Morality in dogs? Morality Learned?

[The Reality Salesman01]

What is morality? Is it knowing the difference between right and wrong and if so...how do we qualify right and wrong in the sense that we attribute them to morality. Let me be more specific by offering different interpretations of Right and Wrong, there are plenty of others, but for the sake of this discussion these are few...

Wrong:
1) An act that imposes any sort of danger, or harm in any sense to any individual(s) and is an intentional or otherwise conscious act that is performed inspite of ones ability to consider a less harful or inconsiderate approach to a situation.

2) An act deemed as something that should not be done within a certain paradigm and is agreed to as part of the social contract that one is expected to obide to keep good order and discipline.

Right:
1) Something that considers the possibility of types of wrongs and is a choice made with the consideration that it is unlikely to do harm in any sense and is chosen with consideration that is outside the realm of doing wrong and the act is chosen with intentions of doing right within these respects.

2) Contingent only by its counter option determined as wrong within the paradigm/social construct (e.g. not running a redlight when no cars are around)

Fair enough? Clearly pages and pages can be written to determine countless examples of things that meet this criteria and debate over which of these are morally wrong, but I just wish to apply these to a dog's behavior. So, if we could manage to keep focus on that, that would be great! I digress...

I have a 4 year old Cane Corso (italian mastiff). His name is Bernie, and he's a very smart dog. Lot's of people contest that their dog appears to have a personality and there are studies that dogs pick-up on certain ques by their human masters. There are theories about even yawns being an act of empathy and that such empathy yawns are more commonly given by individuals ranging from close family members/close friends being most likely to give them to acquaintances and then strangers being least likely. The interesting part is that dogs that have been raised within a family of people as a companion adopt this display of empathy and have shown to be as likely or even more likely to empathetically yawn as close family members or close friends. I only bring this up to illustrate that dogs have been shown to adopt certain social ques that their companion human counter-parts tend to display. There are others, but I believe this one will suffice to make a future theory.

Bernie tends to display certain body language that can be interpreted as a reflection of his mood.

When he is excited and happy, his little nub for a tail begins to wag crazily and his ears perk up to form to triangles at either side of his head.

When he is tired, his entire face droops and is similar to the way mine looks at the end of the day. His ears have nothing perky about them as they sag down the side of his head, and his nub shows no form of animation to it. All I do is ask him if he's ready to go to bed, and no sooner does the word "bed" come out of my mouth, does he walk to his bean-bag and pass out. Its as if he is waiting for permission.

If Bernie needed to go outside, and I did not get the message in sufficient time to allow him the opportunity to relieve himself, on very rare occasions, he has had an "accident". When I come downstairs unaware that anything has occurred. His ears are drooped, his nub is tucked and he doesn't greet me with the usual excited description listed above. It is by this I know he has done something that he thinks is...shall I say it?..Wrong?

Bernie knows he's not allowed on the couch. He's 104 lbs with claws that can get pretty sharp from time to time. I have leather furniture. I knew that one day it could be a problem fighting for a seat with my ever growing dog. So, it has been unacceptable since he was young to sleep on the couch.

When I get home from work and walk into my living room...I get the "guilty behaviour"...tail tucked, droopy ears, and avoids eye contact. I walk to the couch and notice an abundance of his copper colored fur grouped in a spot just big enough for Bernie to sleep in. I dust it onto the wood floor and sweep the living room. I know he's there when I'm at work, but perhaps I've given him too much credit in one respect.

He knows that he's not allowed on the couch when i'm there to tell him so I think it's a cause and effect behaviour. When he was a pup, and tried to get onto the couch, a stern scolding was all that was needed to get the "guilty" reaction, and he learned that I don't like that, and that he's not supposed to do it. When i'm not there, and he did it, as I know he still does, there is no negative effect that comes from it. So, he may think that's oka. I was coming downstairs to the loft yesterday morning and looked over the balcony to see him passed out and snoring in the spot that I usually find fur...right on the couch. He was unaware that I could see him, and I merely stomped my foot. I laughed to myself as he attempted to slunk ever so sneakily off the couch as if I wasn't watching exaclty what he was doing. When I got to the first floor, he did not great me, but instead had the look as if he had an accident. Had I not seen him in his slumber, that's what I would have thought. Nevertheless, it got me thinking...

