The Moral Lives of Animals - Dale Peterson Interview

The Moral Lives of Animals by Dale Peterson; interview here:

"How do you define morality in the context of this book?

Morality is morality. There’s nothing technical or obscure about the word. It means what most people understand intuitively, though they might have trouble putting it into words. Many people would tell me just to look it up in the Bible. I have. The Old Testament introduces what I call the “rules” (10 commandments) of morality; the New Testament introduces what I call the “attachment virtues” (or the general principles of cooperation and empathy and altruism) of morality. These two systems, working jointly, constitute morality in my definition—one that will describe both human moral behaviors and those of animals.

Some people will say that animals having morality is “impossible” because they believe it requires language or an analytical intelligence of the sort only humans seem to have. But if you couldn’t speak, would you then not hear your moral voice? And if you were much less intelligent than you are, would you really be much less moral?

Describe for me the new ideas in your book that depart from previously held beliefs about animals, human-animal relationships, animal behavior, etc.

The idea that animals have morality is just a very, very new concept. It may seem shocking or offensive to some, ludicrous or far-fetched to others. But I believe it’s a fair argument that can be made rationally and soundly with an appeal to sound data and scientific theory. As far as I know,only two other people have been seriously making the argument—Marc Bekoff and Frans de Waal. I believe my argument is similar to parts of theirs, but in many ways it moves in new directions.

Where do you stand on the case made by some that human are on the top of the food chain and are therefore justified to kill and eat animals routinely?

We’re not really at the “top of the food chain.” That’s just a clever phrase someone invented. Still, the idea being—the most powerful beast, or the evil creature at the top—crudely suggests that might equals right: whatever one can do is justified. It’s fair and reasonable to question that sort of self-serving justification, no matter the clever phrase attached to it."