Why are humans are able to comprehend the idea of morality as an abstract cognitive thought, while animals are not?

Because if animals had morals they would be human

Because we are genetic freaks who have evolved millions of years with a super powered reality warping space bending organ known as the brain. Numbers, colors, names, language, and morals are the biproduct of a biological super weapon.

We strive for morals because our existence is outside of the natural cycle. Victor's remorse, the fact that we doninate the food chain generates guilt and requires some kind of justfication, hence morals.

A lion doesn't need morals because his only motive is hunger.

>true
>false

nice spooks

Because animals don't deal in abstracts.

If you ever have a dogs and/or a cats, they know when they have done a "bad" thing. Like when you can't find your cat all day and you just find that it ate something you left on the table because you went to answer the phone or something else. Or when a dog come with an hangdog look when you come back and you find it peed on the carpet.
Cats and dogs have a concept of good and bad.

this just begs the question as to why humans are able to comprehend any abstract thoughts via cognition at all, in juxtaposition to animals, who as far as we know, don't.
i don't really get your particular focus on morality; humans have many abstract schemas that animals don't understand.

This.

Abstract thoughts require a complex language to be fixed on the mind. However, how do you know that a dog isn't thinking about morality right now? You don't speak dog, they cannot tell you.
You've been told that they cannot hold abstract thoughts by another people who didn't know either.

They don't need to, they don't have language.

>Do bonobos, chimps, or orangutans have morals?
Of course, even simpler animals do.

>A lion doesn't need morals because his only motive is hunger.

You'd find the short story The Bad Lion interesting I think.

BECAUSE HUMANS ARE CONSCIOUS, WHILST ANIMALS —AT LEAST MOST OF THEM— ARE UNCONSCIOUS.

could it have something to do with want? is it dependent upon the number of instincts satisfied?
take a human and give them no food and they might grow violent vs an animal given food in abundance and it can grow docile...
could morality be linked to the situation?

Morals are nothing more but peer pressure and conditioned behavior from upbringing.

Most humans don't comprehend morals. And the best philosophers can't.

>Why are humans are able to comprehend the idea of morality as an abstract cognitive thought, while animals are not?

>as an abstract cognitive thought, while animals are not?

I think you answered yourself user.

It serves a useful evolutionary function, i.e social cohesion

I don't think you understand what that word means

TO WHICH WORD ARE YOU REFERRING?

Unconscious. Animals are obviously conscious. They do not, however, posses conscience.

"UNCONSCIOUS" MEANS "WITHOUT/LACKING CONSCIOUSNESS"; I AM REFERRING TO CONSCIOUSNESS, NOT TO CONSCIENCE.

CONSCIENCE —ETHOS— IS A PRODUCT OF OF CONSCIOUSNESS.

You can't just make up your own meanings for words. Animals are aware of and respond to their surroundings and are therefore conscious. This is not a contentious issue.

TYPICAL OF UNTHINKING AUTOMATA LIKE YOURSELF: TO PRODUCE FORMAL DEFINITIONS FROM A DICTIONARY, OR OPINIONS BY AUTHORITY FIGURES, TO USE AS ATTEMPTS AT COUNTERARGUMENT WHENEVER YOU ENCOUNTER SOMETHING WHICH YOU CANNOT UNDERSTAND, OR COMPREHEND —A SYMTOM OF UNDERDEVELOPED CONSCIOUSNESS.

>typical, to use the correct meaning of words

but would this 'bad' behaviour be 'bad' to them because of the punishment that follows a consequence? Wouldn't the preence of morals prevent them from commiting the 'bad' act in the first place?

I am the owner of my actions, heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator.

A dog is the owner of their actions, heir to their actions, born of their actions, related through their actions, and have their actions as their own arbitrator."

As far as we know humans may only differ in that they can articulate moral rules (and concepts in general) and thus articulated they can be manipulated abstractly, which to me suggests this related to the evolution of speech. It's a good (but as far as I know unanswered) question whether the ability of dealing with this level of abstraction is a precursor of speech or a consequence of it. If it's the former it's possible that there are animals who do already deal with such abstracts and we just don't know about it due to their lack of means of communicating them. Neurobiology might answer question this in time.

(Some animals do show what researchers term moral behaviour though I gues that is common knowledge link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-19671-8_8)

>virtue
what a rebuttal!

>but would this 'bad' behaviour be 'bad' to them because of the punishment that follows a consequence?
That's already what you're looking for, just in a more abstract way. Morals are principles of behaviour to prevent potential repercussions.

Dolphins probably do, but not all of them - just like humans.

animals haven't been granted by god the capacity to comprehend the moral forms

I don't know why god did that, but he did.he gave the earth and it's creatures to us to use as we see fit.

wouldn't the concept of altruism be more relevant wwhen speaking about morals rather than prevention of repercussions?