system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: The materialistic world view is not sufficient to establish any set of moral standards for humans.

My view is based on the four logical propositions outlined below: 

1. No one reasonably holds animals to any moral standard
2. This applies to animals of all gradations of  complexity, from ants to chimpanzees.
3. On the materialistic world view, humans are merely very complex animals. 
4. Therefore, on the materialistic world view, no should reasonably hold humans to any moral standard. 

For example, no makes moral judgements about ants killing each other or lion infanticide. There is no gradation of increasing moral standards across the spectrum of animals. What justifies the massive step up in moral standards from the rest of the animal kingdom to Homo Sapiens? 

Is my reasoning wrong on this? Does the materialistic world view provide some logical justification for human moral standards?
gpt
A lot of people take issue with 3.

I take issue with 2.

The world isn't black or white. Everything or nothing. cooperative speices do have moral standards. A animal  that betrays it's group will not be welcomed. 

Humans are more able to understand moral judgment so can have guilt. Would a more perfect creature be more judged? Yes. Can you judge a dog that knows it broke the rules as many think they do. Yes but dar less so.