Read the following magazine article and then answer questions 1-6. Indicate the letter A, B, C or D against the number of each question1-6. Give only one answer to each question.

Virtuous Nature

Chimps show signs of embarrassment, whales and ravens fall in love.
But can animals really have a sense of right and wrong? Marc Bekoff thinks they do.

If you think that we are the only creatures on Earth with a moral sense, then you're in good company. Most experts in behaviour believe that morality is a uniquely human trait, without which our complex social life would never have emerged - yet I'm convinced that many animals can distinguish right from wrong. Decades spent watching wild and captive animals have persuaded me that species living in groups often have a sense of fair play built on moral codes of conduct that help cement their social relationships. The notion of Nature being naturally ruthlessly and selfishly competitive doesn't hold true for those of us who have observed and analysed animal relationships.

That's not all. I suspect that herein lies the origin of our own virtue. Biologists have had real problems trying to explain why people are frequently inexplicably nice to each other. It just doesn't make sense in evolutionary terms, unless there are ulterior motives behind our seemingly altruistic actions. Perhaps we expect a payback somewhere down the line, or maybe our good deeds are directed only towards kin, with whom we share a biological heritage. Nobody has really considered the possibility that being considerate to your neighbours might sometimes be the best way to survive. But I'm starting to find evidence that a well-developed sense of fair play helps non-human animals live longer, more successful lives. I'm particularly interested in social play amongst youngsters because it has its own special rules of engagement, allowing participants to reinterpret acts that might otherwise seem aggressive. My studies of infant dogs, wolves and coyotes reveal that they use a special signal to prevent misinterpretation of playful actions. They perform a 'bow' - which entails crouching on the forelimbs while keeping the rear upright - when initiating play, or in association with aggressive actions such as biting, to modify their meaning. And role reversal is common, so that during play a dominant animal will often allow a subordinate to have the upper hand. Such behaviours reduce inequalities in size, strength and dominance between playmates, fostering the co-operation and reciprocity that are essential for play to occur. Indeed, on the rare occasions when an animal says 'Let's play' and then beats up an unsuspecting animal, the culprit usually finds itself ostracised by its former playmates.

My belief is that a sense of fairness is common to many animals, because there could be no social play without it, and without social play individual animals and entire groups would be at a disadvantage. If I'm right, morality evolved because it is adaptive. It helps many animals, including humans, to survive and flourish in their particular social environment. This may sound like a radical idea, particularly if you view morality as uniquely human and a sort of mystical quality that sets us apart from other animals. But if you accept my argument that play and fairness are inextricably linked, you're halfway there. The challenge then is to show that individual animals benefit from these behaviours. It's hardly radical to suggest that play is essential food for the brain - it hones an individual's cognitive skills, including logical reasoning and behavioural adaptability. The more we learn about how play affects the brain, the more apparent it becomes that the activity is far from idle time-wasting.

Here I am not putting the case forward for a specific gene for fair or moral behaviour. As with any behavioural trait, the underlying genetics is bound to be complex, and environmental influences may be large. No matter. Provided there is variation in levels of morality among individuals, and provided virtue is rewarded by a greater number of offspring, then any genes associated with good behaviour are bound to accumulate in subsequent generations. And the observation that play is rarely unfair or uncooperative is surely an indication that natural selection acts to weed out those who don't play by the rules.

What does this tell us about human morality? First, we didn't invent virtue - its origins are much more ancient than our own. Secondly, we should stop seeing ourselves as morally superior to other animals. True, our big brains endow us with a highly sophisticated sense of what's right and wrong, but they also give us much greater scope for manipulating others - to deceive and try to benefit from immoral behaviour. In that sense, animal morality might be 'purer' than our own. We should accept our moral
responsibility towards other animals, and that means developing and enforcing more restrictive regulations governing animal use. While animal minds may vary from one species to another, they are not so different from our own, and only when we accept this can we truly be moral in our relations with nature as a whole.