On some level he KNOWS that there are things he's not supposed to do, even if they are circumstantial as I've supposed.

He learned these things from his interaction from me in some way. (as i'm sure wild dogs have no regrets about when or where they relieve themselves nor are they concerned with couches).

At some point, he makes a decision, conscious or not, to do something he has displayed evidence of understanding as unacceptable. When he does it, he displays what appears to be guilt, even if it is only my projecting it, it is distinct from other behaviour and fits the act in question.

All mammals have frontal cortex/ frontal lobes. The frontal cortex performs cognitive functions such as planning external behavioural function in accordance with the stimulation within the cortex...body language. It is also responsible for "personality", problem solving, emotional impulsivity, empathy and sympothy. These are all that is necessary to think its possible for a dog to on some level recognize right from wrong, and because it is not found in the same sense within wild dogs, at least, not with the same applications (i.e. No couches, or need to scratch at a door) I think it seems perfectly acceptable to assume that such morality, even in its most harmless forms such as the examples given, is a learned behavior. Do you think this is even an example of morality? Ughh!! Sorry this was so long. I think its pretty interesting and was curious to get others opinions of it. Your thoughts please!


p.s. It took too long to write it, and I didn't proof read, so I apologize if there are any parts that are not easy to read!

[Baalzebutt]

Many years ago in college I took a philosophy class. During that class, I began thinking about morals an ethics and came to an interesting conclusion:

Animals are capable of true morality while humans are not.

Let me explain:

Animals, as a general rule, act on instinct. They do what they need to do to survive. They are unable to QUESTION the morality of a given action and simply act out of instinctual motivation.

Humans, on the other hand, are able to QUESTION a given action. We can analyze the results and consequences of the things we do and even engage in mental gymnastics to justify our behaviors. Quite often, we do so while ignoring or minimizing the impact of our actions. There is little doubt that Hitler thought he was doing the right thing by exterminating the Jews in spite of the obvious horrendousness of his acts.

In short, it is the human ability to question morality that prevents us from being truly moral.

That being said, it is quite apparent to any animal owner that out companions are quite aware when they have done something wrong or unacceptable. The question then is, does this animal know their actions were "wrong" in the same sense that we view them as wrong or is it a situation where, like you point out, it is only "wrong" situationally or because they got caught.

Very interesting topic.

[The Reality Salesman01]

The question then is, does this animal know their actions were "wrong" in the same sense that we view them as wrong or is it a situation where, like you point out, it is only "wrong" situationally or because they got caught.

Very interesting topic.

OOhhh.. Good point that blew by me. The ability to weigh it out. How interesting is it that this ability to weigh it out comes from the same place in the brain? The ability to reason before a decision, and then to go a bit further, can an animal do this concerning a decision of right or wrong...hmm. Blatent defiance or situational understanding of the rule in question.

When I caught him sleeping downthere while I was home...It made me think a bit more on it. At some point, did he decide that it was not just okay to get on the couch so long as I wasn't home, but also if I was asleep? Did he weigh out his options and determine a new boundary in order to justify it? He had to realize that I was home and that because of that, I could be there to scold him, which is what i'd given him as the benefit of the doubt for his understanding of the rule. Now I wonder if he viewed this as a chance to get away with something he knew he wasn't supposed to do the whole time, and simply took his chances. Kinda like running a red light when nobody is around. Harmless wrong doing...right, unless there's a police officer waiting to test your integrity!

[The Grand Nudger]

Careful not to anthropomorphize our pets (one of the major targets...and their status of being so easy to anthropomorphize may be at least some part of why those species are such popular pets..mind you).

If we consider some behaviour exhibited by a dog, for example, from the light of human experience, motivation, and comprehension - it won't be surprising when we reach a conclusion that suggests that these behaviours have familiar human analogues. We're forcing things - at a very basic level, onto the dog - projecting ourselves. Now, this isn't to say that no specific instance of this could be justified or demonstrated - and between dogs and people we have a hell of alot of anatomy in common...and certain similarities in social structure (perhaps due again to our shared origins)...

