Declawing Cats

[Anomalocaris]

Right or wrong is a human concept, so it can only have any effect over the long run if enough humans have skin in its game.  Ultimately, no concepts of right or wrong, however strongly felt by some at some time, can be sustained and accepted over long periods unless it can plausibly be represented as being beneficial or harmful to humanity.

So What is right or wrong is less salient than why there should be right or wrong.  Why there should be right and wrong is determined by benefit to humanity.

Is it, though? Certain animals have compassion and potentially a concept of right and wrong. It’s my belief that we think we are more important than we are. If we’re going to have morals, certainly inflicting pain and suffering on weaker creatures for anything short of survival should be prohibited.

It certainly seems to be.  Animals may have affinity and revulsions, but do the adopt and circulate rules of right and wrong?

Importance is value judgement without a standard. 

We’ve had morals during all the time when inflicting pain and suffering on weaker creatures were not prohibited.  So having morals were clearly not incompatible with inflicting pain and suffering on weaker creatures.   What you would like to do is to adjust morality until such is generally prohibited.   What, besides momentary impulse, would making this adjustment acceptable to enough people, and what would make this acceptability last?