No. One may say that they show 'pro-social behavior', but this would be a kind of behavior that we - the only moral animals on earth! - interpret as 'moral'.
Morality is a set of norms, rules, commandments and values. These 'exist' in a counterfactual world of what ought to be, but animal do not live in such a world. Their world is full of things that are what they are. — Matias66
Animals may show empathy and fairness, but not because some norm or commandment tells them to do so. — Matias66
No chimps does ever learn You have to groom other members of your group - This behavior is hardwired - by evolution - in their brains because it pays off. Most of it is basically tit-for-tat: If I groom you, you'll groom me. If I am friendly towards alpha, this will improve my status in the group. — Matias66
When I witness someone violating a moral norm, I feel obligated to punish the evil-doer, even - and this is crucial - if that punishment entails some disadvantage for me. Why ? Because I feel loyal to the norm / rule / value, not necessarily to this very person that is harrassed by the evil-doer. — Matias66
When I witness someone violating a moral norm, I feel obligated to punish the evil-doer, even - and this is crucial - if that punishment entails some disadvantage for me. Why ? Because I feel loyal to the norm / rule / value, not necessarily to this very person that is harrassed by the evil-doer. This identification with moral norms and values is typical for human beings as moral animals. — Matias66
In a moral world, you should not do X, and you should do Y, just because it is the right thing to do, not because it somehow benefits you. — Matias66
Only expressions of morality (codes of conduct, or normative conventions) are "social constructs". Humans are eusocial animals and instincts for (a) reciprocal harm avoidance, (b) burden-sharing and (c) discouraging free-loading / burden-shifting – my terminology – constitute human eusociality. Studies in early human development demonstrate fairness (b, c) and inclusivity (a, b) preferences (i.e. empathy instincts) are expressed prior to 'normative' socialization ...
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/do-kids-have-a-fundamental-sense-of-fairness/
Our manifest 'moralities' are then socially constructed, with all the cultural-ecological variation (drift) this implies, extending as well as supervening on these empathy instincts. Studies in primates, cetaceans, elephants and other eusocial mammal species have also shown similar degrees of empathy as well. Consider ...
https://yoursay.plos.org/2012/03/27/should-chimpanzees-have-moral-standing-an-interview-with-frans-de-waal/ — 180 Proof
1. I value others
2. I value others more than myself — Altruist
No.
It is delegated to them through sentient beings, such as by taming or training. — Varde
And it is rather simple, animals cannot be moral because they display an insufficiency in thought capacity, which indicates they are incapable of the type of abstract thinking that ethics is dependent upon. — Merkwurdichliebe
Personally, I don't believe there exist "objective moral values" - in the sense of existing transcendantly - external to human beings. My theory is that morality is rooted in empathy. Empathy is a plausible basis for the "golden rule" - a formalism that seems to have developed independently in various cultures. We also know that psychopaths have an absence of empathy, and their behavior demonstrates an absence of morals.Morality is a set of norms, rules, commandments and values....Animals may show empathy and fairness, — Matias66
They have limited powers of abstraction and limited ability to speak to one another.Chimps do not have anything comparable, they have no rules, no norms to follow. — Matias66
My theory is that morality is rooted in empathy. Empathy is a plausible basis for the "golden rule" - a formalism that seems to have developed independently in various cultures. We also know that psychopaths have an absence of empathy, and their behavior demonstrates an absence of morals.
If I'm right, then animals share the foundation of morality - empathy, but they lack the powers of abstraction to codify it into a "rule". — Relativist
Which shows the relative non-efficacy of "rules" ...If I'm right, then animals share the foundation of morality - empathy, but they lack the powers of abstraction to codify it into a "rule". — Relativist
empathy — Relativist
Animals have mirror neurons ... — 180 Proof
Fuck convincing you –exposing you is all I'm after. — 180 Proof
Only expressions of morality (codes of conduct, or normative conventions) are "social constructs". — 180 Proof
Of course we can define moral as somehing very human specific. — Olento
Personally, I don't believe there exist "objective moral values" - in the sense of existing transcendantly - external to human beings. My theory is that morality is rooted in empathy. Empathy is a plausible basis for the "golden rule" - a formalism — Relativist
Isn't the golden rule an objective rule for moral values? — magritte
Theists define Objective Moral Values (OMVs) as objectively existing (ontic) objects that exist independently of human beings. By asserting the existence of OMVs, they infer that a God must exist as their source. I don't believe such things exist.By me, absolute is unconditional, supreme; and objective is mechanical, mind independent. — magritte
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.