Precursors of Morality

Z: Some very interesting (and amusing) experiments although you can't convince me that they constitute "morality".

Frans de Waal: Moral behavior in animals


Me: ‎"Morality" comes with abstract thought, which obviously these animals have in a limited capacity. But moral behavior exists in these animals, indicating that moral instincts precede the development of abstract moral thought, and that certainly "morality" didn't emerge in humans out of nowhere; it appeared amidst a rich biological background of moral behavior and moral instincts which constitute the precursors of morality.

Comments

puzzled said…
I think the only difference between higher mammals and humans is the ability to choose between the behavior..both have morality-laws that regulate their lives- albeit a different one suited to their needs and based on their psychological make up...Animals will do what their instincts will tell them to do...Our instincts do make some noise but we never get know from them how exactly would they want to get satisfied.They can choose wide variety of ways of getting satisfied.Some ways better than the other.
The main psychological difference i think is the faculty of conscience that has the power to differentiate between right and wrong(animals know by the instinct we have to differentiate).
Even if we assume that animals do have conscience than its quite fixed and with very limited options,perhaps because of their low intelligence or due lesser developed thought and its influence on behavior.
Any how their moral dictates are in their nature.We don't have that stuff in our nature and that why religion and philosophy prosper.
Animals have to abide by will of God/nature in any case,so they always remain in state of ibadat or devotion to God/nature. we humans have a choice .
Aim above morality. Be not simply good, be good for something.