The Moral Lives of Animals

by Dale Peterson

Wild elephants walking along a trail stop and spontaneously try to protect and assist a weak and dying fellow elephant. Laboratory rats, finding other rats caged nearby in distressing circumstances, proceed to rescue them. A chimpanzee in a zoo loses his own life trying to save an unrelated infant who has fallen into a watery moat.



The examples above and many others, argues Dale Peterson, show that our fellow creatures have powerful impulses toward cooperation, generosity, and fairness. Yet it is commonly held that we Homo sapiens are the only animals with a moral sense-that we are somehow above and apart from our fellow creatures.



This rigorous and stimulating book challenges that notion, and it shows the profound connections-the moral continuum-that link humans to many other species. Peterson shows how much animal behavior follows principles embodied in humanity's ancient moral codes, from the Ten Commandments to the New Testament. Understanding the moral lives of animals offers new insight into our own.



Dale Peterson's biography Jane The Woman Who Redefined Man was a New York Times Book Review Notable Book and Boston Globe Best Book of 2006 . His other publications include Visions of Caliban (with Jane Goodall) and Demonic Males (with Richard Wrangham). Peterson lectures in English at Tufts University.

Genres: Nonfiction, Animals, Science, Philosophy, Psychology, Nature, Environment

342 pages, Hardcover

First published March 15, 2011

Reviews

[Julie · Rating 2 out of 5]

Morality is to be understood as a devised structure of inherent ethics. The behaviors being witnessed in animals (including the human) and detailed in this book are altruistic behaviors, not moralistic ones. Altruistic behaviors are naturally evolved behaviors - they ensure the survival of one's group. They just happen to make us all feel good as well.

Religions are examples of social structures that have arisen in the human animal that provide both order and cooperation, as well as - you guessed it - altruism (dressed as morality) such that the group adhering to it might stand a better chance of survival than if it were not to have such a cohesive-making structure. But when we see these kinds of behaviors in chimpanzees or vampire bats, we should hardly call them moral (would we call them religious?); we should understand them for what they are - a means to survival.

[Kathryn]

This book looks very interesting. I am somewhat apprehensive about it since I love animals and have difficulty reading about them being hurt.

I think that I will truly enjoy this book though.

[Emily · Rating 5 out of 5]

I won this book as a giveaway here on goodreads.com. If you're interested in morality, science, animals etc this is a must read. My boyfriend found that this book is one of his new favorites. The entire time he was reading the book he would stop here and there and give me examples from the book of animals being morale. We found that in a way we were surprised by some of the examples, but at the same time it made sense. I thought that the book got a little lengthy and dry in some spots but my boyfriend wasn't bothered by it at all, as he's a logical/scientific minded person and can handle it better than me. Despite the dry patches, I enjoyed this book based on it's content and would recommended it to anyone interested in morality and/or animals. However, it's written in a way that isn't preachy so it could be enjoyed by many.

[Cat · Rating 3 out of 5]

Dense. I usually love Dale Peterson--he's one of the deeper thinkers writing on animal issues. But in this, sometimes he takes a long time to state what I think is obvious. I was most interested in his discourse on the evolutionary purposes of mammals needing--or tending to--authority.

He's tackling a very large, complex set of issues, so I give him credit for that but at times it's really choppy. He's meticulous with the science side, then sometimes unexpectedly pulls things out of his butt with zero research or backup (only people educated about animals care about them?). The literary frame of Moby-Dick had its moments but mostly fell short and obscured issues sometimes. He also relies too much on ape research. He gets an A for humor but I wouldn't recommend to most people.

[Grace · Rating 2 out of 5]

Made it half way. This is my problem with lots of nonfic books- I just prefer more direct writing to philosophize about abstract subjects. Some interesting stories and thought-provoking ideas, but meandering and unsatisfying overall.

[Kurtbg · Rating 2 out of 5]

I grabbed this book hoping it would be a thoroughly interesting treatise and exploration on the concept of animals and morals. I'm willing to be surprised, and to do so, sometimes I don't do research ahead of time. That's the little bit of me that embraces synchronicity. I'm not quite so young as I was, and use of time becomes a factor, but hey - I eschew mainstream TV so I can indulge.

