Dear Bill,

To be cynical among wolves may be a kind of defence... Certainly, who are present are exceptions. However, I propose to you merely to read a bit on the state of the biosphere. So much about Homo sapiens and the collective wisdom of humanity.

By the way, I agree with you making difference between human lying and animal survival tactics which are only evolutionary successful behaviour forms. These are in most cases inherited but some may be learned conducts.

”Are able animals to tell a lie? ”

Those from the Parliament tell more than one...

There's no morality in being not able to tell lies, and not telling lies. There's morality in being able to tell lies, but telling the truth....

So, my answer would be no!

And Török Zsolt: I had a good laugh on your answer...:D

I´m sorry, but I must dissapoint you. Animals can lie and they lie when ever it´s good for their survival. Just imagine the birds running in the wrong direction if they have to deceive to save their nest, or lions making noise to trick against an antilope, Orcas and delphins pretending to be uninterested by demonstratively swimming in the wrong direction.....

You see h.s.d. is not really worse or better.

Absolutely they can - ground nesting birds will feign a broken wing to distract predators from their nests ! Many insects have 'eye-spots" to distract predators from the sensitive head area. The North American opossum will play dead.

There is a difference between deception which helps a creature to survive and self serving and malicious oath-breaking. If I promise to be faithful to my wife and then I go and cheat on her it is not in order to preserve my life or to avoid danger that I do so. It is simply and selfishly to experience a momentary pleasure at the expense of my own personal integrity. The mother bird who deceives a predator with a phony broken wing ought, if she had the cognitive abilities that a human has, to feel good about her successful deception. But if I am an unfaithful to my wife and pretend to be faithful, I ought to feel a cognitive dissonance. I have nothing to feel good about. I have become less of a man by my deception.

Andras, "homo sapiens destructivus" ? I take it you are a bit cynical about human beings. What is the primary source of your cynicism? Do you have hope elsewhere, perhaps in the other animals on the planet?

@Bill, you are right with your analysis, but the question here is not "ethics" yes or no, the question is "can animals lie".

They can and do it all the time if they have advantages.

Humans are very similar, they want advantages too (see your examples). But here we have the conscious ethics producing process, which gives us rules for our behaviour.

I think that our human language is inescapably freighted with value-judgments Hanno. When I speak of deception for purposes of survival, which is ubiquitous in the animal world, I do not mean the same thing as I do when I speak of "lying". They are not synonyms. If I camouflage myself as a soldier I am doing what the animals do. If I make a treaty with your nation and then break it, I am doing what people do. They are not quite the same and we know it. Nobody speaks of animal deceiving for purposes of survival or for purposes of predation as being morally wrong. Everyone speaks of oath or treaty breaking as being morally wrong. Why is that if they are the same thing? This is an important distinction. Animals deceive, but they don't lie in the same way that humans do.

Another proof animals do lie is the case of agonistic conflicts, when one opponent in the conflict shows dishonest signals of strength to the other opponent, which confound the decision-making of the opponent to keep or give up fighting.

Dear Rense,

It is everything OK with the guys who can but do not lie.

Dear Hanno and Paul,

I do not think the behaviour forms in your examples would be an individual modification but a stereotype species behaviour which may be inherited.

What do you think on the warning pigmentation of non-toxic frog species (e.g. Lithodytes lineatus) which is very similar to poison dart frogs. Is it an individual lie or an inherited characteristics?

Dear András, I agree, the cited behaviour is inherited, but the effect is a lie. (lie = not telling the thruth).

Dear Bill,

To be cynical among wolves may be a kind of defence... Certainly, who are present are exceptions. However, I propose to you merely to read a bit on the state of the biosphere. So much about Homo sapiens and the collective wisdom of humanity.

By the way, I agree with you making difference between human lying and animal survival tactics which are only evolutionary successful behaviour forms. These are in most cases inherited but some may be learned conducts.

there is nice publication: Biology and Philosophy

September 2004, Volume 19, Issue 4, pp 489-520

Wild justice and fair play: cooperation, forgiveness, and morality in animals

by Marc Bekoff

The capacity of humans to lie is itself an evolved trait, selected for because it increases our ability to reproduce and survive. Lying to your wife so that you can cheat with another woman has obvious potential for increasing reproductive output. Breaking agreements for your own benefit also has obvious potential to increase access to resources or avoid costly commitments, etc.. Of course, there are negative consequences to having a reputation for deception so it is worthwhile have self-imposed checks on your own behaviour (guilt). Our propensity for self-deception is possibly an evolved trait to make ourselves better liars. Although our complex brains allow for more self-examination and moralistic judgments of others (mostly the latter), the underlying causes of lying in humans and deception in animals will be the same.

Dear Jason,

Thus, the most evolved humans are politicians. I am sorry, I was not able to avoid this.

Does one presume that human ethics has been evolved to balance somehow the negative impact of human dishonesty?

I think the beginnings of ethics may have evolved out of self-imposed and outwardly imposed checks on cheaters. However, being a highly ethical person does not necessarily lead to greater survival and more genes in the next generation. Some politicians both in the present and in the past have been highly successful at accumulating wealth and having many extra-pair copulations - so presumably very successful at spreading their genes. Fortunately we have the capacity to spread memes not just genes and we can continue to increase ethical standards without having to out complete politicians for mates.

@ Andras Bozsik: ”the most evolved humans are politicians”

(probably, due to a mistake) You wrote ”evolved” instead of ”involved”

Animals lies but human are the best lyer. Sometime we even lye to ourself, that alone we are able to. We are theatrical animal, natural actor. We constantly act, on all kind of stages of reality and judge everybody on their acting and constantly the sincerity of the acting and the best lyer can sincerely act their act and the best among us to do so are our polititians.

Dear Jason,

Yes, so it is, ethical persons cannot be successful because winners generally do not respect rules created for the survival of a group or the society.

The trouble is that the survival rate of winners (politicians) manifested in their genes decreases society survival in the long run (devastation of environment, wars, etc). I note EPC is characteristic not only for politicians. All in all, high success rate of averagely corrupt and ignorant politicians can be merely a dead-end.

Maybe we should distribute memes of ethical human conduct in a more efficient way which is more “digestible” and accessible than RG comments.

Dear Zsolt,

I thought the adjective “evolved” in an ironical way.