Well, it's not really my premise. It's the premise I've heard communicated several times before: that humans are more advanced than other species, and that makes us different from all the other species.
I´m not sure how to deal with an argument (or the attempt at refuting it) the premise of which neither you nor I agree with. Seems to be a pointless enterprise.
I think you have to make up your mind when discussing with me. Either you are determined to keep arguing against your strawman, or you respond to my points.
As said earlier, I do think that the human species is different from other species (as are other species from each other, btw. Else we wouldn´t distinguish between species, after all). This has nothing to do with superiority or being "advanced".
The main characteristics exclusive to humans:
1. We are not determined by instincts - we can change our behaviour at will.
2. We are able to think abstractly.
3. We are able to commincate abstract thoughts.
All these are necessary prerequisites for engaging in moral/ethical considerations, for communicating them and for groups to negotiate them.
There is no point in discussing morality with a dog, with a lion, with a brick or with my car. It is a category that is unintelligible for those entities. Therefore it´s not applicable.
I can disapprove of a certain behaviour of a non-human animal or object, I can try to prevent it, I can try to use classical conditioning - but an appeal to morality would be lost on them.
I mentioned earlier that penguins have sort of a moral system, it seems. When one penguin loses its chick, sometimes it'll become envious of another penguin's healthy chick and will try to steal it. But when the other penguins see this, they'll huddle together and force the thieving penguin away.
I believe I saw this in a documentary, but it's mentioned in Wikipedia, too.
All sorts of animals display some sorts of attempts to correct the behaviour of others of their species. I´m not sure how that counts as "morality" (as the product of abstract considerations - as we humans have it).
Animals do a lot of stuff we would not accept in human interaction, and they do some stuff that would be acceptable or even welcome. I don´t see how the latter allows us to conclude a sense of morality on their part.
But let´s for argument´s sake say penguins have a penguin morality. Now, what to it? What do you expect me to do? Go evangelizing them and making them adopt my morality?
Practically, you can't enforce morality on nature. There isn't enough of a police force to control all of them. But morality isn't strictly about practicality. It's still wrong to steal a television set, even if there's a mob doing the same and nobody is there to catch you.
That´s just semantics. If you wish we can call a brick "wrong/immoral" for falling on someone´s head (I mean, after all, Jesus even cursed a fig tree).
Personally, I don´t think that makes a lot of sense because ethical/moral judgement imo requires the capability of engaging in moral/ethical considerations on both parts - the self-appointed judge and the judged.
I am generally quite hesitant to anthropomorphize behaviour of non-human animals, of my car or of my computer or of a brick. My car is not "mean" when it refuses to work as I think it should, bees are not "hard-working", crocodiles are not "cruel", computers are not obnoxious when displaying behaviour that I don´t like. All these judgements would require those beings to be aware of those categories and to act on more than just their program.
According to Christianity, humans are held to a different standard because we were created in God's image. But atheists would say that humans are animals, and it's our level of advancement that puts us at a higher standard.
No, that´s not what atheists say. All that atheists say is that they don´t believe that a god exists. You should have taken that in by now.
The reason I don´t hold non-human animals to ethical/moral standards is that they themselves are not capable of abstract moral/ethical considerations. Basically it´s the same reason why I wouldn´t call a mouse "uneducated" because he doesn´t have a high-school diploma.
Different species are different. This statement does not constitute a ranking of their values.
Please - if you respond - answer to
my statements. Please don´t hold the "advanced" strawman against my arguments anymore. Tia.