Looking at the author Bio tells you right away this book will not be from a scientific viewpoint. He's not a zoologist, biologist, sociologist, nor does he profess study in philosophy or religion. Ok, that kinda sets up expectations on what is to be expected - a personal viewpoint. Now, there's nothing wrong with that. It's basically a forewarning that what you read is not for scientific review and acceptance.

With that preamble I have to say that the author had an interesting, though not original structure for the book whereby he fuses an interesting take on Moby Dick at each chapter's head and thusly elaborates.

Animals & morals? to be fair, all words are made by humans. And all definitions of words are made by humans - and everyone has their own thoughts, beliefs, connotations etc on the same word!

Of course animals do not have a "code" they follow. They do not set aside a day of the week as a holy day (or for that matter define time). They do, though, exhibit emotions and acts which we humans would classify as being moral. Stories have been documented about dogs & cats savings lives in the most oddest of situations - even by sacrificing their own lives (see "Next of Kin" by Roger Fouts, writing by Goodall, Galdikas, Fossey, Monte Irvin, Elizabeth Marshall Thomas, Konrad Lorenz, etc, etc)

Animals have their own way of being which I would say is built on two things (mammals being the best examples) . One is the approach to life based on group or society and linked to survival. It could be said it's the adaptation and development based on the means and environment for an animal to thrive.
The second is the absence of time in the thought process - or the living in the now.
Dog's have been known to become depressed to the point of actual death because a pack mate has died. I would view this not with a romantic eye, and that the pining dog is dreaming and missing of the times with the other dog. I would argue is depressed because that aspect of itself that was provided by the other dog, is no longer present and part of a routine. For animals routine is important for survival and for feelings of being secure.

Cutting this short… animals practicing morals and religion, that's not what this book is about. If you're looking, and are happy to digest others opinions for creating an argument about the good of animals, then perhaps this book will be of interest to you.

[Kyle Wendy Skultety (gimmethatbook.com) · Rating 3 out of 5]

First, I would like to thank Bloomsbury USA and Goodreads for giving me the opportunity to read and review this book. I won this through a Goodreads contest.

The blurb about this book made me think that it would be chock full of animal stories and how morality is displayed in the animal's behavior patterns. The reality of the book is that it is directed more towards philosophy or psychology aficionados, rather than average, "regular" animal lovers. The depth in which Peterson explains morality, its concepts, origins, rules and future is quite verbose and pedantic. Certainly his thoughts are well explained and contain examples; however, I expected a lot more animal stories. What I got was a long explanation of what human morality is, and how it came to be, intertwined with a few examples here and there from the animal kingdom. That being said, the book wasn't ALL bad.
I found Peterson's way of including a quote from Moby Dick at the head of each chapter very refreshing, as it both set the tone for the chapter's contents and also brought the concept to life, even before you got into the subject. The animal examples that were included were new to me and made me think about how animals co exist, even without being taught morality as humans are. They seem to act morally to ensure the maintenance of the species, not because they are being pushed by their peers. Certainly their behavior is shaped by others around them, and both good and bad behaviors have their place in each animal society.
Both religion and science play a part in explaining morality and its "cause and effect" relationship on both humans and non-humans. Modern and ancient schools of thought are noted, with no particular emphasis being placed on either of them. The author does a great job of telling the facts about our moral code, without passing judgment.
I will have to re-read this again with a more open mind, a mind that is geared towards the philosophical rather than the mind of an animal lover. I cannot say that after reading this book I think of animals differently; but I WILL say that I definitely view humans in a new light.

[Ryan Mishap · Rating 3 out of 5]

An idea that hadn't occurred to me was presented early in this book and it was one of those "seems so obvious" types once you hear it: morality has an evolutionary history. I'm so conditioned to think of evolution in anatomical terms that, even though I've read a few books on evolutionary aspects of the mind, I'd rarely considered it. While I believe that animals think, plan, feel pain and pleasure--are sentient beings, in short--it was a revelation to think about our common evolutionary history and not only what morality is and where it comes from, but how non-human mammals show signs of it.

That's Peterson's main task in this collection of stories, science studies, and speculation and he succeeds fairly well. He likes to place ideas in a dyad, then suggest a third way of thinking about something. As a rhetorical trick, it gets old, fast, while still being effective. The examples of animal behavior from around the world and gamut of mammalian species are fascinating and he does a credible job of explaining how these behaviors are moral without conflating them with human actions and beliefs. Indeed, he is usually quick with the distinctions and doesn't anthropomorphize animals: just compare and contrast.

