
I have never said that only humans are the only beings which are
sufficiently sentient to have intentions.   In fact, I have explicitly
said that I am perfectly happy to consider that some animals *are*
capable of forming intentions.

What I am objecting to is considering programmed or instinctive
behaviour to have moral significance, since, it seems to me, 
such behaviour does *not* involve intention.


That's not the point.   The point is whether the implementor thinks
*at all*.    The issue is not whether thinking produces opinion A
or opinion B, but whether thinking takes place, period.


Since humans are part of nature, are not all human actions "natural".

Or perhaps you're going to throw in a definition of "natural" that
will allow us to describe some actions as "natural" and some as 
"not natural".   If so, what is the definition?



Sure they do, as multiple posters have show you.   Sharks, for example,
eat wounded sharks.   I've personally seen cats eat their newborn.

Are you in some kind of denial?   People give you example after example,
and you go off the air for a week, and then pop up claiming that it 
never happened.    It's very strange.


See what I mean.   Here we go again.   What do we have to do: write
up a tailor-made FAQ just for Mr Schneider?