C. Lloyd Morgan is mostly known for Morgan’s canon (An introduction to comparative psychology, Walter Scott, Limited, London, 1894), still a popular and frequently quoted principle in comparative psychology and ethology. There has been a fair amount of debate on the canon’s interpretation, function, and value regarding the research on animal minds, usually referring to it as an isolated principle. In this paper we rather shed light on Morgan’s overall scientific program and his vision for comparative psychology. We argue that within his program Morgan identified crucial conceptual, ontological, and methodical issues, that are still fundamental to the current research on animal minds. This also highlights a new aspect of his role as one of the “founding fathers” of modern comparative psychology. In order to understand Morgan’s program, we briefly outline the historical context in which he began his work on a science of comparative psychology. We will then emphasize to what extent his taxonomy of psychological capacities, the development of his metaphysics for a comparative psychology, and his newly introduced interdisciplinary procedures justify Morgan’s distinctive approach to still rather sensitive issues. In doing so, we aim to provide a more comprehensive picture of Morgan’s methodological signature and we contend that a proper understanding of his canon can only be gained by taking it as part of this program. We finally understand his most renown considerations as part of his struggle to ascertain the limits and possibilities of the discipline he contributed to set up, and thus emphasize the need to keep the discussion going, notably on the accessibility of other minds than one’s own and on the limits of one’s research perspectives.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Morgan actually announced an earlier version of his canon at the International Congress of Experimental Psychology in 1892 (Morgan 1892a, p. 44).
The demand for scientific reliability, i.e. establishing a terminology and methodology for researching animals, was at the same time also raised by physiologists Theodor Beer, Albrecht Bethe and Jakob von Uexküll. In their paper “Vorschläge zu einer objektiven Nomenklatur in der Physiologie des Nervensystems” (Proposals for an Objectifying Nomenclature in the Physiology of the Nervous System) from 1899, which received particular attention, they contended that comparative physiology as a science must abstain from any inferences by analogy as an “unscientific procedure” to avoid anthropomorphic results (Beer et al. 1899, p. 517). Interestingly, in a footnote to the following page, they claimed that an analogy between animals and machines instead of humans would have “scientific value” (ibid., p. 518).
The report of a pet cat gives a good example for rather problematic observations: “Mrs. Hubbard tells me of a cat which she possessed, and which was in the habit of poaching young rabbits to ‘eat privately in the seclusion of a disused pigsty.’ One day this cat caught a small black rabbit, and instead of eating it, as she always did the brown ones, brought it into the house unhurt, and laid it at the feet of her mistress. ‘She clearly recognized the black rabbit as an unusual species, and apparently thought it right to show it to her mistress.’ Such was ‘not the only instance this cat showed of zoological discrimination’, for on another occasion, ‘having caught another unusual animal—a stoat—she also brought this alive into the house for the purpose of exhibiting it.’” (Romanes 1882, p. 414).
Romanes and Morgan both use the term “ejective” in this context. The concept of an “eject” was originally introduced a few years earlier by W. K. Clifford to refer to the inferred existence of a mental state in another subject‘s mind (see Clifford 1879, pp. 72–78).
Morgan also includes what might be seen as a sub-class to instinctive actions, called habitual activities, “which require at first a good deal of practice, learning and attention, but eventually run off smoothly and without special attention, at times almost or quite unconsciously” (Morgan 1890, p. 431).
For Romanes' taxonomy see e.g. Richards (1987), pp. 349–352.
E.g. the American philosophy journal titled The Monist, established in 1890 to which Morgan also contributed articles, or the philosophical reflections by Gustav Theodor Fechner, Hermann von Helmholtz and Wilhelm Wundt during that period (see e.g. Boring 1957; Heidelberger 2004). Likewise, Romanes introduced his own concept of monism to tackle the mind–body problem but did not finished his theory before his death in 1894 (see Richards 1987, pp. 368–370).
From a philosophical point of view, his working through a list of monistic concepts known to him might appear rather humble and fragmental at best. An extensive and detailed reflection on Morgan’s concept of monism is still due in the contemporary discussions of his views. There are suggestions on possible philosophical influences on Morgan’s monistic concept, though (see Richards 1987, pp. 382–385). If those suggestions should be true, Morgan’s philosophical education would be stuck in a pre-Kantian era, influenced mainly by philosophers of the early modern period, especially George Berkeley.