I can recommend this to anyone interested, but I do have a couple complaints after I praise him for using Moby Dick and the Ten Commandments story as a framework--I didn't think that could be done interestingly. Complaint 1) Falls into the trap of saying evolution "selected" or "chose" as if evolution were a supreme intelligence, and not a process. 2) Doesn't quite get the complete idea on why sex differences and gender differences aren't the same thing--he agrees somewhat but is also dismissive.

3.5 stars.

[Stephanie · Rating 2 out of 5]

I had a really hard time with this book, and since I recieved it as part of the Goodreads First Reads program I WANTED TO LIKE IT, but I didn't. I kept feeling like the author was some how getting around to writting a term paper, but could never quite get there. And while reading it I felt as though he was pushing his thoughts and feeling about animals on the reader with every single tool he had. When I am reading a book like this for information purposes I like the information laid out in such a way that the reader can make up his or her own mind. That was not going to happen in this book - right off the bat it was clear by the authors' own dissection of the "words" we use to describe animals what his thoughts and opinions were. This book took an almost politcal undertone to it, and I'm sorry but I did not enjoy it.

[Carey · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book took me a long time to read, but I never stopped reading it (except when I misplaced it during the move). Peterson persuasively argues that morals and value judgments evolved long before humans existed. I learned a lot about different species of animals, from bonobos to elephants to hyenas. I also learned about loyalty, altruism, aggression, and peace from the perspective of evolution. Peterson even brings in current social issues like feminism and sexuality. It's well written and easy to read.

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book did a good job of delineating the spectrum on which humans and various species of animals fall in relation to moral behavior and shows the evolutionary roots and purposes of these behaviors. Violence, sex, possession, property rights, communication, cooperation, empathy, kindness and other behaviors are discussed with various examples from the animal kingdom. Well worth reading if one wants to understand animals AND humans better.

[Amy · Rating 3 out of 5]

I think I expected more animal and less humans. Interesting read, just not quite what I thought it would be.

[shinfu]

This looks like it will be a great book to read.

[Katelyn · Rating 4 out of 5]

The author makes a great argument and may change the way you look at animals.

[mad mags · Rating 3 out of 5]

“The right to do something does not mean that doing it is right.”

(Full disclosure: I received a free review copy of The Moral Lives of Animals through Library Thing’s Early Reviewer program.)

What is the nature of morality? Which behaviors do we consider “moral,” and why? Are humans the only animals to have developed a sense of morality and rules for moral living? Dale Peterson’s The Moral Lives of Animals (2011) attempts to answer these questions, with mixed results. While he presents ample evidence which suggests that nonhuman animals have literally evolved their own moralities, in so doing Peterson demonstrates how terribly disrespectful, cruel, and (dare I say!) immoral human treatment of other animals and the planet we all call home remains, even after thousands of years of evolution and revolution.

When you think of “morals” and “morality,” most likely terms such as “just,” “kind,” “compassionate,” and “fair” come to mind. And ideally, what is considered “moral” in any given society is that which is just, and kind, and fair. However, “morality” differs in time and space; morals are relative and context-specific. Morality (or what we consider “moral”) is not fixed, but changes over time and across cultures. Those behaviors and institutions that were thought “moral” in colonial America, for example, are quite different than what we consider moral today. So too does morality vary across species: elephants, bonobos, mice, chickadees – all have their own moral rules, codified not in language (as human moral codes often are), but written into the DNA of the species by evolution. Sometimes these moral principles resemble our own; other times they do not.* This is the crux of the author’s theory of animal morality.

Peterson looks at animal morality in seven areas of animal life: authority, violence, sex, possession, communication, cooperation and kindness. The first five he groups together to form a system of “rules morality” – i.e., something is moral if it follows the rules – while cooperation and kindness together form “attachments morality” – i.e., compassionate behaviors, or those that encourage attachments among social animals, are moral. He presents a wealth of evidence – anecdotal, laboratory studies, field research – attesting to morality in nonhumans. Since each of these seven areas could easily command its own book, the sections are necessarily brief – but compelling nonetheless. (Curiously, Peterson barely touches upon rape – even though it could fit into two different chapters.) Primates receive quite a bit of attention (gotta love those sexually liberated, matriarchal bonobos!), as do elephants, hyenas, lions, whales, wolves, various species of birds, dogs – and humans.

