I'm glad Wild Justice is bringing in comments, as it deserves a wide readership. It's fine science coupled with fascinating stories, and I disagree avidly with its being labelled as 'wild speculation' (see earlier review). I'd like to point out, as a primate studies-oriented anthropologist who has observed apes for many years, that the reviewer who brings up the now-cliche 'the plural of anecdote is not data' misses the point of what Bekoff and Pierce set out to do. B&P realize that we've barely scratched the surface of understanding animal cooperation, empathy, and morality/justice, and that we need to go beyond statistics to embrace what animals do (sometimes, not all the time) under different circumstances, with social partners of certain social histories, etc. They are as interested in negative evidence for their hypotheses, it seems to me, as in positive evidence. After all, individual variation is key to their endeavor, just as it is key to the workings of natural selection. They note, furthermore, that animal morality has its limits; they do not conflate nonhumans with humans. In sum, the case-study approach DOES have merit scientifically. It can be beautifully combined with statistical studies, so no one is arguing for either/or. It's time for long-term, rigorously done qualitative work on animal behavior to get its due, and there's no place better to start than with what Bekoff and Pierce have accomplished here. Read my full review here:
http://www.bookslut.com/features/2009_06_014521.php
PS Please don't take anyone's word for Bekoff's expertise in this arena: look him up. His website is full of credentials.