Regarding dog morality, there is a better example than digging in the garbage, which seems perfectly acceptable to the dog although he may know that you do not like it. If you are playing in an energetic way with your dog and he grabs your arm with his mouth hard enough to hurt and you 'yelp' in pain, most pet dogs will stop, show concern and often display 'apologetic' behavior. This is an event which he can understand.

Well, this just gets messier and messier. Why? Because it returns to the sometimes tenuous relationship between philosophy and religion. Primitive humans believed that animals possessed a soul---every bit as vital and important as that of sentient beings such as themselves. And just so. Higher animals nurture their young; defend their herd; "plan" for survival and grieve for their dead (anecdotally, elephants are famous for the grief mechanism.) Your earlier post regarding memetics seems interconnected here, along with comments from readers regarding extended phenotypes and such (I'm right-handed; my mother was a lefty; right-handedness is a dominant trait, and so on...)
It appears clear that there is some level of morality in many animals. The true question (if there is such a thing) is: do these creatures possess a soul? I would submit that if they do not, and cannot, then morality is merely a means of social control, akin to the memes Dawkins (and others?) has/have talked about. Moreover, any question of "soulness" in humankind is equally moralistic and lacking in substance. Let's see what happens...

Dear Mr. Taylor and Mr. Perry,
I do enjoy your show, on occasion, yet your argument today sounded half-hearted or juvenile, at best. Perhaps you are simply speaking to the lowest common denominator. More importantly, why do we humans need to think animals are or are not moral? Why would this be important, and why would this change our behavior, to be more respectful towards the animal species of the planet?
This whole question denotes morality with superiority, righteousness and loftiness. Since not all cultures or individuals agree on what is moral, how can we even apply this to the animal kingdom, or perhaps lions have different morals than chimpanzees. Since most moral ideas stem from religions, this question should be moot. Morals are agreed upon behaviors or acts, including sexual ones, by a society, presumable for the betterment of that society. Being immoral or having immoral behaviors, in that society, would then give consequences to that member that were psychological in nature rather than physical or tangible. In turn, if a societal member behaves morally, then that person can reach salvation. The idea that this is happening, or should happen in the animal world is absurd. Many of us realize, in the animal world, too many mistakes, physical weakness or not following the cultural rules of said animal often result in death, not some mental suffering. Morals or good behavior could be nothing more than a selfish act, or a simple mathematical gamble, it doesn?t have to have anything to do with righteousness or ethics. Those societies that help each other more, are safer, have an average higher standard of life, satisfaction and happiness. Those societies that are greedy and less moral, have an average worse standard of life, happiness and satisfaction. This is something the animal kingdom, not humans, seems to understand and practice better than we do. If we all follow the rules and work together, we will all have a better chance at a longer, safer and healthier life. Whereas, animals seem to get this concept early; it can take a lifetime to convince a human that this might be a good idea. I can not imagine two individuals, in the animal kingdom, of the same group, having a difference of opinion on what is moral in their society, and then break off, in to another group with separate ideas of morality.
You mention the fact that through morality, humans can have regret, or can reflect on their behavior. This is only because there are consequences, they can be punished, embarrassed or worse, not because they are moral, they are afraid. What type of morality dictates that we should punish individuals, for stealing food, because they are starving and then claim the offenders are stealing because they have no morals; yet we are usually the causation of their situation. How is this different from an alpha dog punishing the omega dog for taking food before every other member of the pack has eaten. Is that morality or group survival? They understand or are taught from an early age, what is acceptable and not, within their society. In turn, when their members follow the rules, more of them eat, reproduce and survive.
I have heard little mention yet, of the thousands of acts humans do, that are considered by most societies, to be totally immoral; using and starving our fellow man, torture (gassing), rape, killing for pleasure, status or greed. There has also been no admission of the many lies many humans tell for advantage, money, property or power! Many of these things are done in the name of religion and moral superiority; I don?t hear of many in the animal world doing any of these things, yet we consider ourselves to be morally superior, or simply having morals. I hardly think we are the moral majority.
Humans might like to think they are better, or rather more important, than other species by saying we are moral. As if we set the standard on, ?How to Behave? for the animal Kingdom. This is just a ruse, to convince ourselves or others, to validate our less than admirable behavior, towards ourselves, other species and the planet, usually for profit, convenience and greed. If we convince ourselves that animals do not have feeling, feel pain or sorrow, it makes it so much easier to treat them badly and not consider them a vital part of the planet, not to be squandered.
Please help stop perpetuating these unfortunate ideas and thoughts, and help your listening audience to have a higher conversation. How about: What is morality, and why do we use this term instead of logic or fair? Why do humans constantly need to feel that they are better and more moral and important than all other species, when we have done more harm to ourselves and every other species on the planet and continue to destroy our environment, while feeling superior to others? Why do different cultures have different morals and what are the advantages and disadvantages of that? Why don?t humans teach and practice the moral idea that making life better for those worst off in society, would make life safer and more secure for everyone including those best off in society? How is one?s use of the term morality used to keep others down? All these questions and conversations would be more interesting, and the answers would, most likely, be more enlightening than today?s query. I think the best result to come from today?s conversation, would be that it doesn?t matter and is not necessary for animals to have human morals, for us learn, appreciate and respect all of our places in the animal kingdom.
In the vernacular of today?s conversation, perhaps we have just become, ?too big for our britches?. As humans, we are not a collective society, we use one society?s version of morality over another?s, to feel superior and often to malign each other. When all else fails, I recommend Douglass Adams? series, ?The Hitchhikers Guide to the Universe?. This is more enlightening than most philosophy discussions that I have heard, and it?s funny.
Sincerely,
Paula Mehoves