It’s this last group that many of my fellow LT reviewers takes issue with, and with good cause. Though I take the title of the book to mean “the moral lives of nonhuman animals” (the omission of “nonhuman” when referring to animals being a nice/nasty linguistic trick that separates “us” from “them”), examples of human morality are introduced quite frequently, usually as a point of reference against which to consider nonhuman morality. Along these lines, Herman Melville’s Moby-Dick serves as a framework on which Peterson weaves his own discussion, and passages from the Bible – used to illustrate written human moral codes – abound. As an atheist who Cliff Noted Moby-Dick in high school, I wasn’t thrilled with either device. That said, by the end of the book, I’d come to see the usefulness of Moby-Dick for shaping the structure of Peterson’s book; and, while the endless Biblical excerpts essentially excluded other religions from the text, I suspect that Peterson used them because he expected that Christianity would be the religion with which most of his audience would be most familiar. (Certainly, this seemed true of the author himself.) So I guess you could say that I came around on both points.

But back to the moral lives of nonhuman animals. While human morality isn’t the main focus of the book, Peterson does return to humans time and again – and it’s here that he drops the ball. For instance, while Peterson primarily relies on observational field research to make his case, laboratory research – including vivisection – is also a common element in The Moral Lives of Animals. Peterson describes horrific acts of animal torture in gruesome detail, without so much as hinting at their moral implications. In the chapter on “kindness,” Peterson un-ironically describes an experiment in which “lab” mice were observed physically reacting to another mouse’s pain - deliberately caused by an injection of acetic acid by a human researcher - in an example of “contagious empathy.” (Would that humans would come down with a case of it!) In another study, captive rhesus monkeys chose to forgo food rather than electrically shock a compatriot housed in another “compartment” of their cage. (Here, the scientists could stand to learn a thing or two about compassion from their subjects!) The ethics of such research are never touched, even though the very subject of the book seems to demand it.

On the contrary, Peterson sometimes takes the opposite tack, waxing nostalgic about animal abuse and exploitation. Early on (fittingly, in the chapter on “authority”), he describes how loggers in Myanmar capture and train free-living elephants to use in their industry. The process involves corralling a “wild” herd; isolating the baby (or babies, as the case may be), kicking and screaming, from her family; lashing her to a “cradle,” which is essentially a giant tripod constructed to immobilize her completely; and then withholding food and water until she “breaks.” The aim, says Peterson, is to “demonstrat[e] a radically new power relationship.” In other words, torture the elephant physically and psychologically until she submits completely. Or commits suicide. (Some elephants have stepped on their own trunks, thus cutting off all air flow, rather than comply with their captors.) Of this horrific practice, Peterson writes “It is certainly possible to overromanticize this relationship between a mahout and his elephant.” That such torture can be romanticized at all is a testament to the depths of human cruelty.

And speciesism, which Peterson introduces and dismisses in just two pages.** He cites the species boundary – the heeding of which is part and parcel of “human nature” – as the difference between speciesism and other isms, such as sexism and racism. In Peterson’s view, there’s something fundamentally unique about the human/animal divide that makes it more difficult – impossible, even – to bridge than differences based on gender and race.

But as abolitionists and anti-speciesists argue, the species boundary is no less arbitrary than those based on gender, race, class, sexual orientation, dis/ability, or the like. What truly matters is sentience: The question is not, "Can they reason?" nor, "Can they talk?" but rather, "Can they suffer?" If another being is capable of suffering, and suffering is a bad thing, then isn’t it wrong to cause unnecessary suffering?

To use Peterson’s own example: yes, if she must, a human mother will place the life of her baby above that of a laboratory rat – but she’d also place it above that of another human baby. So too will nonhuman mothers. And I know many people who, if pressed, would choose to rescue their own dog and cat friends over a human who they do not know (and particularly a human they do know and do not like. Heck, I’d save a venomous snake over blowhard bigot Rush Limbaugh every day of the week!) But as Peterson himself demonstrates, this preference for one’s own offspring does not negate the ability to feel empathy and exhibit compassion across myriad us/other boundaries. Add in the fact that most animal exploitation – in the Western world, anyhow – is a matter of convenience vs. survival, and Peterson’s argument (for which he offers not a whit of evidence, just conjecture) becomes rather simplistic: the stuff of Defensive Omnivore Bingo.

