Quiz- Budiansky, Peterson article and Midgley

In the article Still Red in Tooth and Claw, Budiansky argues against Peterson saying that animals do not have morality or a sense of emotion and that only humans have the ability to decipher between what is right and wrong and to act on emotions with a higher purpose. The main example that Budiansky uses is the gorilla who heroically saved the boy. Budiansky is very skeptical of Peterson's thinking that the gorilla acting to rescue the boy was the result of higher thinking. Budiansky retorts that Peterson often deflates human cognition to even the playing field between animals and humans. Budiansky further attacks Peterson's attempts at justifying the gorilla as acting in a morally higher manner by pointing out several studies that have been done proving that there are phenomenal differences between human and non-human minds in the area of conceptual reasoning. Therefore, Budiansky concludes that the gorilla taking the boy to safety was nothing more than a dog playing fetch. No emotional or moral reasoning was placed into this action.
Midgley believes that those who anthropomorphize are not necessarily questioning the existence of animals, but instead is examining the way in which we perceive them in the right way. Migdley points out the skeptical argument against anthropomorphizing saying that our idea of an animal is made up of elements drawn from human life. However, animals aren't humans and therefore that idea is only a "mirror" and tells us nothing about animals. Midgley also points out the fact that we cannot truly know what animals are thinking and they cannot know what we are thinking. So, I think Midgley would be very skeptical of Peterson's argument that the gorilla was undoubtably a case that animals have the ability to think morally and with a higher emotional purpose. I think that she would want us to focus on the question of since we cannot truly know the logic of animals and since they can never truly know ours, is it our place to put on them characteristics of our human ways of thinking so that we can better relate to them or concieve meanings for the things that animals do?