Chapman & Huffman make use of observations and studies that show how humans may not be as unique in our behaviour and cognition as previously thought. I wholeheartedly agree that our uniqueness might be small and that if it exists, it should not give our species any right to act cruelly towards other animals. However, this kind of logic can be problematic. I present a few of the issues in this commentary
Animal rights philosophers have traditionally accepted the claim that human beings are unique, but r...
Chapman & Huffman’s moral analysis fails to prove that the exploitation of animals or the environmen...
We should treat sentient nonhuman animals as worthy of moral consideration, not because we share an ...
Chapman & Huffman attack the idea that humans are unique and therefore superior to nonhuman beings. ...
This commentary focuses on the question of the uniqueness of humans in comparison to other species a...
This commentary discusses various shortcomings in Chapman & Huffman’s (2018) denial of differences b...
Chapman & Huffman reject the notion that human beings are very different from other animals. The goa...
Chapman & Huffman suggest that to correct our thinking about the supposed superiority of humans over...
Chapman & Huffman have highlighted observations of animals performing, in nature, complex behaviour ...
Chapman & Huffman (C & H) contend that, as with all biological traits, there is evolutionary continu...
Current philosophical orthodoxy has it that the human mind is set apart from the minds of other anim...
Human uniqueness and its evolutionary basis are explored through a comparison between humans and our...
Chapman & Huffman (C&H) offer a theory of why we humans want to believe that we are different: to ju...
Chapman & Huffman argue that the cognitive differences between humans and nonhuman animals do not ma...
We share Chapman & Huffman’s views on the importance of promoting animal welfare and conservation. W...
Animal rights philosophers have traditionally accepted the claim that human beings are unique, but r...
Chapman & Huffman’s moral analysis fails to prove that the exploitation of animals or the environmen...
We should treat sentient nonhuman animals as worthy of moral consideration, not because we share an ...
Chapman & Huffman attack the idea that humans are unique and therefore superior to nonhuman beings. ...
This commentary focuses on the question of the uniqueness of humans in comparison to other species a...
This commentary discusses various shortcomings in Chapman & Huffman’s (2018) denial of differences b...
Chapman & Huffman reject the notion that human beings are very different from other animals. The goa...
Chapman & Huffman suggest that to correct our thinking about the supposed superiority of humans over...
Chapman & Huffman have highlighted observations of animals performing, in nature, complex behaviour ...
Chapman & Huffman (C & H) contend that, as with all biological traits, there is evolutionary continu...
Current philosophical orthodoxy has it that the human mind is set apart from the minds of other anim...
Human uniqueness and its evolutionary basis are explored through a comparison between humans and our...
Chapman & Huffman (C&H) offer a theory of why we humans want to believe that we are different: to ju...
Chapman & Huffman argue that the cognitive differences between humans and nonhuman animals do not ma...
We share Chapman & Huffman’s views on the importance of promoting animal welfare and conservation. W...
Animal rights philosophers have traditionally accepted the claim that human beings are unique, but r...
Chapman & Huffman’s moral analysis fails to prove that the exploitation of animals or the environmen...
We should treat sentient nonhuman animals as worthy of moral consideration, not because we share an ...