Is morality unique to humans?

[Caladan]

Morality is anything but unique to humans. a full and pure human being is stripped of morality and social norms. a full human being works on the basis of his genetic drive.

 

[Danmac]

Wait, so, an animal can't be moral even if it does something moral?

Morality is a matter of motive, not action.

Manners are not morals.

I didn't say they were. I was speaking metaphorically.

 

[Quiddity]

[/color] yeah, it's easy to mock what you don't understand.
PLoS ONE: Altruism in Forest Chimpanzees: The Case of Adoption
Chimps May Be Aware of Others

Hilarious.

wa:do

What did I misunderstand? Beyond developing patterns of behaivor, I don't believe it develops past that. It is a joke to compare it to humans.

 

[painted wolf]

What did I misunderstand? Beyond developing patterns of behaivor, I don't believe it develops past that. It is a joke to compare it to humans.

The joke is that you need to make an arbitrary line between human and animal behavior to justify your feeling good about yourself.

wa:do

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Morality is a matter of motive, not action.

So, you can do whatever you like as long as your intentions are good? Obviously, that's not what you mean, but if that's how you truly define morality then that's the logical conclusion.

I didn't say they were. I was speaking metaphorically.

It's not a very good metaphor, though, since manners and morality are entirely different concepts.

 

[logician]

Humans are moral?

 

[Noaidi]

To those who are maintaining that morality is unique to humans: do you have any evidence for your position?
A number of us have posted links for evidence suggesting otherwise.

 

[Danmac]

Morality is a matter of motive, not action.

In answer to Immortal Flame
In a court of law, motive often determines the severity of the penalty. Sometimes an acceptable motive will cause a judge to excuse an otherwise criminal act.

In a murder trial, the judge and jury will attempt to determine motive, in order to determine the penalty. There are times when you can kill a man and be justified in doing so.

 

[painted wolf]

Are you suggesting that animals have no motivation?

wa:do

 

[ImmortalFlame]

In answer to Immortal Flame
In a court of law, motive often determines the severity of the penalty. Sometimes an acceptable motive will cause a judge to excuse an otherwise criminal act.

In a murder trial, the judge and jury will attempt to determine motive, in order to determine the penalty. There are times when you can kill a man and be justified in doing so.

But do courts determine morality?

 

[Danmac]

But do courts determine morality?

No, but what is the purpose for trying to find out the motive in a murder trial? Why should motive help determine the degree of penalty?

 

[Danmac]

Are you suggesting that animals have no motivation?

wa:do

Certainly they do.

Do animals ever question the motives of other animals or do they care?

 

[painted wolf]

Certainly they do.

Do animals ever question the motives of other animals or do they care?

Who knows? We do know they try to comfort one another... so there must be some sort of care for anothers feelings.

wa:do

 

[Danmac]

Who knows? We do know they try to comfort one another... so there must be some sort of care for anothers feelings.

wa:do

We are talking about morality, not affection.

 

[painted wolf]

We are talking about morality, not affection.

So "love thy neighbor" and "blessed are the merciful" and "weep with them that weep" ... none of these are moral lessons?

wa:do

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No, but what is the purpose for trying to find out the motive in a murder trial? Why should motive help determine the degree of penalty?

But you freely admit that courts do not determine morality. Now that we have that established, what determines what is moral and what is not?

 

[Danmac]

So "love thy neighbor" and "blessed are the merciful" and "weep with them that weep" ... none of these are moral lessons?

wa:do

Animals have no such code of conduct. The laws of the animal kingdom are survival of the fittest. The strong determines the code, because they can. All of the other animals are kept in check by the force of the strong. It's not about right and wrong.

 

[painted wolf]

Animals have no such code of conduct. The laws of the animal kingdom are survival of the fittest. The strong determines the code, because they can. All of the other animals are kept in check by the force of the strong. It's not about right and wrong.

Except not.
For example among baboons it's the nicest male that wins, not the strongest.
Survival of the fittest? Anthropologist suggests the nicest prevail — not just the selfish | Newsroom | Washington University in St. Louis

The whole "strongest makes the rules" thing is really out of date with modern knowledge. Like several decades out of date. Fitness is not simple brute force.

wa:do

 

[tigrers99]

Is morality unique to humans?

This may have been done before...

Is morality an evolved trait and present in a variety of species, or is it bestowed only upon humans from a deity?

This came about as a result of a brief conversation between myself and Danmac earlier today. I say that evidence is available that indicates moral behaviour is present in some non-human species and, as such, could not have been a divine gift to only our species.

Evidence suggests that moral behaviour is present in many social animal species and is a form of strengthening bonds among the members of a group. However, there is also evidence of trans-species moral behaviour.

I posted this link earlier, but it is more appropriate to this discussion:

Animals can tell right from wrong - Telegraph

Many theists may claim that moral behaviour is a god-given attribute to humans only. Is there any evidence for this?

No, morality is not a 'human only' trait. There is evidence that apes are the next closest of the animal species to have a great amount of morality, then follow the chimps and next the monkeys. The questions that the Biologists, Anthropologists, and Philosophers dance around is....why is the human species the only one to self-destruct? Why is the human species the only one to practice moral evil to one another according to the maximum level of our intelligence, and other species do not? I think that eventually they will have to conclude that our species is being influnced by a negative outside source. The Biologists and Anthropologists should be correct about us as a species, but it is not happening and history is proving it never will. We have not, and will not evolve ourselves out of this phenomenon.

 

[McBell]

Fitness is not simple brute force.

I agree.
If fitness merely meant brute force, we humans would have been eliminated long ago.