Ethics: Origins and Orcas
By: Robert Anderson, Robyn Waayers, and Russell Hockins
On the Origin of Ethics
Social behaviors, i.e. interactions among individuals, are common in the animal kingdom. Even with relatively solitary animals, there are at least the interactions of sex and parenting. The more social species live in aggregates where the interactions are among multiple individuals and across lifetimes. We often apply animal dependent names to these aggregates: herd, pod, flock, gaggle, school, etc.
Such social behaviors exist because they are “adaptive”. That is, they increase the likelihood that an individual will survive to reproduce, or at least the near genetic relatives of an individual will reproduce. Social behaviors have evolved through the mechanism of natural selection. Social behavior must be highly adaptive, given its prevalence across the animal kingdom. Social behavior of some dinosaur species is evident in the fossil record, and it was likely prevalent in even more ancient times.
What drives an individual animal to engage in social behaviors? For insects, like ants, it is believed that instinct drives behavior. Instincts are innate patterns of action. They occur across the members of a species, appear fully formed without previous training, and typically involve series of actions, unlike a simple “reflex”.
For animals with more developed brains, social behaviors are learned. This process is called socialization or enculturation. With the most intelligent animals, fixed social patterns do not predominate. Different social groups have unique “cultures”. Cultures derive from acquired knowledge that passes from generation to generation and evolves over time. Humans and orcas both exhibit cultures unique to each society or pod. Between the extremes of purely instinctive and predominantly learned cultures is a continuum of species whose societies combine relatively fixed behaviors with acquired knowledge.
Domestic horses released into the wild by early Spanish settlers in North America, redeveloped wild herds. This was likely based on a combination of innate tendencies and behavior learned over time by survivors of predation. Socialization of the young is readily observable with horses. One can observe foals being chastised for improper behavior with a nip, although just the threat often suffices.
There is a least a proclivity towards certain social behaviors in higher animals. Subjectively, humans often feel an urge towards some action along with an emotion related to the social situation. Thus with sex there is sexual drive and feelings of attraction. With parenting there are drives to protect and nurture along with feelings of love. With both friends and the social group, more complex urges and emotions exist.
The nature of such proclivities may be symmetric as with friendships or asymmetric as with parent and child. A symmetric social interaction will come to fruition only if both parties are inclined, i.e. experience the same urges and emotions coincident in time. Thus one party might be interested in sex while the other is not. One might seek friendship while the other is not interested.
The part of the brain that deals with urges and emotions is very ancient in our evolutionary history. Although no longer in vogue, it has been referred to as the “reptilian” brain. It should not be surprising that animals, including humans, have many emotions and urges in common. We cannot directly experience the subjective lives of other animals, but the logic of evolution and the obvious parallels in behaviors are rather compelling evidence of this commonality.
An additional bit of evidence resides in the fact that disparate species sometimes adopt the other’s young or establish friendships, i.e. the systems of such proclivities can operate across species. This is a fundamental basis of humans’ love of pets and their sense of attraction to the young of animals. The opposite case works as well. Given the chance, domestic horses will socialize a willing human into their herd as they would a foal.
Once a social relationship is established, the emotional system is also involved in keeping the relationship intact. In addition to the positive urges and emotions of initiating and maintaining the relationship, humans experience negatives associated with failings: guilt, remorse, shame, regret. These might be self-initiated by the individual recognizing his own failings and may be accentuated by the wronged party through symbolic and/or physical expressions of dissatisfaction. With cetaceans, this would be expressed through jaw snapping or raking. The dissatisfied party may experience emotions such as anger, jealousy, or disgust.
Members of herds, etc. sometimes clash with other herd members. Most often this comes from dominance struggles. Once an animal establishes itself as more dominant, often mere threat is sufficient for a less dominant animal to submit. When dominance struggles result in actual conflict, they are mostly short, sharp, and non-fatal. Dominance hierarchies within societies are the norm among the social animal species.
Humans and their closest primate relatives, chimpanzees, are practically unique in the animal kingdom regarding two proclivities:
- The pervasive use of deception to gain advantages over members of their own social group. Humans use deception to mask parasitic and predatory behavior on other humans. For further information, see the endnote on Tactical Deception [1].
- Organized deadly violence against members of neighboring social groups. Chimp gangs descend on lone members of neighboring groups, killing them and sometimes mutilating the bodies [2]. There is evidence of human-on-human violence in the archaeological record going back many thousands of years.
