no other animals are human but humans. That alone puts humans in a unique place in the animal kingdom, one that may have exclusive access to ethics. — Merkwurdichliebe

That alone says nothing at all. "no other animals are turtles but turtles".

The lion is under attack. — Landoma1

:snicker: The tables...they're forever turning aren't they? One day it's lions, the other day it's hyenas...up and down, to and fro, round and round we go!

An article about a moral quandry playing out in my old (childhood) neighborhood which calls into question, once again, whether we human animals "have morals" as much as some nonhuman animals do:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61803958

It isn't clear to me how deep human morality is, a good share of the time, never mind morality among non-humans.

Some animals are capable of making judgements about fairness and can decide to work cooperatively with another of its kind for mutual benefit. These are examples of animal morality observed and filmed in labs.

A dog, for instance, who has been cooperating with an experimenter, will cease and disease if it observes another dog getting rewards for the same behavior for which it is not getting rewarded. It's pretty clear: the dog being unfairly ignored stops cooperating.

Primates who had been cooperating with other primates and an experimenter, will quickly stop cooperating if they see some primates getting better quality rewards than they received. For instance, if two primates get apple slices as rewards, and two other primates get slices of cucumbers, the cucumber primates will abruptly stop cooperating.

Primates will spontaneously cooperate to get a mutual benefit (they both get apple slices). Dogs have been observed cooperating on some task in order to get a mutual reward.

What these experiments reveal is that animals can recognize fairness/unfairness, and in some cases judge the quality o the reward. They can also recognize how to cooperate in some task in order to get something desirable (like a food reward).

My take on human behavior is that what we do is possible because other animals (in our evolutionary lineage) have made ever more complex behaviors possible. Perhaps we were subject to an evolutionary leap, but the ground still had to be prepared for that leap -- be it the way we see, hear, feel, think, or decide to complain to the management.

An article about a moral quandry playing out in my old (childhood) neighborhood which calls into question, once again, whether we human animals "have morals" as much as some nonhuman animals do:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61803958 — 180 Proof

It's all hodge podge. I read the Wiki article on environmental personhood and certain natural features like rivers (e.g. the Ganges) and mountains have been granted personhood and that, as per the article, comes with legal protection and also, get this, responsibilities. If a river or a mountain or a patch of woods can be a person why can't Happy the elephant be one too?

granted personhood — Agent Smith

"Granted" or not, I think being a person (i.e. having potentials for empathy & creativity and recognizing that others share the same potentials for empathy & creativity) is independent of political/juridical recognition.

"Granted" or not, I think being a person (i.e. having potentials for empathy & creativity and recognizing that others share the same potentials for empathy & creativity) is independent of political/juridical recognition. — 180 Proof

Quite right! A person petitions for/demands rights! Happy the elephant or the Ganges didn't do either!

However, the US constitution guarantess the right to life (Happy the pachyderm is a living organism) and the right to pursue happiness (Happy can feel pain and joy).

A person petitions for/demands right — Agent Smith

So a human infant, feral human adult or human coma patient, for examples, are not persons because they can't "petition for/demand rights"?

So a human infant, feral human adult or human coma patient, for examples, are not persons because they can't "petition for/demand rights"? — 180 Proof

One word: potential!

Clarify. :chin: