How did you go from "bears have no moral responsibility" to "it's okay to shoot bears"?
Bears don't have a responsibility towards us: they're bears, they don't realize it's wrong to eat hikers. And accordingly, we don't have a responsibility towards bears: If there's a bear that's eating hikers, we don't try to have a conversation with it, we shoot it and move on.
That's nonsense. A baby doesn't know right from wrong, but parents are obliged to care for it. Just because a bear doesn't have responsibility doesn't mean we can shoot it wily-nily, there has to be some justification such as in the example you mention. And commutativity is a property of operations, you probably meant that moral responsibility is a symmetric relation.
And metaphor need not hew closely to semantics, but having is, linguistically, a ditransitive operation-- technically stative, but the difference isn't important here. I may have responsibility, and I may have responsibility toward you. Responsibility may commutatively have me toward you, if that made sense, or you might commutatively have responsibility toward me, which is the more sensical. In any event, the metaphor is clear.
have is actually a transitive word, not ditransitive. An example of the latter is give: A gives B to C. I disagree that there's metaphor here, commutativity is a very technical term and it relates to operations such as addition. So in fact I do think it's relevant that have is stative, because this implies it's not an operation. When speaking of ethical matters it is simply more common to use words like symmetry and reciprocity.
The point about whether it goes both ways is a matter of opinion I think. I feel that humans have an obligation to treat animals well, not necessarily because of how they would feel or their obligations to us, but because it makes humans look bad not to. Kind of like how a gentleman is supposed to be polite regardless of the situation.
Notice that we only shoot bears that are actually eating hikers, even though no bear actually have moral responsibility toward us; that's because we as a society do feel moral responsibility towards bears (and animals in general), and therefore avoid shooting them except when required.
We certainly don't feel anywhere near the same moral responsibility towards animals as we do towards people, but we feel some. And as society becomes less religious, that'll tend to increase.
Not true. Bears are a popular animal to hunt in every state in the US that has them.
That said, there are various animals which we do not hunt; bears were just the given example.
[1]http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10363_10856_57530_5...
Instead, I would argue that this is a function of urbanization and removal of a connection between humans and animals. Animals, which provide meat, eggs, and milk are removed as the providers as such and instead these things come from the grocery store. Because of this disconnect, animals undergo a process of anthropomorphism, which can clearly be seen in the form of lolcatz.
And you point out as evidence of the disconnect between the urban people and farm animals, by giving the example of the anthropomorphism of cats, which happen to be one of the few animals that actually live with people in urban environments? I can't even comprehend such logic.
[1]: http://www.animalsandsociety.org/assets/library/745_s3.pdf
As a member of a rural community your very livelihood is dependent on the relationship of people with animals. The doctor, the car dealer, etc all are connected to this. Doesn't it make more sense that this would have a bigger impact on how you view animal rights than what religion you are? It just so happens that rural people are overwhelmingly more religious, all I'm saying is they failed to account for a very important variable.
Rural people tend to view all animals as a resource, this includes cats as they are a very effective "mouser" or animal that kills mice. The same with dogs, as protectors of self and property. I'm willing to bet that Lolcats are overwhelmingly produced by urban folk, because they have lost this relationship with animals. My anecdotal evidence is that rural folks, and men in particular, don't find anything about lolcats funny at all. This is explained by their connection to cats as tools for removing rodents, not their religious views.
oh dear. this is scary