Most non-human animals occasionally practice deceptions but with nothing like its pervasiveness among humans. Many animals die due to predation between species. Within a species, killing is much less common, occurring occasionally in fights over access to mates or dominance contests. Males sometime kill the offspring of another male after ascending to dominance.
For humans, this whole arena of socially positive and socially negative behaviors has long been culturally systematized. Morals relate to an individual’s behaviors regarding concepts of right and wrong. Ethics is a branch of philosophy that attempts to determine the rules for right behavior from basic principles using logic. There are, however, significant differences of viewpoints across various cultures and among philosophers.
The greatest part of human law, religious moral teachings, and ethical scholarship relate directly to the above two human anti-social proclivities. It would be amusing if it were not so sad that humans place themselves on a moral pedestal as compared to animals. Humans may have systematized thinking about morals but nowhere else in the animal kingdom can one find the intra-societal crimes, warfare, genocides, etc. which the human race has unleashed on the Earth in the last 10,000+ years.
The Ethical Treatment of Orcas
All the forgoing forms the backdrop to the current public discourse regarding the ethical treatment of animals by humans, and specific to this article, the ethical treatment of orcas. Generally, the ethical theories on this subject fall into 3 camps:
|
1. The most traditional Western view is that animals have no moral standing and no rights. A being with moral standing must be given consideration when making moral decisions. It is not possible to commit a wrong against a being with no moral standing. There are 2 groups within this camp. Western religious tradition holds that humans are entirely unique within the cosmos. Animals exist for the use of humans, although some traditions hold that humans should be compassionate stewards of their animal charges.
The other group is characterized by the 17th century philosopher Descartes whose thoughts influenced science well into the 20th century. He held that non-humans were automata without minds or reason. This attitude was prevalent among American scientists until the 1960’s and 1970’s. Its remnants are still present today. SeaWorld and many of its adherents align with this camp. 2. The almost oppositional camp holds that all sentient beings have moral standing and rights. Any action that causes pain is experienced by a sentient being and is thus a moral wrong. Adherents to this camp are mostly vegetarians. PETA holds to this philosophy. SeaWorld’s argument lumps all opposition to their orca-keeping as extreme activist adherents of this philosophy. They proclaim that giving in to the opposition would not just close SeaWorld but all zoos and aquariums. 3. The third camp holds that animals which are highly intelligent, somewhere near humans, have moral standing and rights. The case for this philosophy has been made by the likes of Dr. Thomas White “In Defense of Dolphins”. The Nonhuman Rights Project seeks to acquire common law legal personhood and fundamental rights for animals who have been proven to be self-aware and autonomous. They have been pursuing a legal case to this end based on certain captive chimpanzees and include cetaceans among their potential plaintiffs. If this philosophy were to prevail, SeaWorld would have to free its cetaceans but there would be no necessity for zoos and aquariums to divest themselves of all animals. |
Regarding rights, two varieties are recognized, natural rights and legal rights. The concept of natural rights came to the fore during The Enlightenment and was incorporated into the U.S. founding documents as well as those of the French Revolution. The Declaration of Independence speaks of, “inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”. Natural rights are considered to be an inherent characteristic of humans. When viewed from the perspective of the evolution of animal societies, natural rights are an abstract concept that objectifies the natural mechanisms of mutual interaction that make social life function.
Legal rights on the other hand are statutory enactments of the legal systems of particular polities. Their intent is to protect the natural rights of persons against the depredations of other persons. Look at the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution. The rights enumerated are in opposition to historic abuses by human governments, abuses that can be directly related to the anti-social proclivities unique to hominids.
_____________________________
We view the third camp as the most rational. While we wish the Nonhuman Rights Project every success in pursuing “non-human personhood” status for chimpanzees, we feel that there is a clearer case for orcas. Chimpanzees, unlike orcas, share humans’ anti-social proclivities. However, given human anthropomorphic prejudices, chimpanzees could well provide a more likely first win.
Orcas share most characteristics in common with dolphins, as presented “In Defense of Dolphins”. Orcas however present a more compelling case as a moral being. Groups of male dolphins have been observed kidnapping and raping female dolphins. This may be limited to a very few groups of young males on the periphery of some pods. Male dolphins sometimes kill baby dolphins so the mothers will become sexually available. Some dolphins have been observed tormenting porpoises to death, apparently for amusement. We are not aware that orcas have been observed exhibiting any such behaviors. At worst, some meat eating orcas bite off choice portions of the baleen whales they prey on, then leave the injured whale to die slowly.
