Santa Monica, California, USA
ESS: RE: "But there are more judgements than just "moral", Jim. We judge ability, distance, safety, etc.
Judging ability involves referencing the moral consideration of "fairness." Accurately measuring distance doesn't involve judgement. Estimating distance involves guessing, informed or not, not judgement about whether it is a good distance, bad distance, or indifferent distance. The notion of safety is related to moral distinction. Something, someone, or an action is regarded as safe or unsafe based on moral preconditioning.
I already lost one lengthy, reasoned reply to your position by being dumb enough to write "in the box."
To cut this one short and preserve it, I suggest that God had a great take on the subject: "Judge not, that ye be not judged." A primary moral and exclusively human consideration.
I don't know if this notion plays much of a role in the minds of other animals.
Do other animals with brains experience a level of consciousness of their environment? I think so. Are they self-aware? I don't know for sure, but I suspect that a deer surely hurts on an individual level when somebody shoots it.
RE: "Other animals know and judge good and evil, in that they know and judge something that helps them survive distinct from what endangers, threatens, harms."
Well, I think that's a difficult stretch. An other than human animal's ability to distinguish good-for-me from bad-for-me doesn't mean it views a situation, opportunity, or event as either good or evil in a human sense. "Evil" is the particularly charged word, though I can't buy "good" either.
Last, when the post humanizes animals into a "he" or "him," I think it raises more questions that it answers.