OK, where to start?

Of course, it will come as no surprise that I disagree with many things written by John here. Just as DG has her 'PeTA radar on' all the time, I have my "Anthropocentric radar" myself.

John's position re-affirms my stance against supernaturalism in general, and 'spirituality' in particular, as it is, in almost all cases, deeply anthropocentric (and as I see it, anthropocentrism can only lead to injustice.)

I won't repeat my arguments shared in the other thread, but it specially annoys me when I'm confronted with anthropocentric views that are based on faith-conjectures and/or based on things which existence is not only "unproven", but actually lacking any evidence whatsoever (such as this thing some call 'spirit'.)

I agree that humans have different thinking abilities. Of course, crows also have different thinking abilities. And pigs, and pigeons, and fishes, et cetera. Difference is simply an observation, and is an obvious and essential part of every single species.

I was reading in another forum (scientific forum) a thread someone started asking about this apparently 'super-special' quality of humans, and one guy was arguing that in fact, humans were different from all other animals, and, drawing from this, he was trying to imply that there had to be some 'interference' to evolution (yes, creationist wishful thinking again.)

I had to ask him whether he could name me one, or, to be more accurate, TWO species that are NOT unique. He never responded back. No surprise! If species X is not species Y then of course they are different, and of course, both of them are unique.

So what can we draw from the fact that species X is 'unique'? I'd say, basically nothing.

It's important to note, though, that when someone talks about 'equality', he/she most probably isn't literally talking about individual X being equal in all respects with individual Y. After all, as a matter of fact, there are no 2 'equal' humans.
Yet we talk about 'equality' among humans.

I understand that this is it because we are talking about a moral issue, rather than a literal one, where every human counts as one, and none more or less than one. In that sense we are 'equal'. And in that sense I argue that all sentient beings are 'equal'.

Also, equality is not a concept that admits 'degrees'. You are either equal or you are not! The sentence "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others" doesn't make any logical sense.

John, you say that "most (if not all) animals do put their species first" and I completely agree. I don't think I've met human animals who DON'T put their species first. Have you?

I've met some strict vegetarians (i.e. following a vegan diet) who don't oppose vivisection for what they see as a "sadly necessary practice for the well being of humans". Talking about putting one's own species first?

Then we have those humans who hunt for sport, those who kill insects for amusement or because they are 'annoying', those who enslave, exploit and kill other animals to eat their flesh and sexual secretions (the VAST majority of humans, may I add!) just because they taste good, et cetera.

Enough for humans 'not putting our species first'.

I have no doubts that humans can feel empathy for certain other animals, even if they still put their own species first. But is this 'uniquely' human?
I argue that it is not!!

Let's not talk about the obvious empathy we see from dogs and cats towards humans, and the countless stories about dogs or cats who risk their own life to save humans from danger.

When I was a little kid, I lived with Kitty (female cat) and Lassie (female dog). They were very close friends! Kitty got pregnant and a few days after she gave birth she stopped taking care of the little fellas... so Lassie took care of them! My mother told me that she even 'breastfed' them! Don't even ask me how she could produce milk without giving birth. Strange things happen!

Altruistic behavior performed by individuals from one species helping others from other species has been documented. Even friendship has been. Cooperation between, not only individuals, but entire groups of different species too. If anyone is interested I think I can dig some links out and post here.

Are we going to believe that these actions are just 'instinct', no real sign of empathy? That "animals" are 'hard-wired', or worse still, that they had some 'wire' problems and that's why they act like that sometimes? Yet, on the other hand, when humans do the same it's because we are so special, and because we have a 'spirit'?

Finally, survival of the fittest applies to all living entities on this planet (although random chance -accidents- also play a role... like me dying because someone chose to drive his car drunk). However, 'fitness', in an evolutionary sense, doesn't necessarily mean individual capacity and competition; it might very well mean the ability to work in groups and cooperate.

So why not do the latter?

Cheers!

Samuel.

PS: I don't like the way that closing commentary presents the issue. It basically says that humans should be charitable towards to other animals, instead of being fair and just with them. And of course, the whole thing is fairly anthropocentric. Well, it is a welfarist message, after all. 'nuff disagreement for this post.