In the first part of the study, I discuss three methodological problems of the interpretation of the biological data, namely subjectivity of perspective, anthropocentrism of jargon and perspective-orientation of the studies. Then, I defend intentionality of moral acts against the functionalist morality, emphasizing the interpretation of the observations on animal behavior cannot assume that animals have intentionality. In the second part, I review the ambiguity problem of the traits in the heritability studies. I voice the argument that the heritability studies do not work for the traits with well-circumscribed definitions as well, pointing out three methodological shortcomings of the studies, i.e., overestimation, underestimation and omission of the genetic contribution to the traits. Disagreeing with those who give priority to biology, I conclude that, methodologically philosophy should be prior in the interpretation regarding the contemporary philosophy of biology.