You feel like you choose compassion but you assume animals do not choose because they don’t have language to express their considerations. You’re jumping the gun on choice and free will (existing at all, firstly) being exclusively something humans have been endowed with by their creator.

All the glowy, drippy, lovey, drug feelings you’re expressing might feel so intuitively, deeply true, but my guess is you’re being convinced by the human brain’s outrageously impressive ability to rationalize via language just about anything it wants in order to feel less agitated. Religion in a sense.

> Of course animals exhibit teamwork, but they do not have a free will that can choose compassion in the face of its opposite, selfishness.

No matter how confidently you state this, no matter how patronizing of a reply you make to someone who doesn't share your belief, you cannot know this as fact. A choice to believe this is not based on evidence, but faith (or for some, "hope" that they weren't wrong all along).

But as long as you're treating creation right (humans, animals, and ecosystems) then go with peace, brother (or sister).

My 1 year old can't write equations on a chalkboard. Despite that, she shows compassion and what if consider abstract thought.

The issue that I think you're highlighting is that we can't map our measures of intelligence directly on to other animals. Animals can't write, so it wouldn't make sense to use a measure that requires writing when evaluating a fox or squirrel.