Morality has generally been regarded as the domain of philosophers and theologians. In other words, it is a rational endeavour and philosophers (and perhaps theologians) would therefore be the best at coming to correct conclusions about what is right and what is wrong. Morality is also thought to be a uniquely human construct, with animals assumed to simply follow their instincts with no sense of right and wrong.
Frans de Waal is a Dutch primatologist who provides a powerful challenge to the above assumptions. His life’s work has been to study the behaviour of primates and by extension, of humans also. He has published as least nine books, and the thoughts below derive from The Bonobo and the Atheist, published in 2013. He is a master of clear communication and I’ve become a fan of his because of his convincing critique of several pet theories, such as those of the new atheists, Skinnerian behaviourists and those who try to explain altruism away when looking at it from an evolutionary perspective. He is also critical of those who think our natural inclination is evil and it is only our moral will that restrains us, what he calls ‘veneer theory.’

Scientists must carefully design any experiments carried out on animals. For example, it makes no sense to explore an animal’s facial recognition of humans; better to test the ability on their own kind.
The assumption that animals have no sense of fairness is rebutted by the following simple experiment. Give an ape cucumber pieces as a reward and there is no problem. But give another ape alongside a grape instead and the first ape becomes angry, throwing the cucumber away and rattling his cage. Evidently the animal thinks it unfair that another individual is rewarded with a grape, which tastes so much better than the cucumber.  You can see this in the Youtube video listed below.

De Waal’s conclusion is that apes have a basic sense of right and wrong.  Apes will get other apes to reconcile after a fight. Good behaviour is often based on a desire to have a good reputation in the group. This includes an altruistic desire to help others, for example an unrelated younger female chimpanzee helps Peony, who has arthritis, up into the climbing frame to join others for a grooming session.

I find his critique of the new atheists refreshing. He sees no reason to get angry and aggressive about the non-existence of God. This is like ‘sleeping furiously.’ Science and religion were not antagonistic in our past; rather both worked together. Scientists, far from being purely neutral, objective creatures, often have ‘confirmation bias’ and are as likely to want to hear that they are wrong as they are to like finding a cockroach in their coffee.

Interspersed among such thoughts are interesting reflections on Bosch’s intriguing painting Garden of Earthly Delights. Although it is in the tradition of portrayals of heaven and hell it seems to be more aligned to this-worldly consequences. Rather than a Hell, the right-hand panel of the triptych portrays this-worldly consequences of evil, not primarily of those portrayed enjoying pleasure in the middle panel, but for example a pig in nun’s costume, trying to get someone to hand over his earthly wealth to the church.

We have an intuitive sense of right and wrong. This is something internal, not imposed from above. De Waal welcomes a science of morality but is deeply skeptical of Sam Harris’s call for science to determine human values. Morality comes, not simply through rational reflection, which is a later rationalisation of what we intuitively feel, but from our evolutionary background as social animals, which gives us reciprocity (giving rise to a sense of fairness) and empathy (giving rise to compassion).
For more, check out the following TED talk: HERE