50 years later, Ernst Cassirer renewed this relation between fundamental presuppositions and empirical facts: “The interpretation of the experimental facts […] always depends on certain fundamental concepts which have to be clarified before the empirical material can bear its fruit.” (Cassirer 1944, p. 28) and “The facts of science always imply a theoretical, which means a symbolic, element” (ibid., p. 59).
We agree with Fitzpatrick and Goodrich that those rather unimpaired experiments reflect Morgan’s scepticism towards standardized and artificial laboratory experiments. While, for Morgan, Romanes’ anecdotal facts were not adequate enough to attribute intelligence or reason to animals, the rigid experiments of behaviorism (Morgan particularly refers to Edward Thorndike’s cat experiments) were not adequate enough to deny such capacities (see Fitzpatrick and Goodrich 2017, p. 553). For Morgan, the artificial setting of an experiment would not allow for natural behavior to occur: “The conductions of his experiments were perhaps not the most conducive to the discovery of rationality in animals if it exist. [One] may say that to place a starving kitten in the cramped confinement of one of Mr. Thorndikes’s box-cages, would be more likely to make a cat swear than to lead it to act rationally.” (Morgan 1898, p. 249) “Natural behavior” of course being a rather unspecific term, since he explicitly included his dog’s domesticated behavior of fetching or retrieving.
“Thus the growing process of intellectualization and rationalization does not imply a growing understanding of the conditions under which we live. It means something quite different. It is the knowledge or the conviction that if only wished for to understand them we could do so at any time. It means that in principle, then, we are not rules by mysterious, unpredictable forces, but that, on the contrary, we can in principle control everything by means of calculation. That in turn means the disenchantment of the world. […] [T]echnology and calculation achieve our ends. This is the primary meaning of the process of intellectualization.” (Weber 2004, pp. 12–13, emphasis in original).
“In no case is an animal activity to be interpreted in terms of higher psychological processes, if it can be fairly interpreted in terms of processes which stand lower in the scale of psychological evolution and development.” (Morgan 1903, p. 59).
“In no instance should we interpret events in terms of concepts appropriate to a higher level of emergence if they can adequately be interpreted in terms of concepts appropriate to a lower level of emergence.” (Morgan 1925, p. 61).
Some authors (e.g. Thomas 2001; Wild 2006; Starzak 2015) do discuss the revised edition’s phrasing. However, none of them takes the word “fairly” into account. They only discuss Morgan’s change of “higher and lower faculties” to lower and higher in a “scale of psychological evolution and development” which supports our representation of scientific monism as key to his program. In the 1925 version of the canon (see fn 18) “adequately” replaces “fairly”, but can be interpreted in the same way we discuss the term “fairly”.
See phrasings used in several of the quoted passages, e.g. “as far as we can go”, “so far as it can be determined”, etc.
Morgan explicitly ruled out this idea: “the simplicity of an explanation is no necessary criterion of its truth” (Morgan 1894, p. 54).
Comparing this critique of the canon with Fitzpatrick’s illuminating collaboration with Goodrich in 2017, the latter outlines a more complex and comprehensive scenario which is—in our view—because the 2017 paper is appreciating the context of Morgan’s program.
An example for a recent shift in such underlying assumptions is the following: up to the 1990 s the methodological approach of animal welfare research was based on the opinion that subjective experiences of animals could only be measured indirectly. More recently, Françoise Wemelsfelder claimed that a direct measurement via an animal’s expression is possible (see Wemelsfelder 2007).
In the revised edition, Morgan even added a cautionary note to his canon to prevent a strict reductionist interpretation: “To this, however, it should be added, lest the range of the principle be misunderstood, that the canon by no means excludes the interpretation of a particular activity in terms of the higher processes, if we already have independent evidence of the occurrence of these higher processes in the animal under observation.” (Morgan 1903, p. 59).
Even in his earlier considerations in the mid-1880 s he never doubted this, pointing out that he does “by no means deny the existence of animal mind, consciousness, feeling, emotion. I do nothing of this sort” (Morgan 1886, p. 185).
Barrows, E. M. (1995). Animal behavior desk reference. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Beer, T., Bethe, A., & von Uexküll, J. (1899). Vorschläge zu einer objektivierenden Nomenklatur in der Physiologie des Nervensystems. Centralblatt für Physiologie, 13(6), 517–521.
Bekoff, M., & Allen, C. (1997). Cognitive ethology: Slayers, skeptics, and proponents. In R. W. Mitchell, N. S. Thompson, & H. L. Miles (Eds.), Anthropomorphism, anecdotes and animals (pp. 313–334). New York: SUNY Press.
