An animal caught in the jaws of a predator feels pain, too. So what? There is no morality associated with it. The victim presumably does not want to be devoured either. What does the victim's desire not to be devoured have to do with morality? You are assuming a dignity for human animals not yet in evidence.
The agreement of the Nazis that they ought to exterminate the Jews did not justify the Holocaust. It was not a true agreement, since if you consulted the Nazis and asked how they would like to be imprisoned, starved, tortured, and experimented upon they would have said no thanks.
I am asking for an account of the morality that you are assuming, given the premise of mere physical epiphenomena in a purposeless universe of necessity or chance. How does an impersonal universe produce something, anything, "wrong" with itself? Where does the expectation come from that it ought to be something else? You can't explain the origin of morality by positing a prior moral rule. Where does the prior moral rule come from that one should treat others as one would like to be treated?
Like the Nazis they are out of line because they are placing a different standard of moral treatment upon others than they would place upon themselves, and there is no rational reason to do this and every rational reason not to.
Again, it won't do to explain morality simply by assuming the very thing in question; namely, that an impersonal universe somehow generated a standard of incumbency independent of itself. How could it? How can the universe generate something that is independent of itself?
Beside that is the simple observation that in the natural world (which is all there is, under the premise) there doesn't seem to be any such obligation. Animals survive and prosper precisely by treating others the way they do not want to be treated. Sometimes humans animals do, too. Look at how Bill Clinton has prospered, for example. One could argue that his actions have been very rational, if getting what one wants is the criteria. Regardless, in a Darwinian world of chance or necessity presumably the ones that do not survive and prosper are functioning just as normally as the ones that do. So what? Why do you expect the universe ought to be "rational" , even-handed, or "fair"?
Cordially,
Because the two are not moral agents and have no understanding of the other nor themselves. People are different. We are conscious of ourselves, and we are conscious of others as individuals like ourselves.
Nevertheless I think morality demands we treat lesser animals humanely.
How does an impersonal universe produce something, anything, "wrong" with itself?
You're assuming the universe is producing this. The universe is not. People are producing this, by being conscious of themselves and others and by being social beings.
Where does the prior moral rule come from that one should treat others as one would like to be treated?
I can't believe I have to explain the Golden Rule to Christians. :-D
I'll try to explain this again.
You see morality is something that emerges from the human species as we become more intelligent and more socially adept (our emotions become more complex). The universe goes on in the same mechanical way it always has. Moral laws do not apply to animals because they do not have the same level of understanding as ourselves. However, we can start to see some level of morality emerging in the more intelligent social animals, such as chimpanzees, where we see altruism, reciprocity, and revenge (which comes from an animal's realizing it has been wronged, which is the first step in developing morality).
You see morality as something that comes from outside the human species, I see it as emerging from inside.