story
That's not what this debate is really about. The proponents of "humans are different" are actually thinking "humans are superior". They can make a case for that, but only in terms that confer advantages and entitlement to humans.
Take this example:
> Are aware of the existence of good and evil and have the capacity for moral reasoning
and apply it to an encounter in the forest between a human and a venomous snake.
Imagine one kills the other without provocation.
Which animal was good, and which one was evil?
Let's try that exercise again three more times. I'll give you more information for each case:
1. The human was your pregnant wife.
2. The human was the mass murderer, Adolf X.
3. The snake was hungry and scared, and had a family to care for.
Are you referring to the voices in your head?
Have you noticed there are more than one voice, and sometimes they point you in different directions?
Assuming you don't speak French, Greek or Estonian, and have never read a translation of any writing by a French, Greek, or Estonian human being, how do you know whether French, Greek and Estonian people also have multiple voices in their heads like you do?
How can you know that non-human animals don't also have voices in their heads?
If non-human animals also have multiple voices in their heads suggesting different actions to them, and they make choices from those voices, how can you define them as "amoral"?
No. I guess you refer to debating moral dilemma in your head, but that's only one aspect of morality.
Not all people share the same moral code, but we do expect all human cultures to have a moral code, and we expect humans to act on it's basis, despite their natural instincts and the rather arbitrary moral rules specific to their culture.
Meanwhile we expect animal to behave according to their natural instincts.
When humans break our exceptions, we judge them, since we know humans can and often are better than that. When animals break our exceptions, if ever, we are surprised, as this is rare and unnatural.
