Humans are superior — by human standards
Chapman & Huffman argue that humans are neither unique nor superior to other animals. I believe they are right in claiming that we are no more unique than any other species, but wrong in assuming that this means we cannot be ranked as superior. I show how this need not undermine the central aim...
| Autor: | |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2019 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia |
| Repositorio: | e-spacio (DSpace). Repositorio Institucional de la UNED |
| Idioma: | inglés |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:dnet:e-spacio(ds_::a5a8367a8c698e8b49c8defb15b07e2f |
| Acceso en línea: | https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14468/32696 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | 11 Lógica 72 Filosofía |
| Sumario: | Chapman & Huffman argue that humans are neither unique nor superior to other animals. I believe they are right in claiming that we are no more unique than any other species, but wrong in assuming that this means we cannot be ranked as superior. I show how this need not undermine the central aim of their target article, for superiority can only be measured with respect to a certain standard, and it’s only by using anthropocentric standards that we can be plausibly regarded as superior. Other — perhaps more neutral — standards yield different results. |
|---|