Boakes, R. (1984). From Dawinism to Behaviourism. Psychology and the minds of animals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Böhnert, M., & Hilbert, C. (2016). C. Llyod Morgan’s canon—Über den Gründervater der komparativen Psychologie und den Stellenwert epistemischer Bedenken. In M. Böhnert, K. Köchy, & M. Wunsch (Eds.), Philosophie der Tierforschung. Vol 1. Methoden und Modelle (pp. 149–182). Freiburg, Munich: Karl Alber.
Boring, E. G. (1957). A history of experimental psychology (2nd ed.). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts Inc.
Bruder, K.-J. (1997). Psychologie ohne Bewußtsein. Die Geburt der behavioristischen Sozialtechnologie. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp Verlag.
Burghardt, G. M. (1997). Amending Tinbergen: A fifth aim of ethology. In R. W. Mitchell, N. S. Thompson, & H. L. Miles (Eds.), Anthropomorphism, anecdotes and animals (pp. 254–276). New York: SUNY Press.
Burkhardt, R. W. (1997). The founders of ethology and the problem of animals subjective experience. In M. Dol, S. Kasanmoentalib, S. Lijmbach, et al. (Eds.), Animal consciousness and animal ethics. Perspectives from the Netherlands (pp. 1–13). Assen: Van Gorcum & Comp. B.V.
Butler, A. B., & Hodos, W. (2005). Evolution and adaption of the brain, behavior, and intelligence. In A. B. Butler & W. Hodos (Eds.), Comparative vertebrate neuroanatomy—Evolution and adaption. New Jersey: Wiley.
Byrne, R. W. (1997). What’s the use of anecdotes? Distinguishing psychological mechanisms in primate tactical deception. In R. W. Mitchell, N. S. Thompson, & H. L. Miles (Eds.), Anthropomorphism, anecdotes and animals (pp. 134–150). New York: SUNY Press.
Cassirer, E. (1944/1992). An essay on man. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Clatterbuck, H. (2016). Darwin, Hume, Morgan, and the verae causae of psychology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 60, 1–14.
Clifford, W. K. (1879). On the nature of things in themselves. In W. K. Clifford (Ed.), Lectures and essays (pp. 71–89). London: McMillan.
Costall, A. (1993). How Lloyd Morgan’s canon backfired. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 29(2), 113–122.
Costall, A. (1998). Lloyd Morgan, and the rise and fall of ‘animal psychology’. Society and Animals, 6(1), 13–29.
Currie, G. (2006). Rationality, decentring, and the evidence for pretence in non-human animals. In S. Hurley & M. Nudds (Eds.), Rational animals? (pp. 275–290). New York: Oxford University Press.
Daston, L., & Galison, P. (1992). The image of objectivity. Representations, 40(4), 81–128.
Dewsbury, D. A. (1984). Comparative psychology in the twentieth century. Stroudsburg: Hutchinson Ross Publishing Co.
Fischer, J. (2012). Metakognition bei Tieren. In J.-C. Heilinger (Ed.), Naturgeschichte der Freiheit (pp. 95–116). Berlin: de Gruyter.
Fitzpatrick, S. (2008). Doing away with Morgan’s canon. Mind and Language, 23(2), 224–246.
Fitzpatrick, S., & Goodrich, G. (2017). Building a science of animal minds: Lloyd Morgan, experimentation, and Morgan’s canon. Journal of the History of Biology, 50(3), 525–569.
Flugel, J. C. (1933). A hundred years on psychology. London: Gerald Duckworth & Co.
Galef, B. G., Jr. (1996). Historical orgins: The making of a science. In L. D. Houck & L. C. Drickamer (Eds.), Foundations of animal behavior. Classic papers with commentaries (pp. 5–12). Chicago: University Press.
Goodwin, C. J. (1999). A history of modern psychology. New York: Wiley.
Heidelberger, M. (2000). Der psychophysische Parallelismus—Von Fechner und Mach zu Davidson und zurück. In F. Stadler (Ed.), Elemente moderner Wissenschaftstheorie—Zur Interaktion von Philosophie, Geschichte und Theorie der Wissenschaften (Vol. 8, pp. 91–104). Wien: Springer.
Heidelberger, M. (2004). Nature from within: Gustav Theodor Fechner and his psychophysical world view. Pittsburg, PA: University of Pittsburg Press.
