Your chimpanzee murder examlpe seems at variance3 with your first comment above: I don't know any animal, other than humans, that will kill another animal just for the sheer pleasure of it. That seems quite morally corrupt. Animals kill other animals for what appear to be rationalizable reasons, food, competition, self-preservation.
Obviously this is only a casual conversation, but you argue that unknowns in animal communication may obscure a greater moral sensibility (than that of humans), then provide an example of apparent immorality, which seems to refute your original contention. You make interesting points throughout, but they don't seem very coherent. Can you back up and clarify your thesis a little?
Well, considering electromagnetic's numbers and insightful comments, perhaps it isn't that these species have greater moral sensibility, but that they haven't evolved the ability to disregard morality. It may be my perception that people are more likely to disregard morality that makes me believe they are less moral, rather than animals being more moral. It also seems apparent that humans can express moral behaviors that surpass many species, so I may have jumped the gun by saying animals are more moral than people. If humans can disregard morality and other animals cannot, though that would seem to mesh with the "sense" I have about them being more moral.
I don't really know, just kind of typing it and thinking it at the same time. It is still a question in my mind.
I was thinking about this last night. I was at my aunt's house and she has some dogs that were running around and appeared to be happy and excited. I just thought how amazing it was that that they always seem happy to see people and I couldn't imagine them trying to hurt anyone or being mean. So perhaps my thoughts here are a little bit temporally biased.
Yeah, not very coherent. I'm still formulating thoughts in my own head as well on this topic.
Obviously this is only a casual conversation, but you argue that unknowns in animal communication may obscure a greater moral sensibility (than that of humans), then provide an example of apparent immorality, which seems to refute your original contention. You make interesting points throughout, but they don't seem very coherent. Can you back up and clarify your thesis a little?