Animal And Morals

Last updated on: August 26, 2019 at 3:07 am by Henry Karlson

Animal And Morals 2019-08-26T03:07:57-05:00 Henry Karlson

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

No Author Indicated: Friendship Cheerful Dogs Animals Play Funny / Maxpixel

In Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis suggested that there was a natural human instinct or knowledge for morality, one which can be found when discussing the concept of “fairness.” This moral instinct might not be specific in its content so that different people will reason out different moral or ethical claims; nonetheless, the desire that most people show for things to be fair which comes out when they feel they are treated unfairly indicates a universal moral foundation accepted by most peoples:

But the most remarkable thing is this. Whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later. He may break his promise to you, but if you try breaking one to him he will be complaining “It’s not fair” before you can say Jack Robinson.[1]

This immediate appeal to fairness, Lewis explained, indicates that, beyond the words and categories used for morality, humans naturally follow principles which they use in their interaction with each other. There are standards of behavior expected by all, and even those who transgress them will demonstrate their knowledge of them and use them when they feel they have been mistreated. The way people quarrel with one another, trying to demonstrate how and why their interests are fair in contrast to those they are fighting, also indicate this universal instinct or knowledge which manifests itself in human conduct even if it does not manifest itself in an explicit ethical formulation.

What might surprise many is that this is not uniquely human. Scientists observing animal interactions see that they too have various rules and expectations which they follow. Marc Bekoff in The Emotional Lives of Animals described how this has been observed in the way animals play with each other:

If I expect a friend to play with me and he acts in an aggressive manner – dominating or hitting me rather than cooperating and “playing” – then I will feel that I am being treated unfairly because of a lapse in social etiquette. We have found, by studying the details and dynamics of social play behavior in animals, that animals exhibit a similar sense of fairness. For instance, one way we know that animals have social expectations is that they show surprise when things don’t go “right” during play, and only further communication keeps play going. For example, during play when a dog becomes too assertive, too aggressive, or tries to mate, the other dog may cock her head from side to side and squint, as if she’s wondering what went “wrong.” [2]

Such observations have led scientists (and many philosophers) to realize that, although moral codes might differ from species to species, there are rudimentary moral qualities which animals follow in their engagement with each other. Jeffery Moussaieff Masson and Susan McCarthy in their book, When Elephants Weep, give an instance of such an observation, where a husky is stopped from poor treatment of mice and parakeets by a pug:

Elizabeth Marshall Thomas gives an instance that may illustrate a sense of justice or perhaps a sense of propriety that underlies rectitude. Her husky, Maria, one day discovered that by rushing around a cage full of mice and parakeets, lunging at the occupants, she could send them into a hysterical frenzy. The pug Bingo ran in, slammed his body into the much bigger Maria, and when she lunged at the cage again, uttered a loud bark and slammed against her once more. Maria left the room. Thomas was surprised because Bingo was smitten with Maria and usually did not oppose her in any way. Whether Bingo was motivated by compassion for the mice and parakeets, by vicarious ownership of the mice and parakeets, or by disapproval of Maria’s obstreperousness, it seems undeniable that he wanted to stop her aggression and make her behave better toward the other animals. [3]

Scientists have observed many instances in which animals have a sense of fairness, that same quality which C.S. Lewis indicated as being central to indicating humanity had its own universal moral sensibility. When Maria treated other animals unjustly and unfairly, Bingo came in to stop, showing a sense of self-giving virtue and empathy for the livelihood of others. It could be said that Bingo believed Maria was being unfair. What is not fair is not right, and from that notion, the difference between right and wrong can be learned. The level of understanding, the sophistication of the moral reasoning different animals might possess might differ with differing species, but when animals demonstrate for us that they also have an innate understanding of fairness (and other social conventions) animals demonstrate that they share with us the ability to engage in moral decisions in their actions. Bingo seems to have judged Maria and done what he could to stop her from her “immoral actions.” This might challenge various traditional beliefs about animals, but, as Bekoff explained, scientists continue to gain more and more evidence that animals have a morality of their own, which even if it is not as sophisticated as our own, nonetheless demonstrates they have a range of moral actions they can perform:

