[Nogitsune]

Originally Posted by Yukinokesshou

I think you've hit the nail on the head. Are animals morally equivalent to humans, as Nogitsune says they are? Perhaps, or perhaps not, but the argument is irrelevant (except for God[s], if you believe in his/her/their existence).

If so, then morality itself is irrelevant.
I'm not a big fan of Nihilism, though.

The fact of life is that every species acts in its own interest. It's part of nature. Humans are no exception, orcas are no exception. It's natural to look at other species through a filtered lens, denying them the feelings and sufferings of one's own kind.

It also seems to be "natural" that humans think of morality as something inherently valuable.

Humans and orcas are both known for their strong, lifelong mother-child relationships. Humans and orcas also intentionally separate mother-child pairs of other species to satiate their craving for young meat. Until recently, humans weren't overly bothered about it (of course, orcas still aren't bothered).

Humans also used to think rape, slavery and discrimination are great, and that only people of one's own nation deserve any consideration at all.

The question is... why must we as humans exempt ourselves from the laws of nature and extend a concept we have created - for our own benefit - to our fellow living organisms, all of whom act only in their own interest?

If we see morality in terms of personal benefits, then that has two consequences:

1) We don't have a reason to be considerate of those who can neither help nor hinder us. This includes animals as well as certain kinds of humans.
2) We don't have a reason to care about morality when the person we are hurting will never know who was responsible.

I will not try to convince people who believe that's perfectly fine this way. I can not prove that morality has inherent value.
Luckily for me, though, most people indeed believe that's the case, and more than half of them even think it's morally incorrect to slowly torture a cat to death. As long as they can not name a morally relevant difference between animals and all humans, yet treat them by different standards, they are being morally inconsistent, which is the same as following no moral theory at all.