When asked, most people – and not just vegans and animal rights activists, but also hunters, and ranchers, and your everyday, run of the mill omnivores and pet owners and circus-goers, too – profess to “love animals.” Even as we use them up and spit them out, enslave and exploit them by the billions, we consider ourselves a nation of “animal lovers.” On some level – one founded on nature or nature, it matters not to me – we recognize that it’s a good thing to care about beings other than ourselves … no matter how “other” they may be. And yet, Peterson’s call for “peace” in the parting chapter betrays this value, and in so doing betrays the very animals he himself claims to “love” – humans and nonhumans alike. Rather than calling for the large-scale revolution that the situation demands, Peterson weakly asks that his readers perform small, random, occasional acts of kindness toward the animals with whom we share this planet – you know, when it’s convenient for us.

We might not always seem it, but humans are capable of so much than this.

* This variance in morals – along with ignorance and speciesism – is one reason why it’s difficult for humans to recognize morality in other animals: if a given quality doesn’t match our anthropocentric definition of that quality to a T, then it doesn’t exist. Thus you see humans finding intelligence, emotions and the like only in other humans – and increasingly, primates (our closest ancestors). We simply cannot fathom intelligence that doesn’t look overtly human.

** Incidentally, Peterson also engages in some pernicious, drive-by gender essentialism. As with his lazy dismissal of speciesism, he does his readers no favor by introducing them to a weighty, controversial topic, only to wave it away with a flick of his wrist. I hope his audience researches each subject more fully on their own!

http://www.easyvegan.info/2011/07/28/...

[Jrobertus · Rating 5 out of 5]

The author has worked with, and written for, such luminaries as Jane Goodall and has done extensive field work with apes. He is in a good position to write about the intriguing notion of animal morality. Like Frans de Waal and many other biologists, Peterson has an evolutionary view of the development of morality. It is clear that many animals, especially higher mammals, have emotional centers that lay the basis for an innate sense of empathy and fairness in dealing with other members of their own species. It is essential for animals living in groups to relate to each other, to cooperate in defense, hunting, and rearing of offspring. It is sensible that this should occur in as nonviolent a way as possible. Like De Waal, Dawkins, and others, Peterson describes the culture of chimps and bonobos as strategies for societies. He also develops the idea that morality may be rule based, as we see in religious and civil codes, or attachment based, which is really based on empathy, that is, I sense what is right and to heck with the rules. A theme in the book is if animals are moral creatures, should our human morality extend to cover them? What is our responsibility to elephants, whales, apes, and on down? This book provides a clearly written synopsis of a lot of what we know about animal empathy and morals, and asks some important questions about our own morality and behaviors. It is a vvery thought provoking book that I recommend highly.

[Sandie · Rating 4 out of 5]

In this book, author Dale Peterson questions the commonly heard thought that humans are the only creatures with morality. He suggests that many animals exhibit the same behaviors and cites interesting and pertinent facts that illustrate his theories.
In Part 1, Peterson defines morality with chapters on words, orientations, definitions and structures. He talks about the definite hierarchies that animals establish when they live with each other or just encounter each other. Part 2 explores the rules that animals have when living together with topics such as authority, violence, sex, possession and communication. Part 3 talks about attachments and has chapters on cooperation and kindness. The last section talks about the future of morality.

This is a fascinating look at animals and how they structure their lives It is perhaps especially relevant as wild animals continue to vanish and as household pets currently have a status almost never seen before with millions of dollars spent annually on them. Peterson is the official biographer of Jane Goodall and her groundbreaking work on animals and has written extensively on animals, computers and other topics. One of his prior books received a New York Times Notable Book Award. This book is recommended for nonfiction readers who are interested in animals and their social organizations.

[Owen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Enlightening survey of science and stories from the communities of animals for whom we have little practical knowledge nor understanding of their lives, communication, and what we think of as emotions and intelligence, which are quite a different commodity in the animal world.

An important read.
The matriarchal care and communalism of apes at the end is a blueprint for how human beings should organized themselves, rather than the prevalent human culture of a state of nature that is "dog eat dog" -all for themselves- which we have been misinformed and misguided to believe since the enlightenment thinkers (Hobbes, e.g.) and before.

[Erin Bennett · Rating 2 out of 5]

I may come back to it someday, but I just couldn't bring myself to finish this book. I read about 1/2 and then skipped forward before giving up completely. I found myself forgetting the main points the author was trying to make.

