Chapman & Huffman argue that humans inflict cruelty without apparent concern because of their categorization of the victims as inferior. The supposed inferiority of non-human animals can be argued against on the basis of documentation and analysis of behaviour. Humans continue to inflict cruelty on their own and other species. It is not obvious that a sense of superiority is a necessary aspect of cruel behaviour. Nor is it obvious that further enlightenment regarding the cognitive status of non-humans will diminish cruelty
Chapman & Huffman argue that humans are neither unique nor superior to other animals. I believe they...
It is true that one of the harmful consequences of creating categories where one group is unique and...
I qualify two criticisms made by commentators on Chapman & Huffman’s target article. Responding to t...
Chapman & Huffman argue that humans inflict cruelty without apparent concern because of their catego...
Chapman & Huffman (C & H) might be taken to argue as follows: Humans may treat animals however they ...
Chapman & Huffman (C&H) offer a theory of why we humans want to believe that we are different: to ju...
Humans are obviously superior, in general, to other animals. This is also supported by evolution and...
One harmful consequence of creating categories where one group is unique and superior to others is t...
Like Charles Darwin and George Romanes, I am quite willing to use anecdotal information as a source ...
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...
This commentary discusses various shortcomings in Chapman & Huffman’s (2018) denial of differences b...
Chapman & Huffman argue that the cognitive differences between humans and nonhuman animals do not ma...
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 argue that humans are neither unique nor superior to other animals. I believe they...
It is true that one of the harmful consequences of creating categories where one group is unique and...
I qualify two criticisms made by commentators on Chapman & Huffman’s target article. Responding to t...
Chapman & Huffman argue that humans inflict cruelty without apparent concern because of their catego...
Chapman & Huffman (C & H) might be taken to argue as follows: Humans may treat animals however they ...
Chapman & Huffman (C&H) offer a theory of why we humans want to believe that we are different: to ju...
Humans are obviously superior, in general, to other animals. This is also supported by evolution and...
One harmful consequence of creating categories where one group is unique and superior to others is t...
Like Charles Darwin and George Romanes, I am quite willing to use anecdotal information as a source ...
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...
This commentary discusses various shortcomings in Chapman & Huffman’s (2018) denial of differences b...
Chapman & Huffman argue that the cognitive differences between humans and nonhuman animals do not ma...
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 argue that humans are neither unique nor superior to other animals. I believe they...
It is true that one of the harmful consequences of creating categories where one group is unique and...
I qualify two criticisms made by commentators on Chapman & Huffman’s target article. Responding to t...