Humans are superior to all non-human animals.

OutlineI. IntroII. Explanation of why humans are equal to animalsIII. SummaryIV. LinksI. IntroNon-human animals vary in intelligence, size, strength, and sensory organs. Humans are not the strongest. There are many animals which are vastly superior in strength to humans. The same goes for size. Humans lack the antenna of insects. Fish are better swimmers than humans. Mice can fit through smaller holes than humans. Furthermore, many animals have whiskers which humans lack. I could go on, but I think I've made my point. Almost any trait a human has, another animal can perform better. Not only that, but many animals can perform actions that humans cannot at all or have sensory organs which human lack like whiskers and antenna. Finally, humans cannot fly without tools. II. Explanation of why humans are equal to animalsWhat do humans have going for them? Intelligence? Maybe, but since some non-human apes, dolphins, and elephants can pass the mirror test of sentience the difference in intelligence is small. "Elephants possess the highly cerebral ability to recognize their own jumbo reflections in mirrors, scientists have found. "[1] What humans really have is a combination of traits that have allowed them to conquer the world. What has allowed humans to conqueror the world then? A combination of intelligence, flexibility, and cooperation, with some luck. Think of chimpanzees, if you put five hundred in a confined area like an airplane, football stadium, etc. There would be chaos. Yet, take bees and ants they cooperate better than us, but lack the intelligence and flexibility that humans have. Many people use the apex predator idea or that humans are at the top of the food chain, therefore all beneath us are merely tools. Yet, how you explain cannibalism? Are cannibalistic tribes superior to non? Are vegetarians inferior to omnivores? How about animals that eat humans like great white sharks, polar bears, and large felines? Humans being at the top of the food chain is insufficient for humans to claim superiority. How about we are more powerful? This is a might makes right or ethical egoism argument. This is a poor choice when it comes to human on human conflict. By this standard slavery is morally sound. "Ethical egoism claims that it is necessary and sufficient for an action to be morally right that it maximize one's self-interest."[2]. While certainly there would be no qualms about the human enslavement of animals under ethical egoism, there would also be none for humans enslaving other humans. Very few people will agree to this moral standard. Now I've finished taking a preemptive strike against the two most common arguments on why humans feel they are justified to treat animals as inferior. Now I will explain why humans must be considered equal to animals. Any moral philosophy that that states humans are superior due to humans being on the top of the food chain or conquering the plant falls into a might makes right or ethical egoism argument. All that's left is to make an exception for animals. Everyone is entitled to rights, except animals. This is called a double standard. The problem is once a double standard is created, this paves the way for more double standards. Just as ethical egoism allows for slavery of animals, egoism allows for slavery of humans. By creating a double standard disfavoring animals, additional double standards can be created for human minorities. Everyone receives rights except, animals, minority group A, B, and C. This is called discrimination. I contend that humans and animals must be seen as equals to avoid double standards and discrimination. III. Summary In summary, non-human animals have many traits that are superior to humans with the exception of intelligence. Yet, no single trait allowed humans to conqueror the world. Humans needed a combination of intelligence, flexibility, and intelligence. Humans being the apex predator is faulty due to cannibalism. Might makes rights and ethical egoism argument allow for slavery of other humans. Finally, making an exception for animals leaves a dangerous precedence of a double standard, paving the way for diminishing of minority rights. There can be only one conclusion, that animals and humans must be treated as equals.IV. Links1. http://www.nature.com...2. http://plato.stanford.edu...