I really wanted to like this book and had high hopes for it, but it seemed to go off the rails for a bit and then come back, repeatedly. I did enjoy the specific examples the author used, but I just don't think they were organized well.

[Jeremy Bollin · Rating 2 out of 5]

"In this instance, once the eager couple joins in a nuptial embrace, the female penetrates the male's protective exterior and proceeds to liquidate his nutritious interior. For her, cannibalism provides nutrition, while for him, it's an effective way for keeping her undivided attention for the half hour it takes to fertilize all her eggs."

[Rosemary Rigsby · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent, not only for the ideas presented, but for the engaging style of writing. I will read this again.

[Cara Hinton · Rating 4 out of 5]

Almost a year later and I finally finished this book. It read just a little better than a text book, and would have been better to read in a classroom with discussion attached. That would have made this book a better read for me.

I think I anticipated this book to be more about examples of morality among animals, and tales of morality between people and animals. And while it did take a very educational /well researched route to that end, it was just tough for me to get through. My mind wanders too much.

I gave it a 4 because it was well researched and covered the topic thoroughly, so I can't really give it a '3' so it got a '4'. Most of you know I'm an animal lover and I had hoped to see some evidence that as a race we are starting to understand our role in the lives of animals, and our responsibility to such.

Unfortunately, I was very disappointed in this regard. For quite some time I've believe in the abolishment of 'speciesism', just like racism and sexism, it means lack of equality for all animals. With the forefront being that humans take responsibility of ensuring equality and safety of all animals. Not the random killing and killing off certain species of animals.

However, the author stated that there is something widely regarded as "Darwinian Narcissism" - which essentially means that each species will feel more compelled to save/salvage their own species than any other. If push came to shove, humans would save their own human baby and kill any other animal if the need was there: food, fright, safety, etc. So, how can we be the protectors of all other animals when ultimately this will be the result. There is an argument that there are some who would still be willing and feel obligated to protect other animals.

Personally I believe in zero population growth. This does not mean don't have children, this means to only reproduce yourself, thus zero population growth. Two children per couple, or one per person (although these things tend to happen in pairs). If we were to have zero population growth RIGHT NOW, I think we might have a chance of living harmoniously with animals. But with our rapid growth rate on this planet, I feel we are doomed and not too much farther in the future. This planet can not sustain us all, and if we continue to eat animals, use them for medical testing, decoration, etc, we will need them in the future. But we need to find a balance. Without a balance, we are not going to survive. I'm sure I sound like a pessimist, but I 100% believe that we need balance. And we need to start now in trying to achieve it.

One more thought in this already lengthy diatribe.....I never read "Moby Dick". Never had to. This book constantly refers to "Moby Dick". At first I thought I was at a disadvantage.....and perhaps I was a little, although the author does a great job of explaining his references. Now I feel that I've got a good handle on "Moby Dick" and probably won't head out and read it. I feel I got the jist and am all the better for it!

[Holly Weiss · Rating 2 out of 5]

Do animals make moral choices that favor their own interests or the interests of others?

Dale Peterson is the author of the award-winning Jane Goodall: The Woman Who Redefined Man, and is a lecturer in English at Tufts University. In the Acknowledgements of The Moral Lives of Animals, Peterson states that the idea for this book originated after a heated debate at a dinner party.

In this era of sensitivity to animal rights, it is imperative that a book has been written arguing that animals have moral codes and intellectual capacities greater than previously thought. Wide in scope, The Moral Lives of Animals is chock full of references to scientific studies, personal travels to study animal behavior, philosophy and literature. Perceptions of whether animals think or feel pain the same as humans are examined thoroughly. The book is intellectual and esoteric.

The Table of Contents contains no specific references to animals, but asks questions regarding morality applicable to humans as well.

• Where Does Morality Come From?
• What Is Morality?
• Where Is Morality Going?

Peterson states that animals have moral systems derived from a common origin to that of humans. Inherent in those systems are the ideas of conflict and choice.

His writing seems disorienting. The author is obviously well-versed in his subject, but becomes lost in the quagmire of “making his point.” He sets forth the structure of the book clearly at the beginning, but does not adhere to his own organizational system and flows from anecdote into intellectual dissertation. For example, Peterson plunges into an exploration of the medieval concept of “the mind” after stating that “executing an elephant for the crime of murder strikes us today as profoundly irrational.”

