Chapman & Huffman attack the idea that humans are unique and therefore superior to nonhuman beings. They call on humankind to use their “intellect to change [their] actions.” I am in full accord with their line of thought, which differentiates uniqueness from superiority and enjoins humans to take responsible action. I suggest, however, that humans are unique with regard to cognitive fluidity. The same conclusions can be reached via another argument based on human uniqueness
Animal rights philosophers have traditionally accepted the claim that human beings are unique, but r...
Chapman & Huffman (C & H) contend that, as with all biological traits, there is evolutionary continu...
Chapman & Huffman have highlighted observations of animals performing, in nature, complex behaviour ...
Chapman & Huffman attack the idea that humans are unique and therefore superior to nonhuman beings. ...
Chapman & Huffman argue that humans are neither unique nor superior to other animals. I believe they...
This commentary focuses on the question of the uniqueness of humans in comparison to other species a...
Chapman & Huffman reject the notion that human beings are very different from other animals. The goa...
This commentary discusses various shortcomings in Chapman & Huffman’s (2018) denial of differences b...
We share Chapman & Huffman’s views on the importance of promoting animal welfare and conservation. W...
Chapman & Huffman argue that the cognitive differences between humans and nonhuman animals do not ma...
Chapman & Huffman (2018) argue that we should not consider humans as unique or superior to other ani...
Despite the widespread acceptance of naturalism in many of the human sciences, discussions...
Chapman & Huffman (C&H) offer a theory of why we humans want to believe that we are different: to ju...
We agree with Chapman & Huffman that human capacities are often assumed to be unique — or attempts a...
Chapman & Huffman make use of observations and studies that show how humans may not be as unique in ...
Animal rights philosophers have traditionally accepted the claim that human beings are unique, but r...
Chapman & Huffman (C & H) contend that, as with all biological traits, there is evolutionary continu...
Chapman & Huffman have highlighted observations of animals performing, in nature, complex behaviour ...
Chapman & Huffman attack the idea that humans are unique and therefore superior to nonhuman beings. ...
Chapman & Huffman argue that humans are neither unique nor superior to other animals. I believe they...
This commentary focuses on the question of the uniqueness of humans in comparison to other species a...
Chapman & Huffman reject the notion that human beings are very different from other animals. The goa...
This commentary discusses various shortcomings in Chapman & Huffman’s (2018) denial of differences b...
We share Chapman & Huffman’s views on the importance of promoting animal welfare and conservation. W...
Chapman & Huffman argue that the cognitive differences between humans and nonhuman animals do not ma...
Chapman & Huffman (2018) argue that we should not consider humans as unique or superior to other ani...
Despite the widespread acceptance of naturalism in many of the human sciences, discussions...
Chapman & Huffman (C&H) offer a theory of why we humans want to believe that we are different: to ju...
We agree with Chapman & Huffman that human capacities are often assumed to be unique — or attempts a...
Chapman & Huffman make use of observations and studies that show how humans may not be as unique in ...
Animal rights philosophers have traditionally accepted the claim that human beings are unique, but r...
Chapman & Huffman (C & H) contend that, as with all biological traits, there is evolutionary continu...
Chapman & Huffman have highlighted observations of animals performing, in nature, complex behaviour ...