I'm glad to learn "mish-mash" is innocuous. I'd thought it connotes an unreasoned, unstructured assemblage, put together now by passionate impulse, now by pandochism, more or less synonymous with what the Brits call a "dog's breakfast," and meant as a put-down when used to describe e.g. someone's ethics.

It's no surprise that your cosmology, anthropology and ethics are so radically anthropocentric. This will prove an obstacle to your understanding what's what; and with regard to justice for nonhuman living creatures, it rather puts you on the side of the problem, not the solution. I agree that animals lack a "moral sense" such as humans have, but am not sure that's relevant.

We do disagree on what we mean by "justice." I admit that my use is unusual, and more extensive than that of most, being based on some thoughts of Plato and Plotinus. In Aristotle's "mean"-speak, it's (in part) a refraining from pleonexía, which rather well describes the behavior of healthy animals. (t.b.cont.)