The Moral Lives of Animals
by Dale Peterson. Bloomsbury Press, 2011
In the summer of 2000 scientists saw a young elephant collapse and die on a trail in the African forest. In the following hours, elephants passing by attempted to help and revive her by lifting her dead body off the ground.
In The Moral Lives of Animals, Tufts University lecturer Dale Peterson argues that this kind of behavior provides evidence that humans are not the only animals that developed a sense of morality—other mammals, among them elephants, dolphins and chimpanzees, also have strong impulses for cooperation, kindness and fairness. Peterson, a long-time collaborator of primatologist Jane Goodall, makes the case that the morality of animals, such as humans, requires obeying certain social rules and evolved as a means to mediate conflicts that inevitably arise within communities.
Peterson asserts that animals are capable of exhibiting moral behaviors because these behaviors do not require advanced intellectual capabilities—they only result from strong emotional responses: “A bully makes you angry. A cheater leaves you depressed.” Some of Peterson’s stories illustrate animal emotions vividly, such as accounts of elephants committing suicide. Peterson writes that loggers in Myanmar (Burma) capture and train elephants to help with timber extraction. The taming procedure can be so distressing to the animals that some cut off their own air supply by stepping on their trunks.
Peterson also presents evidence that mammals can distinguish right from wrong. For example, a primatologist at a Tanzanian research site once tried to distract a chimp by pretending he had seen something intriguing in the distance. The chimp fell for the deception and went to explore but soon returned and slapped the mischievous primatologist on the head. Peterson interprets the chimp’s reaction as evidence that he recognized the researcher’s deceit as immoral and punished him.
Although the underlying motivations for many of these behaviors are a matter of interpretation, Moral Lives is a thought-provoking read that glimpses into the minds and behaviors of mammals.
See what we're tweeting about
7 Comments
Add CommentThis should make those who believe that moral values have a rational basis think again.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEven more significant it should make those who think that morality must have a religious basis are wrong. Instead it is clear that morality is an evolutionary adaptation which is a consequence of being a social organism. In addition it would appear that we have an innate predisposition to be moral (excluding those such as sociopaths in which this adaptation is not found either through maladaptive physiology or psychosocial influences).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisForgive me I should have said " These findings should demonstrate to those that think morality must have a religious basis that they are wrong." While I am at it I might as well add that though homo sapiens may have an innate predisposition to be moral this can be negated by a maladaptive early environment. These findings might also suggest that ethical reasoning preceded the development of metaphysical or epistemological reasoning in our evolution (after all I do not think anyone would suggest that animals speculate on the nature of reality or how or if knowledge about reality may be ascertained).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVir Narain, what are you saying (seriously)?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisChristinaak, morality is part of "religion"! Morality is a basic expression of religion! Yes, many animals express elements of morality, or, are to a degree, religious; although, their understanding of these elements is limited (as is so for many if not most humans).
PS: By the way, there is no such thing as a person who is truly NOT religious, the vast numbers in denial notwithstanding.
R. Carlson
I assure you that there are millions of people in the world who are absolutely not religious including myself (and who live exceptionally moral lives). An excellent general definition of religion that I think holds up under critical scrutiny is the following: A metaphysical system of superstition and mythology that is perpetuated via cultural transmission for the relief of existential anxiety, and that is epistemologically dependent on magical thinking and delusion. I am sorry that you can not accept the existence of unbelievers who are just as sincere in our unbelief as you are in your religious beliefs. The point I was making in my earlier post is that morality could evolve without religion and most assuredly did. have a nice day!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually I should have said that the evolutionary inception of morality preceded (i.e. independently)that of the origins of metaphysical reasoning (religion). It was only as metaphysical reasoning evolved that morality was incorporated into religious beliefs. Primitive man possessed a concept of right and wrong before he began to attribute the failure of his crops to angering supernatural agents (for example).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this. rgcorrgk. You suggest that there can be no morality without religion. Many of us are atheists, agnostics and secularists, and it is difficult to believe that you seriously think that we cannot, therefore, lead moral lives. Cicero said 'We have a natural propensity to love our fellow-beings, and that, after all is the foundation of all law.' It would probably sound more convincing to you in Latin. Natura propensi sumus ad diligendos homines quod fundamentum juris est. This is the basis of morality. In fact God-fearing morality, driven by fear of punishment or hope of reward,can hardly be considered true morality. Do please read Hume and Whitehead on the subject.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this