The Moral Worth of Animals
Are humans morally superior to animals? I think not, it isn't exactly egalitarian, either, but close.
Its a confusing issue that can be reframed in different ways. Humans need morals, but animals don't. They have instincts. It is of necessity that each person commit to being better than animals. We need morals when our instincts are destructive, inefficient, cause problems unless we just accept that destruction and that instinct; but in that case we throw away whatever morals provide us with. That is unacceptable.
Its not a bad article. In defense of some of orthodoxy Aristotle didn't know as much as we do, today, about the differences between instincts and ideas. He didn't know how animals behaved like they did and how we were different, so he had to somehow propose what that difference was. He also wanted to inspire people to be better than animals. That still has some value today. We still do not know everything and still must account for the difference, and we must hold people to a better standard than that of animals.
I didn't think the argument in the beginning of the article to had a tight logical construction, though it made some points. For example "
I don’t think my experience is uncommon since most people believe that animals can be wronged. If something can be wronged, then it has moral worth. So, it’s uncontroversial that non-human animals have moral worth." Is assuming too much about most people and its conclusion about this being uncontroversial. People don't always frame the question the same way. It makes the point that animals can be wronged. Yes, I agree that they can be wronged. Most of them cannot do any wrong or cannot easily be made aware of it, unlike us. That awareness is the only chance we have of not destroying the entire planet.
"
Since it seems we can’t explain why humans are morally superior then perhaps we aren’t." No, but we must be. There is no option, because if we aren't then we are destructive. There is no middle ground for us.