Traditionally, morality has been the exclusive right of humans, even sometimes the very definition of our humanness, and some scientists and others still vehemently resist the idea that we might actually share this quality with other beings. Yet more and more biologists, neuroscientists, philosophers, and ethologists are beginning to think that morality may be a broadly adaptative strategy that has evolved in many species. I’m not saying that animal moral behavior is the same as human moral behavior. Rather, my proposal is that the phenomenon to which “morality” refers is a wide-ranging biological necessity for social living.[4]

Just as different animals have different qualities, different potentials within, so it should not be surprising their moral capabilities will be different from us and from each other; it will be different, but not non-existent. Those who try to argue against their morality suggest we can and must judge them solely on the basis of what humans are capable of doing: it would be like judging the speed of a snail to that of a jaguar, saying that this means snails do not move. What we need to realize is that morality is related to potentiality, and the more potentiality a subject has as a subject, the more they will possess a moral responsibility towards others. This is exactly what James told us when he said those who know more and become teachers have more responsibility than those who do not (cf. Jas. 3:1). We might not know their potential, their moral range, and so the moral expectations placed upon them, but we can recognize that animals themselves have lives of their own, have potentials of their own, and so have moral possibilities which they can work out for themselves.

In general, because of our ignorance, we should let the judgment of their moral capabilities, and their success or failure at living them out, with God (or those God has given the ability to recognize and know them); but, in specific instances, it is possible to recognize that animal might share in our moral failures and success, whereby they will share with us the consequences of our joint activity. Though many Christians might find this surprising, Scripture hints at this in the Book of Jonah: when the people of Nineveh repented of their sins, they were said to engage in a universal act of penance towards God, an act animals were said to share with their human neighbors:

And the people of Nineveh believed God; they proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them to the least of them. Then tidings reached the king of Nineveh, and he arose from his throne, removed his robe, and covered himself with sackcloth, and sat in ashes. And he made proclamation and published through Nineveh, “By the decree of the king and his nobles: Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste anything; let them not feed, or drink water, but let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and let them cry mightily to God; yea, let every one turn from his evil way and from the violence which is in his hands. Who knows, God may yet repent and turn from his fierce anger, so that we perish not?” When God saw what they did, how they turned from their evil way, God repented of the evil which he had said he would do to them; and he did not do (Jonah 3:5-10 RSV)

According to Jonah, Nineveh’s doom was halted because the people and animals of Nineveh alike repented of their ways and engaged in penance before God. The various beasts of the land would have likely suffered with the destruction of Nineveh; they shared in the moral corruption of the land, even as they shared in the reparations for their moral deficiencies and the restoration which took place because of it. Now, we might not know how each particular kind of animal could become corrupt, but to see Scripture as indicating that they could do a positive moral act of penance suggests, from a Christian standpoint, that they possess some level of moral expectation and ability, and so what scientists have been observing in their studies of animals should have been something Christians (and Jews) should at least have considered possible. But, as Marc Bekoff said above, one of the ways humans have tried to suggest they are superior to other animals is by saying they uniquely have moral capabilities, and so it has been and continues to be a long fight to overcome this prideful stand and allow for a more qualified understanding of the difference between humanity and the rest of animal life on earth.

Thus, though we might not be able to get inside the head of animals, to know their thoughts like we know our own, we can begin to learn about them and their actions, and discern various rules which they seem to follow within their own domain of existence. These rules can change and mutate, and indeed, be learned, as can be seen by the way many animals are trained by human handlers: those who would use this as proof that animals not possess innate moral sensibilities must then follow through and deny it for humanity because humans, likewise, are socialized and learn to sift through moral quandaries and established various rules for society to follow, rules which have to be taught and learned for them to remain effective. These rules could not be taught and understood if there was not a foundation for them to be developed, though of course, the complexity of human engagement of development of that foundation differs in quality with that of other animals. This qualitative difference has been the reason why many have tried to ignore or reject the moral potential found within other animals, but it is this qualitative difference which we must begin to explore more, to see how and why animals act within the moral domain in which they exist and thrive. When we do this, we can take our task as stewards over creation much more seriously, because then we can shape and enhance their moral development in the way others (such as angels) have been said to help develop and shape our own in history.[5]

[1] C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: The Macmillan Publishing Company. 1965), 19.

[2] Marc Bekoff, The Emotional Lives of Animals (Novato, California: New World Library. 2007), 89.

[3] Jeffery Moussaieff Masson and Susan McCarthy, When Elephants Weep (New York: Delta, 1995), 215.

[4] Marc Bekoff, The Emotional Lives of Animals, 87.

