Robert Adamant - go to this post

Like there's no way you're saying anything meaningful about morality to say that one specific framework is suspicious on the grounds that it was made by an animal.
Perhaps if you were to criticize a broader or more established system of morality greater discussion could be had.

Why should a system of morality devised by an animal be taken into acceptance? Indeed, one of the distinctions between man and beast is morality. Hence, animals cannot, by virtue of definition, formulate morality. Therefore, if you are an animal, anything you put forth which you call morality is not, in fact, morality. This seems rather easy to grasp upon cursory examination of this conversation.