Oh good grief. A book reviewer named Justin Moss, discussing a book called Ethics and Animals, completely misstates the definition of human exceptionalism. From the Metapsychology blog:
In the first chapter, Gruen identifies and analyzes a philosophical view she refers to as “human exceptionalism” — the view that human beings are the only beings deserving of ethical concern, and that humans have no ethical responsibilities to non-human animals.
What garbage. Human exceptionalism actually holds quite the opposite, that animals are of ethical concern and that we—as the only duties-bearing creatures in the known universe—have very serious ethical responsibilities toward animals. Hence, animal welfare laws. Hello?
I don’t know if this particular straw man was erected by the author or the reviewer. But knocking one down takes no talent whatsoever.
Of Roots and Adventures
I have lived in Ohio, Michigan, Georgia (twice), Pennsylvania, Alabama (also twice), England, and Idaho. I left…
Our Most Popular Articles of 2025
It’s been a big year for First Things. Our website was completely redesigned, and stories like the…
Our Year in Film & Television—2025
First Things editors and writers share the most memorable films and TV shows they watched this year.…