Why do people attribute moral values to animals?

[paidinfull]

You know like 'good' dog or 'bad' dog. It's an animal forchrissakes!! It, for all we know, has no concept of moral wrong or right. It's like people expect their pet to reason and to apoligize ' Yeah, your're right, I shouldn't have sh*t on the sofa back there, that was really bad thing to do. I'm really sorry.Can I make it up to you? Would money make it better? How about I pay for the cleaning? Would you accept that as an apology?' People have this thing about animals when watching nature programmes, too. The lion catches the gazelle and tears it to pieces, but the lion is seen not as an animal driven purely by instinct but as mean, nasty, horrible lion for catching the cute, baby gazelle. People even urge the gazelle to get away when watching the programme "Oooo run, you poor thing !".Like it would be ok for the lion to starve, because that wouldn't be nasty either. The whole good animial v. bad animal thing just seems crazy to me. Am I alone here? Am I the only person to think this?

[woofgang]

wellll....except a well brought up dog does know what is acceptable and unnacceptable pack behaviour. Sometimes my dogs have deliberately done something that they know is unnacceptable. I am not talking here about being under pressure and perhaps biting, or peeing on the floor because my car broke down and I was very late home, those are accidents. No they don't have moral sense, but they do know what is right in terms of what the pack boss allows and what is wrong in terms of what the pack boss does not allow....and I understand that its the same with any other social group living animal. I believe also that chimps have been observed to "lie" and "steal" and are punished if the group catches them!

[newtron]

I agree with woofgang.  Animals know what is acceptable or unacceptable in there social structure, whether it is a domestic dog living under the rules of their owner or a lion in the wild living under the rules of its pride.  We are no different if you think about it.  I am not religious, so I don't believe in absolute right or wrong.  We define what is right and wrong based on our social structure.  We all agree that we don't like people murdering other people, so we decide that it is wrong and make a law .  As we grow up, we are taught that if you follows these laws, you are a "good" person.  If you break these laws, you are a "bad" person. 

Personally, I think that when people compare people to animals, they generally use the wrong null hypothesis.  In other words, most people assume that animals behave differently from  humans and disproving this null hypothesis suggests that animals behave similar to humans in certain ways.  I think the null hypothesis should be that animals behave similar to humans.  So disproving it would show how animals are different from humans. 

Also, I personally cheer for the lion when it is chasing that cute baby gazelle.   

[Elfin]

It's also worth noting that in modern times, we have been brought up with media which encourages us to give animals human attributes.  Any Disney film with animals in it, books like Wind in the Willows and TV programmes such as Tales from the Riverbank, Animal Magic, and most cartoons.

It is also worth noting that some people do the same with machinery - car not starting, washing machine flooding, PC crashing etc are often referred to in terms of it "playing up", "misbehaving", "doing it to spite me" etc.

[Romeo]

I agree, paidinfull. Animals only go by their instincts and have no choice over 'moral' decisions of right and wrong. My cat has just killed two cute little voles - a mother and young - but my cat is not evil, she is only blindly obeying her hunter instinct and is effectively innocent. A human hunter, on the other hand, chooses to kill for pleasure and to enjoy a bloodbath.