One wonders why the author used many depictions of animal cruelty to prove his points. Most disturbing to me were the descriptions of experiments where mice were injected with solutions causing pain in order to observe the sympathy of a non-injected partner mouse. How does the moral compass of the humans conducting the experiments compare to their animal subjects?

The Moral Lives of Animals is a heavy read, but is an important contribution to the way we understand and perceive animals. Animal lovers beware. The book is not for the fainthearted.

I thank Bloomsbury Press for supplying an advanced reader copy of this book. The opinions expressed in this review are unbiased and wholly my own.

Reviewed by Holly Weiss, author of Crestmont

[Cheryl Gatling]

This book began as attempt to settle an argument the author had with a friend, about whether animals have a moral life. (The friend said no, the author says yes.) Peterson approaches the subject by discussing how we think of animals. Are they just like humans except unable to talk, or are they completely different from humans, mere furry machines, an "it" and not a "he" or "she"? The author argues that humans and animals are not separated by some great qualitative divide, but connected on an evolutionary continuum. As many of our physical structures are similar, it stands to reason that our neurological processes, which govern our perception of the world, and our response to it, will also be similar, connected on an evolutionary continuum. He then asks what is morality? He makes his own definition-- how beings handle serious (not trivial) conflicts. He breaks morality down into the two elements of rules and attachments. Rules morality deals with stealing, lying, cheating, and violence. Attachments morality deals with sharing and kindness and empathy. He then goes through each item, citing examples of how different animals have demonstrated each of these issues. Some of his examples involve dogs and mice. Most involve apes, whales and elephants. The anecdotes involving the animals are very interesting. The narrative that ties them together I found to be somewhat plodding. Peterson is a careful writer, but not an exciting one. Toward the end he steers back to humans, and how we must value animals more highly or we will continue to exterminate them. He also brings in an interesting theory, that males (of humans and other species as well) are more interested in rules morality, and females more interested in attachments. Men through history have laid down the law, enforced it, and meted out the punishments. Women are moved more by concern for others. He suggests that as women gain rights we may be at the beginning of a great cultural shift in how morality is practiced, moving away from harshness and toward more kindness. Controversial, because it paints women as the tender-hearted sex, and women don't want to be pigeon-holed, but interesting. And it might be nice to see.

[Ira Therebel · Rating 5 out of 5]

Because of Darwinian narcissism that is pretty common in the animal kingdom people often try to distance themselves from all the other species and make it look as if only us are capable of things such as emotion, decision making and not just act on intuition and reflexes. There isn't much research done on that topic yet but there is some progress made.

In this amazing book Dale Peterson talks about animals and morality. He uses both scientific research done and some philosophy to think about the issue. The book is very well structured. At first he describes the history of us looking at animal morality, the methods we use to make ourselves look completely different and also think about what morality is. Afterwards he goes through several aspects of morality such as violence, sex etc. and discusses what is known about animals on those topics.

He does not humanize animals. In fact he shows it as one of mistakes that may be commonly made. One should simply not look at animals as lesser developed beings but as their own species who went through evolution and with that developed their set of rules that they follow in every day life and that could explain their morality.

The author writes in a very easy to read style. It is not a hard science book, but it brought a lot of great studies, facts and stories that I didn't know about and was a real pleasure to read. The author himself is not a biologist/zoologist, but he worked with people doing research, such as Jane Goodall, made a lot of travelling to observe animals himself and read a lot on the topic and the studies regarding it. I have recognized some scientific references he made from a book I recently read on the morality of babies when he was talking about morality not only being learned but also being part of our evolution.

I think the only part where I saw a mistake from him was him discussing gender differences in the flexibility chapter. He simply didn't differentiate between sex and gender in a paragraph, but this was not a major mistake when it comes to the topic of the book. It is definitely my favorite book on the topic so far.

