In his book, Professor Berkowitz tells several stories in which dolphins helped save sailors from drowning, or protect them from sharks. In one experiment, Professor Birkov gazelle was placed in a barn on a path where an elephant passed through a forest. When the elephant reached the barn, A moment later, he offered the gazelle like asking: What can I do for you? He then destroyed the barn and fired the deer. A day ago, newspapers reported a fisherman hunting Gorilla and taking him to his home. The next day, residents of the city were surprised by a large number of gorillas gathering in the village square and raiding houses in search of the captive gorilla to liberate them. Berkov commented on this behavior by saying that the belief that man is the only organism acting in a very old moral way, but there are many indications that this assumption is incorrect, is also prevalent in the animal kingdom. As in the human world, where ethical standards vary from society to society, they are also in the animal world, but they are absolutely there.

I'm not a biologist and don't have my own opinion about your question. So, I would like to cite an article on a Web page, "Are nonhuman animals more moral than human animals? Yes they are" written by Marc Bekoff Ph.D. (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/animal-emotions/201001/are-nonhuman-animals-more-moral-human-animals-yes-they-are).

Animals possess a sense of morality that allows them to tell the difference between right and wrong, according to a controversial new book.

Scientists studying animal behaviour believe they have growing evidence that species ranging from mice to primates are governed by moral codes of conduct in the same way as humans.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/wildlife/5373379/Animals-can-tell-right-from-wrong.html

Animals Are Moral Creatures, Scientist Argues. Animal behavior research suggests that animals have moral emotions. One study found that rhesus monkeys will forgo food if they had to push a lever that would electrically shock their companions to get it.

Animals Are Moral Creatures, Scientist Argues - Live Science

https://www.livescience.com/24802-animals-have-morals-book.html

Kirk, once again you have posed a question which is deeper than it seems on the surface. Perhaps a beginning point is to reflect on our methods of discerning and assessing the data? Specifically, "Do we know how to ask questions that provide the data to answer the question?" Observed behavior certainly suggests the presence of at least some form of ethical conduct between members of a subgroup of a species (e.g., a pod of whales). The question is, "How do we guard against engaging in a deductive process of inquiry?"

It seems to me that evidence to answer your question - either in the affirmative or the negative might require the following:

a) evidence of an observed "decision making process" that results in a "moral outcome" (of any type) for the species; and,

b) evidence that this decision making process has been observed to extend beyond the boundaries of the immediate sub-group / community of the species and to include others of the same species.

To a point, animals (some) display morality but not to a point to compare them with humans. Humans that lack moral are called animals.

The United States has issued a new book entitled Wild Justice: The Ethical Life of Animals says that all animals, from mouse to elephants and wolves, adhere to a series of ethical laws in their behavior, just like humans, and sympathize with the weak and needy of their sex (as we do not). Experiments have revealed that mice do not try to push a small piece of wood to get to their food, if it pays harm to another mouse. In the forest, wolves do not try to show their strength to weak wolves so they do not feel weak and feel safe. But animals punish those who come out on the moral rules of the same sex, as monkeys do, for example, and sympathize with those with disabilities.

In his book, Professor Berkowitz tells several stories in which dolphins helped save sailors from drowning, or protect them from sharks. In one experiment, Professor Birkov gazelle was placed in a barn on a path where an elephant passed through a forest. When the elephant reached the barn, A moment later, he offered the gazelle like asking: What can I do for you? He then destroyed the barn and fired the deer. A day ago, newspapers reported a fisherman hunting Gorilla and taking him to his home. The next day, residents of the city were surprised by a large number of gorillas gathering in the village square and raiding houses in search of the captive gorilla to liberate them. Berkov commented on this behavior by saying that the belief that man is the only organism acting in a very old moral way, but there are many indications that this assumption is incorrect, is also prevalent in the animal kingdom. As in the human world, where ethical standards vary from society to society, they are also in the animal world, but they are absolutely there.

