This is NOTa theological question.

In terms of the observable world, the things that we can measure using our five senses, are morality and ethics strictly human concepts? Do animals (primates) exhibit moral or ethical behavior?

To answer this question we must first define a few terms. Following are the descriptive definitions moral, morality and ethics from the Merriam-Webster dictionary.

1. of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior
2. probable though not proved : virtual
3. perceptual or psychological rather than tangible or practical in nature or effect

1. a moral discourse, statement, or lesson
2. a doctrine or system of moral conduct
3. conformity to ideals of right human conduct

1. the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation
2. a set of moral principles : a theory or system of moral values

The problem here is that ‘morality’ has more than just a descriptive definition. It also has a normative definition. From
When “morality” is used in its universal normative sense, it need not have either of the two formal features that are essential to moralities referred to by the original descriptive sense: that it be a code of conduct that is put forward by a society and that it be accepted as a guide to behavior by the members of that society. Indeed, it is possible that “morality” in the normative sense has never been put forward by any particular society, by any group at all, or even by any individual that holds that moral rules should never be violated for non-moral reasons. “Morality” is thus an ambiguous word; the two essential formal features cited above, which are present in everything that is referred to by the original descriptive sense may not be present when “morality” is used in its normative sense. The only feature that the descriptive and normative senses of “morality” have in common is that they refer to guides to behavior that involve, at least in part, avoiding and preventing harm to some others.

Those who hold that that there is a universal code of conduct that all rational persons, under plausible specified conditions, would put forward for governing the behavior of all moral agents do not claim that any actual society has or has ever had such a guide to conduct. However, “Natural law” theories of morality claim that any rational person in any society, even one that has a defective morality, can know the general kinds of actions that morality prohibits, requires, discourages, encourages, and allows.

In the secular version of natural law theories, such as that put forward by Hobbes, natural reason is sufficient to allow all rational persons to know what morality prohibits, requires, etc. Natural law theorists also claim that morality applies to all of rational persons, not only those now living, but also those who lived in the past. These are not empirical claims about morality; they are claims about what is essential to morality, or about what is meant by “morality” when it is used normatively.

I have highlighted several words and concepts above. Many of the highlighted words and concepts are unique to a sentient being which can convey the ability to conceptualize via spoken or written communication. Among all the species on earth, human beings are unique in their ability to communicate very complex, and often abstract spoken and written conceptualizations.

1. something conceived in the mind : thought, notion
2. an abstract or generic idea generalized from particular instances

Conceptualize: to form a concept of; especially: to interpret conceptually

Although primates demonstrate compassion toward other members of their troop, they have never been witnessed to communicate their intent. More importantly, unlike human beings (with a fully functional amygdala), primates do not demonstrate the concept of, that is they do not articulate, not doing what they ought to do.

Human morality and ethics are unique precisely because we are able to articulate intent. We are also unique in our propensity to express our intent, only to later violate that intent. Some would describe such a deliberate act as a violation of our conscience. Although primates may have a conscience, they are unable to express intent, and therefore unable to express any violation of conscience.

Human beings are unique in our ability to articulate what we ought to do.