Re: Do some animals have a sense of morality?

With that out of the way, the topic of animal intelligence is a complex one. Generally, it depends on what measure of intelligence you use. Obviously, if you use a human I.Q. test animals will not fare well.

ABOUT ANIMAL INTELLIGENCE IN GENERAL: Various tests, mostly related to problem solving, have shown that animals vary in their level of intelligence. The most intelligent animals are elephants, dolphins and perhaps whales, and the great apes (including chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans). Chimpanzees are considered the closest to humans in their level of intelligence but far below the average human adult. The truth is, dolphins may be even more intelligent but it is difficult to test them because they don't have hands. Chimpanzees solve problems by making tools. Porpoises can't compete in this arena.

Little is known about the intelligence of whales (except for the killer whale which is, like dolphins, apparently very intelligent) because the big ones are very hard to study. They do seem to have a complex system of vocal communication, another criterion for intelligence. Chimpanzees don't have a complex mode of vocal communication but can master a large number of symbolic representations, when given the opportunity, and can also combine symbols to form new meanings. A famous experimental chimp, upon first seeing a duck swimming in a pond, was said to immediately use the signs for water and bird in rapid conjunction.

INTELLIGENCE AND MORALITY: Generally, humans are thought to be the only animals with a sense of morality. Apparently, it takes a very complex intellectual component to extrapolate concepts such as truth, justice, honor, loyalty, etc., as well as the idea of spiritual life. However, that does not mean that intelligent animals (like chimps) don't feel the emotions which may engender the development of these concepts. Chimpanzees have long-term close relationships, especially between mothers and daughters. Their actions have, in many cases, all the earmarks of human behaviors and are easily described in human behavioral terms, such as, brave, loyal, kind, etc. There is no assurance that the behavior has any correlation to similar human behaviors but the similarities are profound. Chimpanzees, for example, murder and abuse one another, apparently without remorse. There is also no such thing as monogamy among chimps. The social unit is the group.

A BIOLOGICAL ADVANTAGE TO A SINGLE MATE? First, lets make it clear that not everything has a biological advantage. Some things, structures, functions, and behaviors, are serendipitous. They just happen. If you subscribe to the concept of evolution by means of natural selection (and I presume you do or you wouldn't question the biological advantage of a single mate) you must remember that the process is completely random. And such a process depends on high numbers of individuals. With low numbers, anything goes. Some things persist in populations of organisms by chance, not because they convey an advantage.

The single mate phenomenon may be correlated to some other condition, such as low population levels, limited resources, limited home ranges, etc. Species that develop a single-mate pattern under these circumstances may retain it without harm when the conditions change.

Humans have been on Earth for at least one million years. For about 100,000 of those years they have been, for practical purposes, physically indistinguishable from humans living now. There is neither good evidence that the level of average intelligence has varied during this time nor that they were monogamous for most of it. It could well be that monogamy is recent in humans and culturally (as opposed to biologically) based. Evidence for this is that as soon as the societal inhibitions to divorce were lifted (earlier this century) divorce became the rule rather than the exception. It could well be argued that modern humans are not biologically monogamous. So much for morality, monogamy, and intelligence.

As for predators that will not eat their own kind -- again, this activity varies with the species, with the age and size of the potential food item, and with the state of hunger of the individual in question. Rest assured, if a male lion refuses to eat the remains of a lion cub (the offspring of a defeated male) which he has just killed, morality has nothing to do with it.

Bear in mind that some snakes refuse to eat rodents which they have not personally captured and killed. The refusal of an animal to eat any specific item is not likely based in any form of reason.

In a social group, one might assume, the cannibal tendency would be anathema. But some chimps, for no discernible outward reason, will violently take babies from mothers in their own group and eat them.