Morality of Animals

Human beings are animals. If life evolved then we are related to some degree not only to primates but to all animals at some point in the gigantic evolutionary family tree. The closer we are genetically to our ancestors the more we seem to care. As a matter of fact the more directly linked to any situation that carries moral weight the more we appear to care. The more we can distance ourselves from others the less obligation we feel to them. This is a typical human characteristic. There are exceptions when it comes to morality however, since we have sufficient evidence to conclude that certain moral traits are obviously lacking or overruled in some individuals. We cannot force others into a certain disposition however we can influence the ignorant to realize certain things.

If we feel moral obligations to one another as humans then is it absurd to think that it is possible that we feel moral obligations to other animals? After all, the evidence suggests we do, that is, that the morality we recognize in some degree is not shed between species. There are people who feel compelled to treat other animals with respect and to not cause harm to other living creatures. It is because of this attitude about life that I would suggest morality isn't an exclusive human function. Further evidence perhaps could be the circumstances we observe in other animal behavior such as care for young; traits humans share. Still, others would argue that free will changes the dichotomy between human morality and other animal morality. Provisionally, free will has seemed illusory therefore I don't suspect it holds any weight on the arguments based in morality.

Evolution progresses in degrees, that is, changes occur at every level and that determining distinctness becomes difficult. It is not to say distinctions are irrelevant or impossible rather they serve as a marker that fulfills some intuitive response to categorizing the world that humans seem to require. Yet, this categorization needn't be perfect it simply needs to be good enough for the time being. Established categories are often changed and updated according to the available evidence we have concerning particular groups of things. It is an ongoing process but it demands a provisional understanding of life. Life is changing, that is a consequence to motion/time. Morality is no different. There is no fundamental law of morality. No rule that can be stated which will last forever. Morality is simply a product of what an individual feels toward the greater community of beings and those feelings can be alter, removed, or added upon.

If one feels compelled to recognize other animal rights based on some moral understanding then it is a product of their disposition. If someone feels compelled to base their social decisions on causing harm to others then the morality of the situations necessarily includes other animals which feel pain. If one recognizes no moral obligations then they are at odds with the majority in that most people feel some moral obligations, however varying. It may be unfair to that individual that has no moral constraints but it is likely that they will be limited in their actions so far is necessary to maintain a reasonable degree of morality. All social morality is composed of is an average of the perceived moral obligations of the group.