Should Man Look To Animals Behavior As A Guide To Morality?
Bodie Hodge, M.Sc., B.Sc., PEI
Biblical Authority Ministries, January 20, 2026 (Donate)
Introduction
In an evolutionary culture, man rejects God and thus, the basis
for morality. Yet a society cannot exist without morality and laws. As sinful
man attempts to reconcile a form of morality in a broken world, without the Bible.
Where do they look?
One place that is often looked is at the animal world,
presuming we evolved from lower creatures, and therefore got us to where we are
today. This affects ethics and morality. Consider a scientific article that
says:
“Same-sex sexual behaviour (SSSB)
occurs in most animal clades, but published reports are largely concentrated in
a few taxa.”[1]
The article then goes on to point out that things like this
are used to evaluate ethics in our culture:
“While systematic studies of animal
behaviour did not begin until the 19th century, the notion that SSSB
was rare, and therefore “unnatural” in the animal kingdom was used, and
continues to be used, as evidence in debates of the ethics of human
homosexuality.”[2]
Although this article discusses homosexuality in observed
animal behavior, it shows how people look to the animal world use data like
this for moral judgments. But should we?
Animal World To The Rescue?
When we start with God’s Word, man should not look to the
animal kingdom as a basis for morality because morality is not grounded in
nature but in God’s character and His revealed Word.
Animals are not moral agents like humanity is. Scripture
presents animals as acting by instinct, not by ethical reasoning or moral
accountability. In other words, they do not sin, repent, obey laws, or face
judgment like “jail time” for their sin-cursed behavior (e.g., Genesis 3:14).
Moral responsibility is uniquely given to man because only
mankind is made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26–27). To derive morality from
animal behavior is therefore to confuse instinct (that is suffering under a
curse) with ethics.
Appealing to animal behavior for moral guidance commits the
naturalistic fallacy: assuming that what “is” in nature determines what “ought”
to be right for humans. In the animal kingdom, actions such as killing
offspring, forced mating, cannibalism, territorial violence, and abandonment of
the weak are common.
If such behaviors were treated as moral norms simply because
animals do them, then concepts like compassion, faithfulness, justice, and
human dignity would collapse—and so would civilization. When we look at nature,
we can describe behavior; but it does not prescribe moral obligation.
Morality requires a lawgiver. Moral laws imply an objective
standard that transcends individual preference, survival advantage, or social
consensus. Animals do not recognize moral laws; they operate according to
biological programming within a fallen creation (Romans 8:20–22).
Humans, unlike critters, possess conscience (Romans 2:14–15)
and are commanded by God to live according to His moral law, summarized in
loving God and loving neighbor (the two greatest commandments). This moral
framework can’t arise from evolutionary survival mechanisms without contradicting
itself.
Trying to put morality as based in animal behavior often
serves to excuse human sin rather than restrain it. Statements like “animals do
this too” are frequently used to justify sexual immorality, violence, or
selfishness. Biblically, the Fall explains why both human and animal behavior
can be broken and disordered. The existence of such behavior in nature is
evidence of corruption, not a moral guide—it is actually a confirmation of what
we expect to see in a sin-cursed and broken world!
Animal Punishments
Scripture shows that animals were sometimes punished by God
or under God’s law, but not because they were moral agents (as man is). The
clearest example is the serpent in Genesis 3.
After Satan used the serpent to deceive Eve, God cursed the
serpent above all livestock, condemning it to crawl and eat dust (Genesis
3:14). The vessel—the animal—was cursed along with prophetic condemnation of
Satan who was influencing the serpent (Genesis 3:15; Revelation 12:9). The
judgment was perfectly just.
This shows God’s authority over His creation and publicly marking the serpent of deception. The serpent itself was not morally responsible; the moral guilt lay with Satan acting through it and Satan, unlike the physical serpent he used, will be punished forever in Hell. The curse functioned as a lasting sign of the Fall. And we still endure this curse today.
Under the Mosaic Law, animals that caused death were also
punished. Exodus 21:28–29 commands that an ox which gores a person to death
must be stoned. This upheld the sanctity of human life above that of animals and
removed a dangerous animal from the community. If the owner knew the animal was
dangerous and failed to restrain it, the human bore additional guilt, and shows
that moral responsibility rests on people, not necessarily the animals.
Similarly, in cases of sexual sin involving animals, Leviticus
20:15–16 requires both the human offender and the animal to be put to death.
The animal’s destruction was not punishment for moral wrongdoing but a purging
of defilement from the land. It prevented the act from being normalized. It
also removed the physical reminder of the sin (i.e., the death of that animal).
Conclusion
Animals in Scripture could be destroyed or cursed as part of
God’s legal judgment, but they were never treated as morally accountable beings.
Judgment served God’s purposes, while moral guilt always remained with personal
beings like man—or, in the case of the serpent, with Satan.
Morality flows from God’s unchanging character and His
revealed commands, not from observing animals. Looking to the animal kingdom
for moral standards strips man of their God-given responsibility. It also blurs
the distinction between mankind and animals—but I guess that what the false
religion of evolutionism does—and replaces objective morality with
instinct-driven relativism. Thus, it is false.
We need to get back to God’s Word as the sole basis for morality
and leave the evolutionary story-telling as an arbitrary failure.
Bodie Hodge, Ken
Ham's son in law, has been an apologist since 1998 helping out in various
churches and running an apologetics website. He spent 21 years working at Answers
in Genesis as a speaker, writer, and researcher as well as a founding
news anchor for Answers News. He was also head of the Oversight
Council.
Bodie
launched Biblical Authority Ministries in 2015 as a personal
website and it was organized officially in 2025 as a 501(c)(3). He has spoken
on multiple continents and hosts of US states in churches, colleges, and
universities. He is married with four children.
Mr. Hodge earned a
Bachelor and Master of Science degrees from Southern Illinois University at
Carbondale (SIUC). Then he taught at SIUC for a couple of years as a
Visiting Instructor teaching all levels of undergraduate engineering and
running a materials lab and a CAD lab. He did research on advanced ceramic
materials to develop a new method of production of titanium diboride with a
grant from Lockheed Martin. He worked as a Test Engineer for Caterpillar,
Inc., prior to entering full-time ministry.
His love of science was coupled with a love of history, philosophy, and theology. For about one year of his life, Bodie was editing and updating a theological, historical, and scientific dictionary/encyclopedia for AI use and training. Mr. Hodge has over 25 years of experience in writing, speaking and researching in these fields.
[1]
Anderson et al, Same-sex sexual behaviour among mammals is widely observed, yet
seldomly reported: Evidence from an online expert survey, PLOS One, June 20,
2024, V19 No. (6), https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11189198/.
[2]
Ibid.