_____________________________
Orcas and dolphins both belong to the family Delphinidae. They are mutually referred to as delphinids. Dr. White’s “In Defense of Dolphins” addresses both dolphins and orcas, but builds its case largely based on dolphins. We will augment the arguments presented with further specifics regarding orcas:
Legal rights on the other hand are statutory enactments of the legal systems of particular polities. Their intent is to protect the natural rights of persons against the depredations of other persons. Look at the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution. The rights enumerated are in opposition to historic abuses by human governments, abuses that can be directly related to the anti-social proclivities unique to hominids.
_____________________________
We view the third camp as the most rational. While we wish the Nonhuman Rights Project every success in pursuing “non-human personhood” status for chimpanzees, we feel that there is a clearer case for orcas. Chimpanzees, unlike orcas, share humans’ anti-social proclivities. However, given human anthropomorphic prejudices, chimpanzees could well provide a more likely first win.
Orcas share most characteristics in common with dolphins, as presented “In Defense of Dolphins”. Orcas however present a more compelling case as a moral being. Groups of male dolphins have been observed kidnapping and raping female dolphins. This may be limited to a very few groups of young males on the periphery of some pods. Male dolphins sometimes kill baby dolphins so the mothers will become sexually available. Some dolphins have been observed tormenting porpoises to death, apparently for amusement. We are not aware that orcas have been observed exhibiting any such behaviors. At worst, some meat eating orcas bite off choice portions of the baleen whales they prey on, then leave the injured whale to die slowly.
_____________________________
Orcas and dolphins both belong to the family Delphinidae. They are mutually referred to as delphinids. Dr. White’s “In Defense of Dolphins” addresses both dolphins and orcas, but builds its case largely based on dolphins. We will augment the arguments presented with further specifics regarding orcas:
|
1. Orcas are apex predators. Other than the sperm whale, about which much less is known, orcas are the largest predator in the oceans. Some orcas prey on mammals, yet there is no verified instance of an orca in the wild killing a human. There is only one verified instance of a wild orca injuring a human, and that was likely a case of mistaken identity. This is in spite of the fact that humans are often in the proximity of wild orcas. Wild orcas either ignore humans or treat them with mild curiosity and occasionally friendliness. This is not the case with any other apex predator.
By way of comparison, elephants are highly intelligent. They, along with orcas, can pass the “mirror test” believed to signify self-awareness. Wild elephants are not predators but are mostly dangerous to humans. There are numerous instances of wild elephants killing humans [3]. Dolphins are generally similar to orcas in this benign behavior but as fish eaters, their behavior towards humans is not as noteworthy. There are also numerous cases of individual dolphins attacking humans in the water, non-fatally, although many of these could be attributed as a response to prior harassment by humans. An inference from the above facts: this unique orca behavior could indicate that orcas recognize humans as fellow intelligent beings and treat them as having moral standing and rights, or at least some orca conception of such. 2. The extent and complexity of orca intelligence is greater than has generally been recognized. This further amplifies the arguments already made “In Defense of Dolphins” for the moral standing of delphinids. The following evidence for this is not scientific fact but rather the intuition and anecdotal observations of some people who spent time interacting with orcas, orcas with whom a bond of friendship had been established. We would assert that: Orcas are not only self-aware, they are aware of humans’ self-awareness, and are introspective of humans’ thoughts about orcas. |
|
A. Most compelling, the orcas repeatedly tested our trust in them. They engaged in somewhat scary behaviors and seemed to judge our responses. They allowed for, even enjoyed a bit of startlement, but were positively responsive to our not “freaking out”. We believe their purpose was to learn or reassure themselves that we knew they had no intention of harming us.
