Humans may be unique and superior — and that is irrelevant

@article{Paez2019HumansMB,
  title={Humans may be unique and superior — and that is irrelevant},
  author={Eze Paez},
  journal={Animal Sentience},
  year={2019}
}
  • Eze Paez
  • Published 2019
  • Philosophy
  • Animal Sentience
Chapman & Huffman argue that, because humans are neither unique nor superior to the other animals, cruelty to animals is not justified. Though I agree with their conclusion, I do not think their argument works. Many human beings do have some capacities that animals do not have and are greater in some respects, in the sense of having superior abilities. It is a better argument to deny that any of that is morally relevant. Sentience suffices for moral consideration, and for deriving a moral duty… 
3 Citations

Scepticism about moral superiority

: Chapman & Huffman suggest that we might change people’s behavior toward animals by resisting an argument that because humans are intellectually superior to animals, they are also morally superior

Avicenna on Animal Goods

  • B. Somma
  • Philosophy
    Journal of Islamic Ethics
  • 2021
Investigating historical sources for positions on animals and animal ethics within philosophy of the Islamic world is a profound challenge, given the quantity and diversity of possible source texts.

Refining thoughts about human/nonhuman differences

Our commentators come from many fields and disciplines and express highly divergent views, illustrating broad interest in the question. From the breadth of comments, we have identified two recurring

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 12 REFERENCES

Why do we want to think humans are different

One harmful consequence of creating categories where one group is unique and superior to others is that it justifies committing negative, often atrocious, acts on the members of the inferior group.

Human and nonhuman animals: Equals in uniqueness

TLDR
It is suggested that humans are unique with regard to cognitive fluidity, although the same conclusions can be reached via another argument based on human uniqueness.

Animal ethics goes wild: the problem of wild animal suffering and intervention in nature

In this thesis I claim that, on the assumption that we have reasons to assist other individuals in need, there are decisive reasons to intervene in nature to prevent or reduce the harms wild animals

The scope of the argument from species overlap

The argument from species overlap has been widely used in the literature on animal ethics and speciesism. However, there has been much confusion regarding what the argument proves and what it does

Moral Considerability and the Argument from Relevance

The argument from relevance expresses an intuition that, although shared by many applied ethicists, has not been analyzed and systematized in the form of a clear argument thus far. This paper does

The Importance of Wild-Animal Suffering

TLDR
It is suggested that suffering plausibly dominates happiness in nature and that the authors' descendants think twice before spreading ecosystems to areas where they do not yet exist.

Towards welfare biology: Evolutionary economics of animal consciousness and suffering

Welfare biology is the study of living things and their environment with respect to their welfare (defined as net happiness, or enjoyment minus suffering). Despite difficulties of ascertaining and

Debunking the idyllic view of natural processes:: population dynamics and suffering in the wild

espanolSe cree de manera comun que la etica animal supone el respeto por los procesos naturales, debido a que en la naturaleza los animales no humanos son capaces de vivir vidas relativamente faciles

The Personhood View and the Argument from Marginal Cases

Can they suffer