Reclaiming Childhood

What a load of unsubstantiated twaddle. Where's your evidence for your claim that there's a fundamental difference between animals and humans, not one of degrees? You can't simply state that humans have cultural history and animals don't, so that proves that only humans have morals. That's semantics, not evidence. Someone recently told me Psychology Today was pseudo-psychology, and I'm starting to believe it.

Sorry, but this article is not at all convincing. There are numerous examples in nature (and on youtube) of animals acting in genuinely empathetic, moral ways, comparable to humans (and even more ethical than some humans!!) This article tries to make an alternative argument, but presents no evidence and falls far short of successfully doing so.

Here's my question regarding the following quotes:

"Human beings, unlike other animals, are able to reflect on and make judgements about our own and others' actions..."

"Human beings have something that no other animal has: an ability to participate in a collective cognition."

Just how do you /know/ these things? How do you know that other animals can't participate in a collective cognition? How do you know other animals aren't able to reflect on and make judgements about their own and others' actions? In fact, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary (for just two examples, look here: http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/18212456/detail.html and here: http://www.wgrz.com/news/daybreak/article/117200/10/Bambi-Protects-Mothe...)...though admittedly the evidence only /suggests/ that animals do have some type of morality, since it is obvious that we as humans don't have the ability to really know what goes on in other animals' heads.

The whole essence of morality is not empathy per se, but conscious choice. Animals other than humans often behave in ways we consider moral – the key word there is the pronoun “we.” Humans assign that label; the animals just do what they do. Do other animals ever consciously weigh their self-interest against the interest of others, or ponder what is “right” before choosing an action? Maybe, but I wouldn’t bet the farm on it. Turn the question around. Can an animal behave immorally?

Another argument is bound to come up: the deterministic one that consciousness and choice are illusions. Even if it is correct, this changes nothing. What we call consciousness is still a different mechanism from what we call instinct, so the definition stands.

"Turn the question around. Can an animal behave immorally?"

Animals have been known to display behavior that very much resembles "grudge" behavior, so who knows? That's precisely why I'd like my questions addressed by the author. How does she know what she claims?

The author fails to consider that humans also the capacity for evil - violence for violence's sake. It could be said a lot of apparently good behaviour is really selfish group bondings - helping others ensures greater for you. Hence most people don't help many people outside of their comfort zone.

evolutionary psychology combined with game theory explains morality. we are animals that have evolved. google 'axelrod' for some detail.
i find it incredible that a professional psychologist would write this, and i'm left feeling that the only explanation is that they have religious blinkers on.

Note to author:

The sky will not fall if we acknowledge (the very obvious fact) that we are separated from other animals only by degrees of difference instead of a vast gulf. Civilization will not end. Rape, pillage and murder will not ensue. Believe me.

Yes, there is something special about humans (just like there is something special about wheat rust or giant isopods), and at least part of what makes us special is our proficiency at thinking higher-order thoughts; but to say that no animals have any morals whatsoever? Come on. How can you possibly define the concept of moral behaviour in a way that excludes what has been observed among chimpanzees? Only by restricting it so much in meaning that it also does not apply to most humans who are not moral philosophers.

This article shows why I stopped reading psychology today. What a load of crap. Just by the title alone ("Only humans have morality, not animals"), one can infer it's going to be worthless being that human are a type of animal.

A human vs. an animal difference is very simple: a self serving art of justification.

Rationale: it matters what we do.

According to this article, "Human beings, unlike other animals, are able to reflect on and make judgements about our own and others' actions...". Yet there are many examples of creatures doing actions that seem to have no evolutionary basis, like this video of 2 chickens breaking up a rabbit fight on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D35uQCtr4EY&NR=1
Of all animals, chickens, although they are birds, seem to be particularly unlikely suspects for any sort of moral integrity or even rule enforcing of any kind because they are farm animals and thus most likely stultified by years of selective breeding. However, the only widely known comparison to the behavior of these chickens is human adults or children breaking up child squabblers or brawlers. The chickens also appear to have especially singled out the instigator (the white bunny) especially. Also, noise cannot be a factor because the bunny fight is far less noisy than many human activities the chickens were no doubt exposed to, but the chickens did not antagonize the humans holding the camera. Rather, when they were done breaking up the fight, they watched the rabbits for a second or two and then walked away. Parents, especially, might recognize many steps taken by the chickens.