have shown themselves to be quite flexible, depending on what humans have variously believed the consequences of various actions to be. For example oppressors have generally viewed the institutions that maintain their oppression as good, and this conclusion is invariably justified by reference to benefits allegedly received by the oppressed (see debates on: slavery, colonialism, segregation, unregulated capitalism, etc.).

So I concur with cardw that we don't need religion to understand or develop moral behavior, we need only to analyze the impact of different types of behavior and use our own brains to decide which types should be encouraged and which should be discouraged based on the most objective analysis of their most likely consequences. In attributing the moral value of specific behaviors to unchangeable laws laid down by a deity, our ability to act in a way that has the most favorable consequences given a unique context is deeply compromised.

Without religion good people will behave in good ways and evil people will behave in evil ways, but it takes religious belief to make a good person do evil things.

[JoeMo]

Igakusei,

All good points. I'm open to the traits you discussed as being "programmed" by intelligent design or "chosen" by natural selection (e.g., animals that didn't kill their food when plants weren't available starved to death and died out).

Is it possible that we as humans were "programmed with" or "chosen for" good deeds/bad deeds; and at least part of our moral code is genetic or organic and not spiritual?

[Igakusei]

Why not?

Although anatomically modern humans first appear around 200,000 years ago, organized agriculture and the relatively large settlements and stability this enabled only begin appearing around 10,000 years ago. Evidence of human behavior significantly resembling that of modern humans (creating artwork, bone tools, burying their dead, cooking, etc.) begins appearing commonly within the last 30-50,000 years, and this observed increase in the spread of culture and ideas likely paralleled the development of language (although the origin of spoken language is hard to nail down for obvious reasons and there are many competing theories with no clear way to resolve them).

In the several tens of thousands of years that functionally modern humans existed before developing organized agriculture and the permanent settlements that enabled the development of writing and the accumulation of knowledge and technology, our ancestors lived in small nomadic tribes of hunter-gatherers.

Seems like the perfect environment to develop many of the patterns of human behavior we observe today:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribalism#Tribalism_and_evolution