

See, there you go again, saying that a moral act is only significant
if it is "voluntary."  Why do you think this?

And anyway, humans have the ability to disregard some of their instincts.


You are attaching too many things to the term "moral," I think.
Let's try this:  is it "good" that animals of the same species
don't kill each other.  Or, do you think this is right? 

Or do you think that animals are machines, and that nothing they do
is either right nor wrong?



Those weren't arbitrary killings.  They were slayings related to some sort
of mating ritual or whatnot.


Yes it was, but I still don't understand your distinctions.  What
do you mean by "consider?"  Can a small child be moral?  How about
a gorilla?  A dolphin?  A platypus?  Where is the line drawn?  Does
the being need to be self aware?

What *do* you call the mechanism which seems to prevent animals of
the same species from (arbitrarily) killing each other?  Don't
you find the fact that they don't at all significant?