Replies

Why is that? Gorillas are not human beings, nor are Chimpanzees. Since they are not human beings, they do not get to participate in human affairs.

You'd probably not survive too well dumped into the Gorillas' environment, either, with no tools or clothing. In that regard, Gorillas are better adapted to their environment than humans. Gorillas, on the other hand, would not do well participating in human activities that require our special adaptations, like intelligence.

Arm wrestle a chimp. You will lose. That means that chimps are superior to humans in arm strength. Challence a chimp to a game of chess, however, and the chimp will lose, even if you are novice player. Humans are superior to chimps at board games.

Again, we're not better than other apes...we're just different.

Why is that? Gorillas are not human beings, nor are Chimpanzees. Since they are not human beings, they do not get to participate in human affairs. [. . .] Again, we're not better than other apes...we're just different.

Okay, now we are getting into a philosophical discussion that cannot be resolved in this thread. I understand that you are a non-evangelical atheist, so you must understand that "better" will mean something different to those of us that believe that man is made in the image and likeness of the Creator (regardless of the mechanism the Creator used to get us there).

This question opens up a Pandora's box of other questions. The line could be drawn to lock out people of different races or ethnicities and certainly those who have significant disabilities (e.g. Downs and autism). The original Social Darwinists of the 19th Cantury share that point of view. Or, you can push it the other way, saying that we are more like the chimps than different.

If human beings are moral agents, and animals are NOT moral agents, then yes, of course we can say that we are better than the apes. If you are a materialist, subscribing to a purely mechanistic view of the universe, your approach isn't much different than Marx's, even if your conclusions are. It IS much different than most of us on FR. You have been a regular presence for a long time, and help keep those of us who disagree sharp. I do wonder what you find in common with most of us.

"You'd probably not survive too well dumped into the Gorillas' environment, either, with no tools or clothing. In that regard, Gorillas are better adapted to their environment than humans. Gorillas, on the other hand, would not do well participating in human activities that require our special adaptations, like intelligence."

Their environment? Didn't "early man" live in the same environment as gorillas? NYC did not exist 10 million years ago. And you can't say "early man" built cities because they were social and apes were not. If the environment was the same, skills needed to survive were the same, and all have social behavior then why the vast difference in the evolutionary process?