Mark Rowlands was surely the most evasive guest you've ever had on. I waited in vain for a concrete example of the difference between positive or negative socialbility in animals and behavior that would befit Rowlands' moral agent.

Mark Rowlands was an extraordinary guest in that he managed to say absolutely NOTHING substantial, stuttering -- what people do when they don't understand their subject -- his way through what should have been a critically important interview. How humans treat animals is currently so deplorable that to reduce this topic down to semantics is something we can ill afford (easy to do when you're not the one paying the price). To say that animals should be protected because they are aesthetically pleasing is just plain ludicrous and exposes Rowlands for what he is - a delusional anthropocentrist. To protect animals from exploitation shouldn't have anything to do with their moral capacity but with our own. Please consider having me on the show to talk about this topic - I guarantee you I will do a better job than Rowlands, who in this case was shamefully damaging to the cause.

Dogs dissing humans, aka Masters????? They are are our closest non-human partners, and tearing up garbage or peeing on the rug are simply they way they let us know that we have disappointed them in our role as leader of the pack. If you think about it, it's a very human response -- ask anyone who's been on the receiving end of a belt or silent treatment.
- j

I suppose a great deal depends on whether we understand morality as a cultural, emotional, or intellectual term. I suspect that if we try to be precise we will find that we don't know what we're saying or that we're not saying anything at all, just grunting approval or disapproval.

I thoroughly enjoyed my appearance on Philosophy Talk. And thank you to everyone for all these questions and comments. Here is a link to a talk I gave on this subject at the How The Lights Gets In festival of philosophy and music (yes, there is a festival of philosophy and music!) in Hay-on-Wye, Wales earlier this year.http://iai.tv/video/can-animals-be-moral
The Institute of Art and Ideas (who made the video) should be adding a question and answers section soon.
Further links that might be of interest to some can be found on my (rather neglected) blog:http://rowlands.philospot.com
@Martin Lipow ? I thought I did provide some examples, but not many because some really good ones were provided in the recorded segment before I came on the show. In any case, if it?s examples you?re after, I do mention some talk in the Hay talk.