[5] Obviously, care must be taken, so that animal autonomy is not overcome when we try to encourage their moral development. They have to be treated as subjects with their own particular good, and so their own particular rights. What we must do is encourage them to develop themselves as subjects in the best, most moral fashion possible in relation to their own potentiality.

Stay in touch! Like A Little Bit of Nothing on Facebook.
If you liked what you read, please consider sharing it with your friends and family!

Previous Post

August 23, 2019

Prideful Debates Can Turn People Away From The Truth

Next Post

August 27, 2019 In Honor of St. Moses the Ethiopian

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Abortion Abraham abuse Aesthetics AI Aliens Ambrose Ancestors and Everything Andrew Angels Animals Anne Anthony Antisemitism apologetics Apophatic Apostle John Aquinas Artificial Intelligence Asanga Ascension Asceticism Assumption Atheism Attachment Augustine Authority Avarice Balthasar Baptism Beauty Biden birthright citizenship Bishops Black History Books Buddhism Bulgakov Byzantine Calendar C.S. Lewis Calcidius Catholic Catholicism Catholicism Celibacy Charity Chastity children Chrismation Christ Christmas Christology Church Climate Change Common Good Communion Confession Confirmation Conscience Constantine conventions conversion councils Covid Creation Cross Dead Death Death Penalty Debate Deception Demagogues Demons Desert Monks Desert Mothers Desire destruction development Dialogue Dignity Dionsyius Dionysius Discipline Diversity Division Doctor Who doctrine dogma Dormition Dualism Easter Easter Series Ecumenical Councils Ecumenism Education Election Empathy Environment Error Eschatology eschaton Eternity Ethics Eucharist Evangelism Eve Evil evolution Faeries Faith Fear femininity Ficino Florence Florensky Folktale Fools Forgiveness Freedom Future gender Gentile Gentiles Glory Gnostic God gods Good Samaritan Goodness Gospel Government Grace Great Fast Guns Hate healing Health Heaven Hell Hellenism Heresy Hierarchy Hildegard Hinduism History Holiness Holy Spirit Holy Week Hope Horror Human rights humanity Humility hypocrisy ICE icon icons Identification Identity Idol II Nicea Immigration incarnation Individualism Informal Reflections Inklings Intention Inter-Religious Interfaith Internet Interpretation Intrinsic evil Irenaeus Islam Israel Jacob Jerome Jesus Jews John Chrysostom John of Damascus John the Baptist Joseph Judaism justice Justification kenosis Kindnesss Kingdom of God Kingdom of Heaven Law Law of Moses Lazarus Leaf by Niggle Lent Lenten Reflection Liberation Theology Lies Life Listen Literature Liturgy locutions Logic Logos Love Marriage Martyrs Mary Mass Maximos The Confessor Meanness Meditation Mercy Middle Path Migrants Mind Miracles Miriam Morals Moses Movies Music Muslims Myths Names Nationalism Native Americans New Year Nicea Nicholas Nothing Novatian Obedience Occam's Razor Ordination Origen Original Sin Orthodox orthopraxis Pagans Palamas Palm Sunday Paradise Paschaltide Paul Peace Pentecost person Peter piety PKD Plato pluralism Plurality Poem Poetry Poiltics Politics Poor Pope Pope Francis Pope Leo XIV Post Office Prayer Pride Pro-life Prodigal Son propaganda Prophecy Prophets Providence Putin Racism Reading Reason Reflection Refugees Relationships Religion Religion Series Religious Liberty Repent Republicans Rest Resurrection Rich Rites Russia Sacraments Saints Salvation Salvian Santa Science Scripture Self-Giving Sexuality Sibyl Sick Silence Sin Singlehood Social Justice Society Sodom Solovyov Speculations Spiritual Reflection St. Cyril of Alexandria St. Justin Martyr Suffering Sunday of the Paralytic Man Sunday of the Samaritan Woman Superhero Supreme Court Teaching Technology Thanksgiving The Father the Universe Theological Reflection Theology Theosis Theotokos Thomas Timaeus Time Tolerenace Tolkien Tradition Transfiguration Trinity Trump Truth Uncategorized Unity Universities USCCB Value Vatican II Vegetarian Vices Violence Virtue Vocations War Water Welcome Wisdom Womanhood Women Work World View Worship Writing Zacchaeus

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz