Do theologians and moral-oligists recognize the capacitity of animals to be immoral? My dog, God rest his soul, pending the discovery of God, souls in general, and the soul of my dog in particular had a clear conception of right and wrong, or at least petting behavior vs. swatting behavior. For example, whenever he stole food, he would ‘hide’ with it. Is there a definitive answer to this?
If you don’t think animals can sin, you haven’t met my Buffy.
The general opinion among most Christian and Jewish theologians, at least, is that animals have no souls, no moral sense, and can’t sin.
How did they arrive at that conclusion? My dog wasn’t the brightest of canines, but he knew when he was being a Good Dog.
IIRC, (Hey! it happens!) -
Europeans used to subject animals to criminal trials (last case was a wolf, in what is now Germany).
Then there is the cats/black cats thing.
so yes, in times past, Christians did believe animals were capable of evil - a.k.a. “sin”.
And isn’t there some species of mice where the female, if she is pregnant and sees an attractive male, can spontaneously induce an abortion in herself so that the better-suited male can impregnate her?
What does Pat Robertson think about that species?
Actually, black cats and the like were not regarded as capable of sin in themselves. Rather they were thought to be “familiars of the evil one,” in cahoots, as it were, with the Devil. Animals certainly can do wrong with respect to their training and the wishes of their masters, but when they show shame, as in a dog lowering its head, it’s only a conditioned response to the action or voice of the master. In the absence of the master, I’m sure the animal would feel no regret or shame. So no, in the human sense of the word, I don’t think animals can sin.
Geezer
DesertGeezer, humans would probably feel no regret or shame either, if there were no authority figures around.
Speak for yourself. I’ve felt regret and shame for things that no one knew I did,and for which no authority figure could punish me. Except God. And if you take the position that God counts as an authority figure for the purpose of your statement, it’s very close to saying that a belief in God is necessary for morality.
For some it is. At least in my experience.
I don’t know about the middle ages, but I know in the 1600s-1700s, there was the idea, and Descartes talks about it, that non-human animals were mechanistic. That is, they seemed to be able to think, and feel pain, and all that, but in reality, they were just complicated natural machines with a wide variety of reactions to stimuli.
Well, I am a kind of reverse-animist. I posit that being able to think, feel pain, know about right and wrong, etc, exist because we are complicated natural machines, and that any sufficently complicated machine(animals, AIs, etc) can do the same.
When my dog stole food and ‘hid’ with it, he would frequently leave a trail, especially in the case of messy food. If my dog was a canine sociopath, why did he do this even when no one was present?
Did it ever occur to you that maybe your dog wasn’t SMART enough to cover its tracks completely? Why ascribe this action to morality, when it can be adequately ascribed to a mere lack of intelligence?
Come now. I think you’re really stretching here.
My dog was not an evil mastermind when it came to hiding food. But, if he knew enough to get away from the scene of the crime, even when no one was there to swat him, then he could recognize swat-worthy behavior.
It’s not that he tried and failed to hide that makes me wonder. It’s that he tried at all. Of course, I wouldn’t be wondering if he hadn’t failed…
To give you an example of how dogs know morality. My family had a miniature schnauzer Charlie. We never told him he should not jump up on the kitchen table, probably because we never saw him attempt to jump up on the table, or thought that he could possibly get up on the table. But on his own, he figured out how to do it: push one of the chairs back a foot or so from the table (they were on rollers), jump up on the chair and then onto the table. He never did this in our presence.
But once when Charlie thought no one was home, he sniffed the air and smelled some brownies on the kitchen table, and decided he couldn’t resist them. I happened to be just down the basement stairs, and I could hear him going through the motions. I slowly creeped up the stairs, and then flung the basement door open. I said nothing but just glared at Charlie, who was on top the table, trying to figure how to get the brownies out from the plastic wrap that covered them. Charlie was startled, and momentarily froze as he waited for me to do or say something. I said nothing, just continued looking at him. He slowly made his way back down onto the chair and onto the floor, and then quickly ran out of the room and hid under the dining room table, his usual place of refuge when he knew he had done something bad.
Now, think about this. Without us ever telling Charlie he should not be on the kitchen table, he knew we would not approve of it, and that he should not attempt this when we were home. And once he saw that he was caught, he fled the scene quickly, without me ever saying or doing anything. To me that indicates he had developed an understanding of morality and transgression (“sin”) on his own.
Still not a “moral” concept as far as a dog is concerned. Your dog knew he had done somthing “wrong” because of your sudden entrance and probably your expression, evene though you didn’t speak. It was a reaction to you, not to some perceived “sin.”
Since no thread is complete without a Simpsons quote, I’ll just throw in:
Homer: Lisa, the important thing is for your mother to repress what happened. Push it deep down inside her, so she’ll never annoy us again.
Lisa: But if we don’t encourage her to vent her feelings, they can come out in other ways.
Marge: I just realized we never had a wedding for the cat and the dog…they’ve been living in sin!
[the pets whimper]
To me, “knew he had done something wrong” and “moral concept” are the same thing. Remember, our dog waited until he thought no one was home before he tried this. He already knew it was wrong before he did it. And we had never told him it was wrong; he correctly inferred that it was.
Way back when, the family had a dachshund named Goliath. His reaction to the door being opened would tell us whether he had behaved while there were no humans in the house. If he hadn’t shredded or gnawed on anything, soiled the floor, etc he would greet us enthusiastically. If he had done something he knew he would be punished for, he would hide under furniture.
But- This doesn’t mean he knew right from wrong. He knew what behavior would be punished. Remember Pavlov? I heard a bell, I will get food. Change that to-I peed on the rug, I will get swatted.
A dog will defend family members. While the family dog affection for the family is obvious, it is also heeding ancient instincts. The pack is strength and safety. If any pack member is threatened by an outsider, the pack defends that member. This is a survival mechanism. You defend other pack members. They protect you.
Dogs sometimes offer to share their food(Goliath never cared if I touched his food dish while he was eating. Testing his limits revealed that I couldn’t even get him to growl. He would also drop bits of his food on the dining room floor while I was eating. This was an offer to share his food.), But, this is also a survival mechanism. You share your food with pack members. They share their food with you.
I say: And? Isn’t being swatted, one one level or another, how we define morality?