Djaafar, the examples you cited illustrate, as you indicate, a form of ethical decision-making by animals confronted by a dilemma created by humans. The story of the elephant illustrates inter-species care. The story of the gorillas illustrates intra-species care for one of their own (which I suspect was a member of their own "troop").

If you feed a animal be sure it will not hurt you because it respects your gesture. If you are in danger he will defend you as a gesture of gratitude. As an example the dog.

Animals have no morals but depend on instincts. it is the morality that distinguish humans from animals

First, define "morals."

Animals seem to behave in ways that preserve their species, at the very least, and they are also observed protecting other animal species, as well as humans. Whales protecting dolphins, dolphins protecting humans, certainly dogs protecting humans, cats showing unusual concern when one of their human family members is ill, and on and on.

It's much too easy to claim that this is "instinct," and it invites the same claim to be made about human morals. Are they "just instinct"? Is all behavior just instinct?

Whatever we call it, animals demonstrate at least as much empathy and compassion as many humans do, maybe more than many humans might. Humans call that "morality."

Just like humans, through learning it could be attained.

Some research suggests animals have a sense of outrage when social codes are violated. Chimpanzees may punish other chimps for violating certain rules of the social order, said Marc Bekoff, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Colorado, Boulder, and co-author of "Wild Justice: The Moral Lives of Animals" (University Of Chicago Press, 2012).

Yes.

Hi Kirk

animals have a natural behavior, largely instinctive. They repeat what they have learned in the herd and in the case of domestic animals that live with humans, they acquire adaptive behaviors. They do not build moral standards, much less put them into practice. They also do not modify them, trying to place other moral models in their place. Rather, I consider that morality as an attempt to build a body of norms establishes a recommendable and rational procedure in human beings, a situation that is not detected among animals, even though we visualize peculiar or significant behaviors that we could compare with humans.

Animals behave as they programmed to do. Their behavior is repetitive and predictive. They form nations as the human being and have their laws and rules that they strictly follow without degeneracy. They have some characteristics common with the humans including moral. Wild animals kill only to eat while humans can kill for other causes for example to rule. They defend themselves against aggressors with natural courage.

I think the behavior of the animals sometimes are more moral and more justice than the humans as they behave primitively.

Best wishes

If we look at pets, we may find similarities between the behavior of these animals and human behavior. According to the reactions that many animals, especially the mammals, have had with painful events, many people think that animals can understand pain and suffer from it. Animals like humans create distinct and special voices, react to fear, nurse damaged animals, learn how humans learn what is dangerous and avoid it, we can claim that animals are able to self-consciously. Research has shown that animals can communicate with each other and solve problems. But nevertheless, some critics believe that there is no systematic and organized relationship between these behaviors of animals and the self-consciousness. If an animal can use a situation after having corrected the perceptual error for the next position, then we can say that the animals are self-conscious. Animals do this behavioral correction, so it can be said that they are self-conscious and thus understand morality.

Translated of Hamid Parnian's article

Morality is a set of behaviors that guide us in our actions toward others.

If we were the only thing in the universe, morality could not exist as it could not matter what we did or failed to do.

But once we exist with anything else, a dog, a God, a river, the concept of morality can exist. Consequences of actions can be evaluated.

How should I treat a dog for my benefit or its own? Should I kick it, feed it, be scared of it?

And what of a God, what can I expect from it and what is it expecting from me?

And what of a river? Should I drink from it? Pollute it? worship it?

What is RIGHT? What is best for me and it?

Animals face these same challenges.

According to the Theory of Dual Morality: Dogs are not smarter than cats, but they are more moral.

Dogs are a grouping and gregarious creature. Cats are less so.

Dogs look constantly to others in their pack (or their owners) for signs of approval and disapproval. When a dog spills the trash he knows he did something wrong and will hide from his owner.

When the cat eats from the trash he is much less concerned with what his owners reaction will be.

Conscious behaviors involve moral considerations for people and animals.