In the post-Enlightenment post-humanist West there is a tendency like yours to downplay the difference between humans and animals, but I think it misses the poi

In the post-Enlightenment post-humanist West there is a tendency like yours to downplay the difference between humans and animals, but I think it misses the point. Intelligence is not the point. Intelligence was never the categorical differentiator between humans and animals. Firstly, because it is a difference in degree, not a difference in kind. Some have said that "culture" is what makes us different, but I'm not convinced of that either - for me, highly sociable animals that travel in herds always appeared to have a culture of sorts. Again, a difference in degree, not in kind. I tend to agree with the Russian philosophers that argue that the categorical differentiator between humans and animals is "morality". Animals are fundamentally amoral, i.e. nothing they do is "evil". We do not speak of incest, rape or murder among bonobo chimps, for example, because such judgements cannot apply to their actions (although this behaviour is rampant in nature). Moral judgements cannot apply to animals precisely because they have no transcendental purpose in any of their actions, i.e. everything they do is out instinct and survival purposes. Whereas humans frequently act out of a transcendental purpose, such as fighting for a greater cause such as equality for all, creating and worshipping a conception of God, or practicing philosophy. None of these actions have a survival motive (some are actually detrimental to our individual survival). Neither are these actions necessarily instinctual, as humans are certainly capable or creating new transcendental purposes that didn't exist before - and THAT is what makes us human.