I can summarize your answer that apart from humans, it is impossible to discuss the intent of the other ranks other than human.
I don't know that it's impossible, but it's difficult because it requires a further stretch of the imagination to interpolate/analyze the animal's intentions and how its mind works.
We also can't really know what another human's intentions are unless they tell us, and even then they might be lying. Yet we can look at the details of some event and extrapolate/interpolate/analytically-assess intent.
We can distinguish, for example, between someone who steals food because they are hungry and someone who steals food because they don't want to pay for it, for example if the person gets caught and we find that they have plenty of money to pay for the food.
We still can't know whether they didn't want to pay because they were saving their money for some reason, or because they were angry that the price of the food had gone up and so they felt entitled to retaliate against the seller by not paying. Intentions can be subtle, complex, and wholly or partially sub-conscious; so even an honest confession doesn't necessarily reveal the true intentions that were going on at the moment an act was committed.
What exactly constitutes evil intentions in humans, though? Let's say a person is just very sadistic and tortures others for their own amusement without any reason/purpose beside their own pursuit of sadistic pleasure. Even though we can say this is evil, can we say that it isn't a natural extension of the egotism/hedonism that causes people to prioritize and pursue their own pleasure and block empathy for others where those others pose a threat to the pleasure-seeking? On the one hand, it is evil, but on the other hand they are driven by a natural instinct that has them sub-consciously convinced that anyone who obstructs their pursuit of pleasure is threatening their survival. Hypothetically their mind is capable of becoming aware (through reflection) that their survival is not actually in danger and so they can choose to sacrifice pleasure in favor of a greater good, such as protecting another person from harm/annoyance; but it takes a shift of awareness to realize that, so in the moment they are acting on instinct, much like an animal would.
So would you say that a human is evil when they are capable of acting on reason instead of instinct but they shirk the responsibility to do so; or would you say that no one acts irresponsibly except because they are stuck in a pre-moral state at the moment they make the bad choice/action?
I think religion deals with this issue well by recognizing that temptation leads us into evil, and that we become 'captive' to evil forces until we get delivered somehow and regain our sanity.
But then the question is whether animals are also evil when they fall to temptation, because they don't have the capacity to reason that they should resist temptation the way humans do, as far as I know. So you can train an animal to resist temptation, but you can't teach it why it is good to resist temptation and bad to surrender to it, so that it reasons for itself when to avoid certain actions and/or give in to desires/appetite/fear/aggression/etc.