Hmm, lack of perspective you say? IMHO, the ability to point at cruelty in other animals and find reasonable justification of our own actions (which in magnitude, are not even into the same ballpark of cruelty) has got to count as somewhat vile, and uniquely human, don't you think?
Whether or not humans should be more empathetic or less violent or whatever else, it is absurd to call humans worse than other animals simply because humans happen to be smart and aware.
Or alternatively pigs are terrible animals because they're smarter than average and happy to kill other animals (including humans).
I didn't call the awareness vile. I called using that awareness (subtle difference) to justify actions that are a great many times worse, vile.
But well, if you don't agree, I suppose it doesn't matter.
The only thing you called out about humans being different is that they are capable of noting that other animals behave the same violent ways. So you are basically saying humans are worse because they are observant.
Are any of these things the 'natural' state of humanity? It looks like you only get to that after at least a few thousand years of cultural development as a whole, and two decades plus socialization to adulthood in a person.
I feel like cats certainly would commit genocide if they had the mental capacity to plan for it.
Overall, I think that it is a wrong view that morality exists as an abstract separate from the current social circumstance and any species (even humans) can be measured against that perfect ideal.
I stand by my initial statement that this is utterly lacking in perspective.
Claims like this are utterly lacking perspective. Cats will happily torture smaller animals. Primates hunt each other. Dolphins rape. Humans are animals, yes. In no way are they more disgusting or cruel than others, though.