[Kathleen Fowler · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Darwinian narcissism of the human race, the “us vs. them” bias that is so ingrained as to be invisible, has made it practically impossible for any definition of morality to be arrived at that could possibly be attributed to animals. This is despite the fact that Darwin himself understood there was no reason why continuity, through a shared evolutionary history, should be limited to anatomy, but would include emotional and psychological continuity, as well. Peterson, basing his arguments on the evidence of scientific research (mirror neurons, etc.) and observations of animal social interactions, makes a strong case for his thesis that the function of morality is to establish and enforce harmony in groups of social animals, be they human or otherwise. He convincingly demonstrates how the moral systems that regulate human societies have evolutionary precursors observable not only in our closest relatives, the primates, but in all social mammals. This is decidedly not an exercise in anthropomorphism. The point is not that animals are some sort of “noble savages,” but that they are distant relatives who, despite intellectual and emotional differences, share some basic similarities. We humans have been denying these similarities since time immemorial, but perhaps we are finally ready to acknowledge that this is another of our prejudices that is ready for the scrap heap.

[Cissa · Rating 5 out of 5]

I had not realized that the impression of non-human animals as, essentially furry machines was an Enlightenment invention! I';d love to read more about that, including speculation as to why it happened.

This whole book was full of fascinating information, all woven into a coherent and compelling whole. After all, it seems only reasonable to me that we share commonality with other creatures; just like many creatures have livers and eyes, we also share brain constructs... and thus it makes complete sense to me that "lesser creatures" share emotions and rationality with us humans. He calls the refusal to do so "Dar5winian narcissism", which seems about right (though all animals, us included, do tend to focus more on our conspecific companions than those of other species).

I will want to read this again; it's a very rich book with many fascinating ideas that deserve more thought. Also, very well-written, with a good mix of data, anecdotes, and theory weaving it all together. Rather amazingly, given a number of the nonfiction books I've read recently, it it not repetitive; I did not wish, at the end, that an editor had told him to cut it back! Rather the reverse.

I think I should add that it is not a polemic at all. There's data; there's conclusions; there's theorizing based on these... but it's not "shrill" or single-mindedly trying to prove a point.

Highly recommended!

[Jeannette · Rating 2 out of 5]

Dale Peterson is a decent writer but somehow he doesnt make morality in animals come out of the fabric of his words. The first part of the book lays out strands of definitions and concepts, then drops all that boring stuff and launches into a structure that was probably intended to give some order to what is really a rather abstract concept - morality. He covers the "rules" of morality - authority, violence, sex, possession and communication then tackles cooperation and kindness. Morality in animals is portrayed in anecdotes and research and involves a lot human morality and the author's dogs.

So much other recent research is left out that I was disappointed, the author seemed out of date. Perhaps I enjoyed this book less because I was reading another one simultaneously on basically the same subject: Animal Wise by Virginia Morell. Her writing is much more direct, she covers a lot of fascinating new studies, and engages my sense of wonder and an appreciation of our fellow beings.

Yes, animals have minds and the social ones in particular play by rules and have "morality". I'm always eager to read more about animal lives. But Peterson's book made the whole topic boring, especially the last bit that was really hard to push through: "Where is morality going?"

[Ashlee Schultz · Rating 2 out of 5]

Well-written but poorly organized, this book contained many anecdotes of both compassion and horrific injustice within/inflicted upon the animal kingdom. These anecdotes were my favorite parts of the book; they illustrated the fact that animals are not merely machines with instincts. Using these anecdotes, Dale Peterson does a good job of justifying his position that all of humanity should be more conscious of our actions/perspectives, which affect the rest of the earth.

I disliked the way he sometimes seemed to go on tangents about monotheism and/or Melville's Moby Dick. Although he used these themes to bind his ideas throughout the book, I feel his content would have stood on its own without the grasping at straws that sometimes felt overwhelming. I admit that there were a few tangents I skipped over entirely before resuming reading on the next page.

Perhaps others with more of an interest in the parallel threads of science/religion and animal ethics would more enjoy this book. Unfortunately, for me, simply an animal rights advocate/activist, it didn't do much in terms of broadening my perspective.

[Roxanna Muller · Rating 2 out of 5]

The author wants us to acknowledge that animals have morality and by extension that they have societies and the capacity for emotion. He tells some very interested anecdotes about animals being put on trial for murder. Then he takes a moment to pause and explain how he's going to go about proving his point (As if this were a high school essay and he just needed to up his word count before turning the paper in.) This is where he loses me. He says that he plans on citing the Bible as his reference for determining definitions of morality. I understand the impulse. However the decision to cite the bible in this fashion is nonsensical as the bible states that animals are put on earth for consumption and sacrifice and that they are not blessed with souls. If your referenced text directly contradicts your primary point, than I can no longer take anything you say seriously. I stopped reading it.