Morality is a Logical Consequence of Evolution, not Creation

I think it important to note that various "animals" are well-known for their empathy - dogs for an everyday example, both in responses to other dogs as well as to humans.There are also instances where it would appear quite clearly that the animals are distressed over the death of a sibling, parent or child - the most poignant I remember was an ape whose baby died and for many days she carried the baby with her and tried to get the baby to wake up - and it was also quite clear she knew the baby wasn't sleeping.

So, the apparent distress and emtional response of an ape for her dead offspring is not empathy, but the apparent distress and emotional response of a human for her dead offspring is?Based on what scale? Can you verify that to me in any other way than "it's obvious" or "I don't think it is the same"?I agree it's a really difficult question, but if humans have an instinctual emotional response, and animals a similar instinctual emotional response, and you call it empathy in a human but an automatic response in an animal, why the difference?I'm certain that humans can do more with their thoughts and feelings - but that's not empathy. Animals can plan their escapes and forsee a future outcome based on their observations - crows and squirrels and others for example have been seen using "tools" as WE would define them.I think this "automatic response" idea is from a starting point of "animals are less than humans" which is the modern equivalent of "animals are automata" of two hundred years ago.

then it's about communication - unless you can tell me for sure that (for example) my dog doesn't actually understand how sad I feel about (say) my girlfriend breaking up with me, you can't know whether the dog is "empathic" or not.I agree that other animals don't apparently have as sophisticated a method of communication as us, nor do they seem to be as able to plan for the future and modify their surroundings, but if a dog, in his own doggy way, can say "oh leader-of-my-pack-who-feeds-me, I am sad because YOU are sad" (and I agree, it's going to be hard proving things either way, except that arguably dogs "know" when their owners are sad and comfort them, so there's *something* going on in there) then despite lacking a full understanding, I would say that the dog is still empathic.I don't think a dog can be told that his owner's friend's dog is having a mid-life crisis, no - does it have to go that far?