-however-

whether or not similar behaviours (or our ability to rationalize them in a particularly human way) can actually be chalked up to a similar impetus in the two creatures involved is notoriously difficult to pin down, and for good reason. For example, we could exhibit identical behaviors for entirely different reasons - either connected or unconnected to some demonstrable function of our biology. To provide a wonderfully interesting little factoid that highlights how different two seemingly similar things can be from form to function (and in the reverse)...dogs are actually capable of smelling differing molecular weights of fatty acids.

You could say that something "smells heavy" if you were a dog (and a particularly accurate scale would back you up) So any reaction the two of you share when smelling a given object could be spurred on by wildly different processes. You might think that it "smells bad" and all of the unspoken things that this entails..and the dog, again, thinks it smells heavy - and whatever that might entail...but even here we're anthropomorphizing - in leveraging concepts like "bad" and "heavy" and even "smelling"- particularly in that it is difficult for us to conceptualize any of this in a way that would remove the shadow of doubt that this behaviour casts over a conclusion about the impetus behind an animals behaviour.

If we wanted to compare the "moralities" of dogs and humans I think that working down (or up) with humans as a reference (and not dogs) would be a much more solid way of doing this - because we at least have some insight as to how t comprehend our experience and quantify it between each other, and if we can reach a point - by reference or modification to ourselves or our own behaviors- that lines up with the dog's...... it's no longer accurate to say that dogs "exhibit morality" but that both humans and dogs exhibit behaviors which we sometimes decide to call morality in human beings. If we want to make a run at this sort of stuff we have to avoid affording ourselves or our notions of things primacy when considering what might be shared.

My two cents on any observation of animals (including ourselves) and whatever morality we may have.

After all of that, as to the OP - we have to acknowledge that just because one creature might "learn morality" that doesn't demonstrate that another creature does as well. Same for a situation where one creature is "born with morality" - doesn't demonstrate that the creature standing next to it is.

[Angrboda]

[Praetorian]

I think anthropomorphization might not be as big a problem when it comes to dogs. Dogs, since their ancestors chose to integrate themselves into our society, have had many thousands of years to adapt to interacting with humans. They stick around because it suits them. All they have to do is obey our social cues and we meet all their needs. That provides selective pressure for them to evolve brains like ours. Who knows, in a few million years, maybe they'll be able to participate in this conversation themselves.

The average dog is about as intelligent as a 3 year old, right? And 3 year olds certainly do things they're not supposed to. Sometimes I wonder if dogs continually do things just to see how far they can push the rules.

[Anomalocaris]

I don't know if there is morality in a dog. But it takes the morality of a dog to venerate the likes of judeo christain god.

[Whateverist]

It is hard to say with dogs. They certainly seem to want to appease us when they know they've gone against our will. That is what they would do in a pack structure if they pissed off the alpha. They pretty instinctively do seek to appease and seem to accept whatever treatment a dominant dog will impose. Dogs seek to ameliorate the wrath of superiors by showing submission and acceptance.

That isn't to say they don't exhibit moral behavior. Perhaps what we see in them mirrors our own moral behavior? When we cringe at the possible fallout from an 'immoral' act, perhaps we are harking back to childhood responses toward a parent.

Frankly I just don't understand morality all that well. So it is pretty hard to say if dogs exhibit it too. One thing I think is sure, is they don't turn themselves inside out dwelling on the possible ramifications of hypothetical moral situations. They are much more in the moment than we are. In this at least they are our teachers.

[The Reality Salesman01]

Indeed...to do right so long as you believe there's a chance your master is watching, and to carry out blindly that which you interpret are his intended commands. But even I don't torture my dog for sleeping on the couch, I must be a moral being that far surpasses the benevolent capacity of a god! In fact, I stake claim on this evidence alone, that I must be a God!

[Baalzebutt]

Indeed...to do right so long as you believe there's a chance your master is watching, and to carry out blindly that which you interpret are his intended commands. But even I don't torture my dog for sleeping on the couch, I must be a moral being that far surpasses the benevolent capacity of a god! In fact, I stake claim on this evidence alone, that I must be a God!

I will be officially converting to Sailorism tomorrow morning.

Blessed be the Sailor!