Dog trainers will often tell you a big part of their job is helping owners see things from a canine point of view. Humans and dogs have established a remarkable way of communicating with one another, but this doesn’t mean we always get it right. We can’t help but view the world from a human perspective, using our somewhat limited human senses. This can lead to some significant misunderstandings.
Do you really know what your dog is thinking and feeling? What is this based on? How much of it is being influenced by your own experiences and desires? And what role do more complex factors play, such as culture, history and social norms? If we involve them in our lives, do we have any moral obligations towards animals? Or perhaps more importantly - do animals have moral codes that we should consider in our understanding of them?
The guilty look
A much-referenced study by Alexandra Horowitz provides an interesting perspective on how we relate to one of our most ancient companions - dogs. Horowitz was interested in the many owners who claim their dogs look guilty when they’ve done something ‘wrong’. You probably know the look – low posture, big sad eyes, maybe a nervous tail wag. The internet is full of videos and memes about how guilty our ‘naughty’ dogs feel when they wrong us.
In the study scenarios were set up in which dogs were either ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’. For example, owners would ask their dog not to eat a treat while they left the room, and the dogs would either comply or gobble up the tasty snack. When owners returned, they were asked to either praise the dog or scold them based on whether they had obeyed. However, owners weren’t always given accurate information about how their dog performed. So some owners were telling dogs off who had resisted taking the treat.
The results revealed that dogs will show ‘the guilty look’ regardless of whether they’ve done the ‘right’ thing or not. This may suggest that dogs aren’t showing these behaviours because they understand and feel bad about what they’ve done. Instead, they are doing what dogs do best – using powerful communication signals to appease us and show us they mean no harm, in direct response to our anger. If you take a close look at all those guilty dogs on the internet a common theme emerges in their body language – fear.
Does this type of result indicate that dogs have no sense of right or wrong? Is morality a uniquely human phenomenon, synonymous with our unique cognitive abilities? In the dog world, grabbing some food from the ground is about as canine as it gets, regardless of whether another dog would rather you didn’t. But do dogs have a sense fairness in other scenarios? When reflecting on the study, Horowitz herself said “this is not a test of whether dogs feel guilt. They may. But it appears that the one behaviour which appeared to reveal their guilt, instead shows dogs responding to our own behaviour.”
What is morality?
There are multiple definitions of morality which stem from different schools of thought, whether that be biological, philosophical or sociocultural. When we talk about morality we are often referring to:
Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour
A particular system of values and principles of conduct
Dutch primatologist and ethologist Frans de Waal talks about the two pillars of morality, reciprocity (fairness) and empathy (compassion), in his TED talk. His perspective is a good reminder that in everyday life, morality is typically associated with human behaviour and not much thought is given to the fascinating and mysterious social conduct of other species.
Where do morals come from?
Emerging fields of evolutionary biology have argued that although human social behaviour is extremely complex, the precursors of human morality can be traced to the behaviour of other social animals. Nearly 150 years ago Charles Darwin argued that morality was a byproduct of evolution, which came about as humans were shaped into a highly social species.
“The difference in mind between man and the higher animals, great as it is, certainly is one of degree and not of kind” (Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 1871).
Marc Bekoff and Jessica Pierce (Wild Justice: The Moral Lives of Animals, 2010) have argued that morality is a group of behaviours that regulate and cultivate interactions within social groups. This includes things such as empathy, altruism, cooperation and a sense of fairness. In order to avoid injuries and the break up of social groups, a code of conduct is needed in all species. Animals modify their behaviour to improve their evolutionary fitness – they may act less selfishly in order to make sure the group succeeds as a whole.
Animals are more complex than we often acknowledge. In the 16th century, philosopher and mathematician Rene Descartes said animals were red-blooded machines without thoughts or wishes. We now know from observations and scientific studies that animals have rich emotional lives, just like us, from elephant funerals to birds that demonstrate jealousy when their partner flirts with others.
There are a number of illuminating studies and anecdotes which provide insight into the emotional and moral lives of animals:
A 2006 study found that mice would grimace when other mice were in pain.
In 2011, rats were tested by placing them in a cage containing a small plastic tube in which a captive rat was held. A door at the front of the tube could be opened by the free rat of its own volition. The free rats would quickly fig