Like Charles Darwin and George Romanes, I am quite willing to use anecdotal information as a source of knowledge about animal behavior. There are many more people observing nonhuman animals than there are people conducting controlled experiments, and we can thereby learn that behaviors we think are unique to humans are shared by other animals. From a strictly biological point of view, it makes no sense to speak of “human superiority.” One species of animal can be superior to another only in terms of survival and niche occupation. As moral concern for animals increases across the world, claims of human superiority tend to disappear
One harmful consequence of creating categories where one group is unique and superior to others is t...
This commentary discusses various shortcomings in Chapman & Huffman’s (2018) denial of differences b...
Chapman & Huffman’s moral analysis fails to prove that the exploitation of animals or the environmen...
Chapman & Huffman argue that humans are neither unique nor superior to other animals. I believe they...
Chapman & Huffman (C & H) might be taken to argue as follows: Humans may treat animals however they ...
Chapman & Huffman suggest that we might change people’s behavior toward animals by resisting an argu...
Chapman & Huffman reject the notion that human beings are very different from other animals. The goa...
Chapman & Huffman argue that humans inflict cruelty without apparent concern because of their catego...
Chapman & Huffman argue that the cognitive differences between humans and nonhuman animals do not ma...
Humans are obviously superior, in general, to other animals. This is also supported by evolution and...
The hypothesis that humans are superior to non-humans by virtue of higher cognitive powers is often ...
Chapman & Huffman’s target article calls for a reevaluation of claims of human uniqueness and superi...
Chapman & Huffman suggest that to correct our thinking about the supposed superiority of humans over...
Chapman & Huffman (2018) argue that we should not consider humans as unique or superior to other ani...
Chapman & Huffman (C&H) offer a theory of why we humans want to believe that we are different: to ju...
One harmful consequence of creating categories where one group is unique and superior to others is t...
This commentary discusses various shortcomings in Chapman & Huffman’s (2018) denial of differences b...
Chapman & Huffman’s moral analysis fails to prove that the exploitation of animals or the environmen...
Chapman & Huffman argue that humans are neither unique nor superior to other animals. I believe they...
Chapman & Huffman (C & H) might be taken to argue as follows: Humans may treat animals however they ...
Chapman & Huffman suggest that we might change people’s behavior toward animals by resisting an argu...
Chapman & Huffman reject the notion that human beings are very different from other animals. The goa...
Chapman & Huffman argue that humans inflict cruelty without apparent concern because of their catego...
Chapman & Huffman argue that the cognitive differences between humans and nonhuman animals do not ma...
Humans are obviously superior, in general, to other animals. This is also supported by evolution and...
The hypothesis that humans are superior to non-humans by virtue of higher cognitive powers is often ...
Chapman & Huffman’s target article calls for a reevaluation of claims of human uniqueness and superi...
Chapman & Huffman suggest that to correct our thinking about the supposed superiority of humans over...
Chapman & Huffman (2018) argue that we should not consider humans as unique or superior to other ani...
Chapman & Huffman (C&H) offer a theory of why we humans want to believe that we are different: to ju...
One harmful consequence of creating categories where one group is unique and superior to others is t...
This commentary discusses various shortcomings in Chapman & Huffman’s (2018) denial of differences b...
Chapman & Huffman’s moral analysis fails to prove that the exploitation of animals or the environmen...