Most humans were very cautious, if not frightened, when close to an orca’s mouth and teeth. It seemed very important to the orcas to learn that at least some humans recognized their true underlying nature. B. While orcas politely took fish from people who fed them, they would become friends with those who did not. This was in spite of the fact that the orcas were kept hungry. It seemed clear from the shows that food was used to control the orcas’ behavior. We each independently had this realization. [Robert: I knew I would be quite upset if I were being controlled in that manner and so didn’t do likewise to the orcas.] [Russell: It also changes the reason they would come to you at all. It wasn’t food based but rather some sort of interest in you personally.] The orcas seemed most attracted to humans who were empathetic to this aspect of their predicament. This was also true of dolphins. Maybe orcas and dolphins as species possess a much higher level of empathy over a greater percentage of their species than, for example, humans? C. The orcas seemed quite aware of our human emotions. [Robert: Even though I suppressed my fear at an orca’s scary first meeting with me, different orcas acted to assuage my fear until I overcame it. Once I was past that, the orcas acted more casually with me.] The orcas seemed quite aware of the internal state of a different species, even when that state was masked and acted appropriately to their awareness. D. The orcas were very aware of human frailty as compared to themselves. They took great care not to cause harm. Other animals interacting with humans tend to treat them as they would one of their own kind. Horses engaging in mutual grooming with a human will often be painfully rough, even though their intent is quite friendly. Orcas recognized humans as quite physically different from themselves. The youngest orca demonstrating this awareness was less than 2 years old when we first began interacting. Surely an orca’s brain is not fully developed at this age. One has to wonder what extent of awareness a full adult might possess. [Russell: From my experiences with Kotar and what he put me through, I would say they had to learn, at least in part, how frail humans are compared to them. Without an exact timeline it is difficult to determine how much they actually knew before this and whether or not this was already known to them or learned from interactions they had with trainers/staff previous to being in the petting pool. I do feel that I may have allowed it to go further than trainers/staff ever did due to my willingness to show them I completely trusted them to not intentionally hurt me. From my notes/knowledge they were 4-5 when in the petting pool being 2-3 years old when they were caught in 1978. Considering how fast an individual like an Orca would need to mature in the wild, I think that at the age they interacted with us, 4-5 years of age, that they were mentally mature as an adult but merely lacking in the amount of life experience an older adult would have. They were definitely more mentally mature than a human of the same age. Additionally, some things that I did not do were “forced” on me by them I think in order to show me an equal amount of reciprocal trust of me by them. For example, the “training” Kotar did on me to show me that he wanted me to groom and that it was OK for me to touch his blowhole area, something I had always steered well clear of.] |
|
3. The only extent to which the orcas practiced deception with us was to indulge their sense of humor or to test our trust by playing ‘scare the human’ games with us.
|
Given orcas’ apparent recognition of human moral standing and their corresponding moral behavior towards humans, it is immoral for humans to not grant them reciprocity.
The capability to have a “theory of mind” [4] was long believed to be unique to humans, although this is being increasingly questioned today. Orcas appear to have done humans one better in their concern to understand humans’ understanding of orcas, i.e. they demonstrated a “recursive” & cross-species theory of mind.
Endnotes:
[1] Tactical Deception — many animals (even plants) practice deceptions. Robert Mitchell and Nicholas Thompson in Deception: Perspective on human and nonhuman deceit, defined 4 levels of animal deception,
From: Level-1 that includes camouflage and mimicry which are physical features or instinctive behaviors that do not require a triggering stimulus.
To: Level-4*, “The fourth level of deception involves an open program which is capable of programming and reprogramming itself based upon the past and present actions of the organism being deceived. That is, the sender corrects or changes its actions both to counteract undesired acts and to encourage desired acts of the receiver. In a sense, the sender becomes the programmer of its own behavior. This type of metaprogramming is typically called thinking or planning, and at this level of deception the sender actually intends to deceive the receiver.” Deceptions: Perspectives on Human and Nonhuman Deceit.
Level-4 deception has been most abundantly observed in humans, great apes, and monkeys. Humans have long addressed the topic of deception within ethics and law. Deceptions can range from sanctioned, as in white lies, to illegal, as in counterfeiting currency.
*Level-2 and Level-3 deceptions range from triggered instinctive behaviors to trial-and-error or learning by observation. These account for many well known cases such as a dog feigning an injured paw to receive pampered treatment.
[2] There are many articles on this subject. See: Why do chimps kill each other?
[3] Russell – In regards to Elephants, being fellow land animals they have a long history of interaction with humans, much of which is/was no more pleasant than what cetaceans currently are experiencing, leading to their aggressive attitude towards humans. Elephants who have grown up without experiencing or leaning from elders of these bad experiences don’t usually show such aggression towards humans. They too would have to learn how frail humans are compared to themselves and learn to treat us accordingly in the same way as Cetaceans do.
Cetaceans don’t have as much history living in an environment that is alien to humans. While some do such as the larger whales that are hunted, Orcas and Dolphins have comparatively been left mostly unmolested until recent times and therefore don’t have the long history of negative experiences that land animals do with humans.
[4] Theory of Mind—“An individual has a theory of mind if he imputes mental states to himself and others. A system of inferences of this kind is properly viewed as a theory because such states are not directly observable, and the system can be used to make predictions about the behavior of others.” Does the Chimpanzee have a Theory of Mind, David Premack and Guy Woodruff