Hilbert, C. (2017). Gewöhnliche Erfahrung in der Wissenschaft vom Tier. In Forschungsschwerpunkt Tier-Mensch-Gesellschaft (Ed.), Vielfältig verflochten. Interdisziplinäre Beiträge zur Tier-Mensch-Relationalität (pp. 157–172). Bielefeld: transcript Verlag.
Hilbert, C. (2018). Das Problem des Anthropomorphismus in der Tierforschung. Eckpunkte der methodologischen Entwicklung. In M. Wunsch, M. Böhnert, & K. Köchy (Eds.), Philosophie der Tierforschung. Vol 3. Milieus und Akteure (pp. 139–186). Freiburg, Munich: Karl Alber.
Kaminski, J., Call, J., & Tomasello, M. (2008). Chimpanzees know what others know, but not what they believe. Cognition, 109(2), 224–234.
Karin-D’Arcy, M. R. (2005). The modern role of Morgan’s canon in comparative psychology. International Journal of Comparative Psychology, 18(3), 179–201.
Knoll, E. (1997). Dogs, Darwinism, and English sensibilities. In R. W. Mitchell, N. S. Thompson, & H. L. Miles (Eds.), Anthropomorphism, anecdotes and animals (pp. 12–21). New York: SUNY Press.
Köchy, K. (2006). Einleitung: Umwelt-Handeln—Zum Zusammenhang von Naturphilosophie und Umweltethik. In K. Köchy & M. Norwig (Eds.), Umwelt-Handeln—Zum Zusammenhang von Naturphilosophie und Umweltethik (pp. 11–29). Freiburg, Munich: Karl Alber.
Köchy, K., Wunsch, M., & Böhnert, M. (2016). Einleitung: Philosophie der Tierforschung. Die methodische Signatur von Forschungsprogrammen. In M. Böhnert, K. Köchy, & M. Wunsch (Eds.), Philosophie der Tierforschung. Vol 1. Methoden und Modelle (pp. 9–19). Freiburg, Munich: Karl Alber.
Manning, A., & Dawkins, M. S. (2012). An introduction to animal behaviour. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Marx, M., & Hillix, W. (1967). Systems and theories in psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
McFarland, D. (1985). Animal behavior: Psychobiology, ethology, and evolution. Menlo Park: Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company Inc.
Morgan, C. L. (1884a). Instinct. Nature, 29(746), 370–374.
Morgan, C. L. (1884b). Instinct. Nature, 29(750), 451–452.
Morgan, C. L. (1885). The springs of conduct: An essay on evolution. London: Kegan Paul, Trench & Co.
Morgan, C. L. (1886). On the study of animal intelligence. Mind, 11(42), 174–185.
Morgan, C. L. (1890). Animal life and intelligence. London: E. Arnold.
Morgan, C. L. (1892a). The limits of animal intelligence. In International congress of experimental psychology, second session (pp. 44–48). London: Williams & Norgate.
Morgan, C. L. (1892b). Experimental biology. Nature, 47(1202), 25–26.
Morgan, C. L. (1894). An introduction to comparative psychology. London: Walter Scott, Limited.
Morgan, C. L. (1898). Animal intelligence: An experimental study. Nature, 58(1498), 249–250.
Morgan, C. L. (1903). An introduction to comparative psychology. Revised edition. London: Walter Scott, Limited.
Morgan, C. L. (1925). Life, mind, and spirit. New York: Holt.
Newbury, E. (1954). Current interpretation and significance of Lloyd Morgan’s canon. The Psychological Bulletin, 51(1), 70–74.
Radick, G. (2000). Morgan’s canon, Garner’s phonograph, and the evolutionary origins of language and reason. The British Journal for the History of Science, 33(1), 3–23.
Richards, R. J. (1987). Darwin and the emergence of evolutionary theories of mind and behaviour. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Romanes, G. J. (1882). Animal intelligence. London: Kegan Paul, Trench & Co.
Romanes, G. J. (1884a). Letter: Mr. Lloyd Morgan on Instinct. Nature, 29(747), 379–381.
Romanes, G. J. (1884b). Instinct. Nature, 29(747), 428.
Romanes, G. J. (1884c). Mental evolution in animals. New York: D. Appleton and Company.
Romanes, G. J. (1885). Jelly-fish, star-fish and sea-urchins. A research on primitive nervous systems. New York: D. Appleton and Company.
Romanes, G. J. (1891). Animal life and intelligence by C. Lloyd Morgan. Mind, 16(61), 262–267.
Schel, A. M., Townsend, S. W., Machanda, Z., Zuberbühler, K., & Slocombe, K. E. (2013). Chimpanzee alarm call production meets key criteria for intentionality. PLoS ONE, 8(10), e76674. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0076674.
