The problem here is that, if you describe this behaviour as evidence of morals and accept that the chimp is behaving "morally", then you must also accept that
this chimp (or
these chimps) behaved immorally.
You are making the mistake of equating the word "moral" with positive behavior traits and "immoral" with negative behavior traits. All along, I have tried to be clear that I am discussing the
concept of morality as
a set of socially reinforced behaviors particular to a given group. Not a judgment of "good vs. bad."
In terms of the chimps referenced above, who are we to say that they did not behave morally in the context of chimpanzee social structure? At least in the case of the chimp who attacked the unfortunte woman who was visiting her friend who stupidly kept a chimp as a pet, perhaps the chimp saw the friend as a threat to a member of his group, and to defend his group was the moral thing for him to do. Not so moral in a human context, but neither you nor I are quite chimps (though we're close), so we can't really say.
The example I gave of the bonobo who tried to help the injured bird was an example of a non-human animal showing empathy and logic/rational thought, which was a specific thing you pointed to as being lacking in the non-human animal world. I gave that example to correct you, not to assert that the bonobo was being "moral." I did assert that she was being both empathetic and rational, however.
The thing about morals is that they arrive via a process. Morality implies that the chimp saw the bird, made an association between how the bird felt and how it would feel in the same situation and drew an inference. If it did these things, then yes, the chimp is a moral agent capable of making moral decisions.
Again, since I wasn't using the bonobo example to point to morality, I can't comment there. And I disagree with you that "the thing" about morals is that they arrive via a process. I think it depends on how you define the word in a given context. I think in certain contexts morality can rightly be defined that way. In others, it can rightly be defined as I have been doing in this thread: response to social pressures.
Alternatively, the chimp was just curious that it was flying one minute and not so the next. A sign of intelligence no doubt, but morals? And again, if you say that chimps are moral, then that means they are capable of empathy and reason, which also means that the behaviour I gave in my example was "immoral." You may well be anthropomorphising this chimp's behaviour because humans are moral agents, and such behaviour is packaged with who we are.
So if we are less than two percent different, genetically speaking, from the bonobo who fiddled with the injured bird, then are you asserting that the primary difference between bonobos and humans is that "packaging" of morality?
If you are asserting this, please cite your sources. "I just think that's the way it is" doesn't count.
My definition of morality is narrower than yours because the arguments I've read so far have given morality a definition so broad that it's unsurprising the conclusion would be animals (or mammals at least) have morality. It's worth underlining the areas where humans differ from other animals, because if we otherwise feel that animals are capable of the same consideration of moral dilemmas as humans, then they need human rights.
No. Again, human rights make sense in the context of human society. Wolves do not need human rights any more than humans need wolf rights. We are different species. We live differently. We approach the world differently. Humans are not better, more vaunted, or specially endowed with "that certain something" (morality, pre-packaged into who we are, in your view) that makes us better-than. We are not better-than. We are simply different.
Other animals would have no use for "human rights." I do not have a use for whale rights or condor rights (although I did know a condor who treated me as his mate and was very considerate and kind to me.
)
If you've restricted your reading on the issue of non-human behavior just so you can maintain your current view on the use of animals in medical testing, maybe you need to chill out a little bit about the implications of testing. And/or educate yourself about it more. I've worked in zoos before and I recently looked into starting a career in hubandry for medical science, and I can honestly tell you that animals used in medical science are often treated far more humanely than animals in many zoos (though to be sure, that may not be saying much, depending on which zoos you are sampling.) I encourage you to read more on the subject, because honestly, some of your positions on why or how humans are different from other animals seem irrational. Don't be afraid of knowledge. I am pretty well-versed on animal behavior -- well-versed enough to feel certain that most warm-blooded social vertebrates have what can rationally be called "morality" -- and I don't have a problem with animals in science.
There is a moral hierarchy at play here, no doubt. Some animals have higher cognitive skills than others, and show more complex social interactions than others. Near the bottom of the pile are the tapeworms and insects. Then perhaps reptiles. Then mammals. Then the great apes. Then humans.
Your understanding of the complexities and richness of animal life is so impoverished. I'm not saying that to insult you, and I hope I haven't, truly. I really feel a bit sad for you, that your desire to set Homo sapiens somehow "above" other animals, and thereby to justify in your head animals in science, has kept you from a full appreciation of the animal world -- the world you are a part of! My goodness, animal life is so much more diverse and incredible than your apparent perception of it, and so full of fascinating behaviors -- even cultures, one might say. You really ought to read about it more. It's amazing.
Again, let me clearly state that I'm not anti-testing. I think it's honorable (and sadly rare) to care enough about the issue that you've even put this kind of thought into it. But you've let your worries over it blind you to its realities, and to the realities of non-human animals. Push your comfort boundaries a little more and the world will become even more awesome to you.
I really do recommend you start with Our Inner Ape by Frans de Waal. You'll love it.
This throws up other problems, admittedly. Babies are not moral agents, neither are humans in comas. Typically this problem is got around by saying they have the potential to be moral agents. But no-one ever said ethics was easy
No, indeed, it is not easy. But it's not made any easier by hyperbolic statements like "If we admit that non-human animals have morality, then we must give them the right to vote."
I'm aware wolves don't only kill babies, but they would do under many circumstances, and not give it a second thought. Most of us wouldn't kill baby wolves however. If a human killed a wolf pup, we may call it immoral. Would we call a wolf eating a baby immoral? You're very keen to point out this moral behaviour without considering the alternative. Calling this sort of behaviour "moral" is confusing, because making a moral decision isn't always easy in life. Often we'll be in a situation where we have to take the lesser evil, and it isn't a fair comparison to say that caring for a mate is on a par with human ethics.
Again, you're misunderstanding the definition in use here of "morality."
Do animals have memes, I wonder?
They do. Bird song is a meme. Methods of catching prey among domestic cats appear to be memetic.
And this arbitrary "good" and "evil" has given us the Red Cross, the RSPCA, Oxfam etc. etc. You've brushed aside the most important point here.
Which is...
what, exactly? I'm not following you. I don't understand how the existence of altruistic organizations proves or disproves that humans are the only animals that can be said to have morality. Is there some obscure definition of the word I'm not aware of, which specifies that only societies which create organizations with acronyms can be said to care about their social health? I'm sure if the vampire bats had a written language they'd call their system of monitoring who gets the night's rations of regurgitated blood something clever, maybe the Bats' Alliance Regurgitation Fund. BARF.
In closing then, I'll say this. Some animals, mammals in particular, show more complex social behaviour that other animals. However, it is not on a par with human morality, and calling this behaviour moral is incorrect.
Prove that it is not on par with human morality. Animal morality is exactly as "moral" (in the context of that animal group) as it needs to be to facilitate survival. AS IS THE CASE WITH HUMAN MORALITY. You're just asserting that it's not living up to your totally arbitrary standard without backing up your assertion, so I'm totally justified in dismissing it, on account of my years of work with socially aware animals, and all.
Don't be afraid to read more on this subject. It won't make you a bad person.