Thank you. That's settled, then.But until you can provide a rational counter-argument I'll continue to consider my morality inherent.
Now we may return to the original question of the thread and turn our backs to ethics, I think.
The question of whether I belive in animals havin souls or not, I can only aswer with: 'I generally do not believe in such a thing as a soul'
I think that neither humans nor animals do have a soul.
The reasons für this conviction:
1) All decisions, actions and feelings a human or an animal is able to make or feel may be described biochemiacally without ever needing a soul.
2) The brain works by interactions of neurons. We may slow them down or accelerate them with drugs and even change the personality of people by medication or operations.
3) In all these biochemical reactions in our body and brain there is no need for a soul. They can be carried out without a soul in petri dishes and glass tubes.
4) I never came across any evidence for the existence of a soul.
5) If humans had a soul, animals should have a soul, too, because they are not that different from humans. Chimps, for example are so closely realted to humans, that it would be unlogical to state that humans do have a soul whereas chimps do not. But if chimps do had a soul, then gorillas would have a soul, too. And by continuing this game we would come to the dog, which should have a soul, the cows, chicken, and so on. Until we'd have to state that even Earthworms, mosquitos, zebrafishes and unicellular Organisms have a soul. There is no borderline. No frontier in the animal kingdom, where this would stop. And if we go down to unicellular organisms, the plants (which are quite more complex) should be thought of having souls, too.
Thus, if humans are thought of having a soul, then every living thing on earth should have one, too.
I know that with my opinion I offend all people that believe in any sort of god, rebirth or afterlife. But for me, the evidence is too hard against souls.