Schurig, V. (2014). Problemgeschichte des Wissenschaftsbegriffs Ethologie. Rangsdorf: Basilisken-Presse.
Silverman, P. S. (1997). A pragmatic approach to the inference of animal mind. In R. W. Mitchell, N. S. Thompson, & H. L. Miles (Eds.), Anthropomorphism, anecdotes and animals (pp. 170–185). New York: SUNY Press.
Sober, E. (1998). Morgan’s canon. In C. Allen & D. Cummins (Eds.), The evolution of mind (pp. 224–242). New York: Oxford University Press.
Sober, E. (2005). Comparative psychology meets evolutionary biology. Morgan’s canon and cladistic parsimony. In L. Daston & G. Mitman (Eds.), Thinking with animals. New perspectives on anthropomorphism (pp. 85–99). New York: Columbia University Press.
Stanley, H. M. (1896). Remarks on Professor Lloyd Morgan’s method in animal psychology. Psychological Review, 3(5), 536–541.
Starzak, T. (2015). Kognition bei Menschen und Tieren. Eine vergleichende philosophische Perspektive. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Starzak, T. (2016). Interpretations without justification: A general argument against Morgan’s canon. Synthese. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-016-1013-4.
Thomas, R. K. (1998). Lloyd Morgan’s canon. In G. Greenberg & M. M. Haraway (Eds.), Comparative psychology: A handbook (pp. 156–163). New York: Garland Press.
Thomas, R. K. (2001). Lloyd Morgan’s canon: A history of its misrepresentation. In History and Theory in Psychology Eprint Archive. https://faculty.franklin.uga.edu/rkthomas/sites/faculty.franklin.uga.edu.rkthomas/files/MCPrintOptimal.pdf. Accessed 31 May 2016.
Thorpe, W. H. (1979). The origins and rise of ethology. The science of the natural behaviour of animals. London: Heinemann.
Tinbergen, N. (1951). The study of instinct. New York: Oxford University Press.
Washburn, M. F. (1917). The animal mind. A text-book of comparative psychology. New York: Macmillan Company.
Waters, R. H. (1939). Morgan’s canon and anthropomorphism. Psychological Review, 46(6), 534–540.
Watson, J. B. (1913). Psychology as the behaviorist views it. Psychological Review, 20(2), 158–177.
Weber, M. (2004). Science as a vocation. In D. Owen & T. B. Strong (Eds.), Max Weber—The vocation lectures (pp. 1–32). Cambridge: Hackett.
Wegener, M. (2009). Der psychophysische Parallelismus. Zu einer Denkfigur im Feld der wissenschaftlichen Umbrüche des ausgehenden 19. Jahrhunderts. NTM Zeitschrift für Geschichte der Wissenschaften, Technik und Medizin, 17(3), 277–316.
Wemelsfelder, F. (2007). How animals communicate quality of life: the qualitative assessment of behavior. Animal Welfare, 16(S), 25–31.
Wieder, D. L. (1980). Behavioristic operationalism and the life-world: Chimpanzees and chimpanzee researchers in face-to-face interaction. Sociological Inquiry, 50(3–4), 75–103.
Wild, M. (2006). Die anthropologische Differenz: Der Geist der Tiere in der Frühen Neuzeit bei Montaigne, Descartes und Hume. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Wozniak, R. H. (1993). Conwy Lloyd Morgan, mental evolution, and the introduction to comparative psychology. In C. L. Morgan (Ed.), Introduction to comparative psychology (pp. vii–xix). London: Routledge.
This paper was written in the context of the International Biophilosophical School (University of Padua, 27–30 April 2015) as part of the “Integrative Biophilosophy” research project located at the University of Kassel. Funding by the DAAD (German Academic Exchange Service) is gratefully acknowledged. We would like to thank Robert Meunier, Kristian Köchy and Francesca Michelini for their constructive criticism of the manuscript as well as to acknowledge the helpful comments of the participants of the “Philosophie der Tierforschung” colloquium (University of Kassel). Also, a sincere thank you to Tessa Marzotto for her diligent proofreading of this paper.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Böhnert, M., Hilbert, C. “Other minds than ours”: a controversial discussion on the limits and possibilities of comparative psychology in the light of C. Lloyd Morgan’s work. HPLS 40, 44 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40656-018-0211-4
- Lloyd Morgan
- Morgan’s canon
- Comparative psychology
- Animal behavior
- Animal mind