If we are refusing to apply good and evil to animals because they were never part of the human social contract, then we also cannot apply good and evil to autistic individuals or the mentally unstable, because they are not fully capable of engaging in the social contract either.
On a side note another thing that people say that is inaccurate:
"Animals can't be good or evil"
Human morality typically judges based on pro-social and anti-social behaviors. In this regard many animals are and have historically been good and evil based on their behaviors.
TL:DR OP is 50% correct
*puts on thinking hat*
I think animals do have a concept of consent. The problem is the inherent power imbalance between humans and animals leading to abuse
Not recognizing that power imbalances are the source of abuse is the root cause of rape culture
Yet you still see this "x can't consent" argument get used for things that do not involve complicated forms of consent
Dog doesn't want to eat the food you bought it? Let it starve.
Kid doesn't want to clean up their room? Hit them.
TL:DR OP is 50% correct
*puts on thinking hat*
I think animals do have a concept of consent. The problem is the inherent power imbalance between humans and animals leading to abuse
Not recognizing that power imbalances are the source of abuse is the root cause of rape culture
This is still an important distinction because simply writing of "x cannot consent because it doesn't understand consent" is reductive and inevitably spills over into other aspects of consent
A child should give or reject medical consent, even though they can't sexually consent
@scurryhare I remember getting into arguments about some people "not being ready" for relationships when I was 18
I started dating someone who was very toxic after they changed my mind and promised it would be ok.
It took 7 years to learn to be myself again