I Believe in Good

I used to think that humans were not animals. Clearly, I thought, we are set apart by the ability to wield language, develop technology, realize the self and contemplate our imminent death. In addition, I believed that humans were superior to animals because of the ability to have compassion and make moral decisions whereas "animals" were essentially mindless, inferior, incapable of emotions like love or envy and unable to communicate complex ideas or feel pain in the same way that a human does.

And yet, the similarities are striking. Both humans and animals have bodies, need to eat, fit into the food chain, depend on the sun and plants to live, relate to or compete with other animals... if humans are not animals then what are they? Unless one suggests the supernatural to be involved, it stands to reason that we are not part of some kind of "other" category. We too are animals and therefore share characteristics with them, and they with us.

It is true that humans use language unlike any other creature. Other animals may learn what human words mean or use their own "words," distinct bits of sound, to convey meaning. However, no animal that we know of continuously reassembles words in new and unique ways as we do by employing grammar. 

Most of the other characteristics I listed above, I later discovered, are probably shared with at least some other animals. Knowledge of death may be the exception, although some self-aware animals could perhaps understand this on some level.

Certainly technology and realization of the self are shared characteristics. Otters use stones to break open crustaceans. Asian elephants swat away flies by flicking branches with their trunks. Dolphins, chimpanzees, magpies and killer whales have all passed the mirror test, showing they recognized themselves as separate and individual. And recently I have discovered that animals have moral codes just like we do. Especially social animals.

In a Ted Talk I watched last summer, Frans de Waal of Emory University explains two pillars of morality, upon which moral systems are generally based: reciprocity/fairness is one and empathy/compassion is the other. He provides several examples of how morality works in the (other than human) animal world. De Waal is a primatologist, ethologist, professor and author.

Reciprocity has been studied in several animals. Chimps have been observed working together to retrieve a reward by moving a box too heavy for one chimp alone. In addition, when one chimp has been fed and the other is hungry, the hungry chimp offers encouragement and asks for help. The chimp that has already been fed is willing to help even though he isn't hungry because he knows he gets a return favor when he is hungry and the other fed. This is a basic example of reciprocity.

Cooperation of this sort is also observed in elephants. Often called the most empathetic of animals, elephants also seem to have the ability to understand and share the feelings of other members of their herd, suggesting presence of the other pillar of morality: empathy/compassion. They grieve at the sites of a loved one's death, coming back year after year to pay their respects.

Have you ever wondered why yawning is contagious? Not to be confused with the "mirror test" mentioned above, mirror neurons, or brain cells which react both when doing an action and observing one, may explain this phenomenon. It may in fact show that by seeing someone in distress or discomfort, our empathy kicks in and we feel what that person is feeling.
 
Consolation has been observed in male chimps when they put their arms around another in distress. Reconciliation behavior after a fight has also been observed among chimps. Why do this? Is it too outlandish to suggest they value inter-chimp relationships? That like us, it is important for them to make up after a fight in order to preserve the relationship?

This makes sense from an evolutionary perspective. Socially evolved animals have vested interest in protecting others in their group in order to increase the likelihood of reproducing new members. This is especially true in families, where kinship suggests passing on of genes that are even more like one's own. Any of this sounding familiar? In my opinion, this understanding of morality provides not only an explanation for it, but also gives meaning to the human condition, bringing us closer to our "relatives" (all that lives).

It also demands a wholesome and gentle approach to animal interaction, rather than domination, control and abuse on the presumption that they can not suffer as we do.

There are lots of moral questions of course. What is moral on a social scale? On an individual scale? In individual circumstances?  Is there a "universal" morality? One thing is almost certainly true: morality cannot be contained. It is uncertain and relative according to the person and situation. But is it unique to humans? Scientists have discovered that the answer to that question is NO.