Of Monkeys and Morals...

So I got into this debate on another forum about the nature of morality, which led to a debate on morality and emotions in animals. While doing some research, I found a few videos of capuchin monkeys who displayed rudimentary knowledge of cooperation, sharing, and fairness. And I found a few videos on Koko the gorilla. Apparently, Koko likes sad films about as much as I do. Anyway... I thought I'd share them, because they're somewhat amusing. And what is your opinion on this, dear reader? Have you ever seen animals displaying moral behaviour? Do they have distinct personalities and emotions? Where do morals come from?

Capuchin cooperation:

and fairness:

Koko:

Food for thought.

I enjoyed watching those links and this is an interesting topic Michael. I enjoyed the monkey throwing the cucumber lol. Animals definitely know when they're getting the short end of the stick. My dog loves chew sticks but the moment real food appears, she drops it.

Yes I think animals have distinct personalities and emotions. Do they have morals? I would have to think about that one. One thing I know for sure is, certain pack animals have rules they expect others in the pack to follow, but this is learned. Also their behavior is conditioned by either others in their pack, outside the pack and in cases of domestication....the people around them.

Did you see that video of the dog who got hit by a car of a busy highway and another dog grabbed the dog, then dragged him to safety? My own dog clearly shows varied emotions. She's trained, so I suppose most of the way she behaves, is based on the training. My dog also thinks ahead - for example if we throw her ball and it goes close to the basement stairs - she stops and waits since she's afraid of those stairs. Where do morals come from - that's a complicated question. I suppose it comes from caregivers, parents, societal interactions ingrained at a young age and reinforced throughout childhood. I've had a deep sense of right and wrong from a young age.

Hi Michael, Oh my favorite, primates and animals in general and their individuality amongst other things.

Ofcourse we have to consider the basic design of groups and how that correlates with exitencialism. Many mammels including primates depend on grouping together in order to provide for a better way of surviving and reproducing. When that is in place there is a constant order within these groups. Hense we see a leader and a group of followers and there has often been observed certain role playing within these groups.
We can also see this within colonies of insects as well that survive by forming a leader/queen bee and the coloney that maintains a certain order of food and reproduction as well as the safety of that hive/ant hill etc.

I suppose if we add in the term moral code, well if we examine the order of things that take place within these groups, yes there is a built in moral code that can be instinctual or even genetic. Yes we can see this is a constant and necessary for the whole group to continue to function and exist and procreate effectively.

When we observe the females we do see that they all have the intuition and intellect for nurturing, while many of the males focus on protection, sometimes food gathering and competing for breeding by seeing who is the fittest and strongest. Many times groups consist of several females and one prominent male. The younger males are permitted only for a certain length of time and they seem to learn that at some point they are to leave the group and start their own group. Often there can be many attempts to take some of the group that has been established/controlled by one male.

There IS a difference in personalities that comprise the group in many cases. We can see this clearer by studying packs of wolves and cyotes. There is a dominant male and various standings within the pack as well as peace keepers. And it has been observed that certain members have certain born traits. I have noticed this in horses as well.

In my own experience with horses, I have noticed that there are unique personalities to each horse, some are more intelligent and athletic then others and yet some are very gentle and caring compared to others. But I have never experienced two horses/ponies with the same personality/looks/overall presense as others. I have found that it is much like us in that respect.

Ofcourse the closer the primate is to us with the respect to intelligence the more we can see our own basic needs displayed, including that of emotional nurturing. And that is evident by viewing the links you have presented here.

Us humans interact with each other and often term it politics. We are also seeing how the lack of proper nurturing deeply effects our abilities to group with others and feel comfortable with our own abilities to thrive.

Often when I address some of the bigger picture issues, I boil it down to the ways we often ignore what it takes for successful existentialism. As smart as we are, we tend to make many obstacles and have a tendency to forget healthy boundaries.

I think people prefer animals verses human companions because the basic sense of boundaries are much more respected and therefore trust can be established on a much more satisfactory level.

When it comes to humans, anytime I bring up addressing and truley knowing the correct way to raise a healthy child there is a constant question of "WHO WILL DECIDE THAT?". I find that question disturbing to be honest. For all we have intellectually and yet how ignorant we still are about our true basic needs disappoints me.

Open Eyes

Yes, animals do have emotions and also distinct personalities. They also have different psychological traits.

Emotions: Pretty easy to verify, just think of any animal (wild or domestic) and how they react to amicable vs. hostile behaviour. A dog you've made happy by giving him a treat will wag his tail, an angry bee will chase you down the entire street and probably further if you threaten her hive.

Personalities: I don't know if you've ever had pets, if not perhaps you can think of someone you know who does. If for example you have more than one cat or more than one dog, you'll notice pretty soon that each likes different things (foods, toys, favourite places, etc.) and behaves differently around people, other animals and so on.

Psychology: It is possible to traumatize animals. Animals rescued from labs for example act and behave completely differently from other animals of the same species and usually never recover. Animals whose owners used to beat them or that have experienced a traumatic event early in their life exhibit abnormal behaviour when "triggered".

As for a moral code... I think that's a little more complex. It depends on your definition of a moral code and on many other things. In all honesty I couldn't answer your question with a "yes" or a "no".
One thing I'm absolutely sure of, though. What you won't find in an animal is unfounded hatred, prejudice or malice. If you think about it those are things we find only in humans. Wars, genocides, torture, slavery, abuse, systematic slaughter of dozens of species, destroying one's own habitat... all these exist nowhere in nature but in the human species. In this sense, if I had to pick who's more moral - animals or humans - I'd say animals in a heartbeat.

Me too.

Isn't ours? From my understanding, we have the mental capacity that allows us to have moral understanding (well, most of us ), to determine right and wrong, fair and unfair. And our upbringing and culture moulds our sense of right and wrong. This may be why, except for some very extreme cases, we see very similar core morals among the many different cultures.

Their moral understanding might not be as complex as the average humans, but it still seems that they have the essential building blocks (empathy, decision making skills, a sense of fairness) for complex moral understanding. And maybe they do have a moral system that's more complex than we think, we just haven't developed a language to be able to communicate with them well enough to fully understand it.

I did just now. Very brave of that dog.

I mean in a deeper sense. Are morals constructed as a result of societal influence? Or were societies created because we had this basic understanding of fairness and justice and so on? Chicken or egg? And what compels us to abide by these laws? Simply because we don't want to get caught? Or because we desire to be fair? Why do people do good when no one is watching?

I noticed too. It helped profoundly on the racetracks. I always bet for the horse who knew what he was doing. Never lost.

Speaking of which... During my youtube research, I found a video of a female elephant who killed and ate around 17 people because a group of people killed her calf.

I'm not sure. How does one define morals? How do we judge the moral character of people?

I don't think animals have built weapons of mass destruction yet, but chimps have been known to go after outsiders. Like us, they appear to have a sense of in-group and out-group...