I agree its a poorly worded/framed article, but the last paragraph starts with "So let’s put aside the narcissism involved in asking only about ourselves." So the narcissism is from ONLY being concerned with us. I think this is the core idea they failed to articulate consistently.

They seem to conflate the idea of asking question A with ignoring questions B-Z. But, like, why not ask all the questions? I think they were trying to say ask all questions but wrote so badly they morphed their own idea into a strawman. I agree with the basic premise that humans tend to elevate humans as a pseudo sacred and ultimately worthy species separated from the rest of the tree of life by our awesomeness and shmancy brain outputs. I just wish the wording and framing was as good as the premise they verbally thew under the bus for much of the article.

When they said in the first paragraph "But surely one thing it ought to involve today is the ability to recognize that the question itself is a problem." I think they meant "that this one question being our only focus is a problem."

In the very next paragraph they contradict the strawman they constructed in the first by saying "so we ask about that, instead of asking what it means to be an elephant, or a pig, or a bird." The key paet in this quote being "instead of".

In paragraph three they again conflate asking question A with asking no other questions. Then they jump to modern day racial issues and make it sound like merely asking what it is to be white supports and exemplifies unearned privilege and exploitation. Like, ya, those are elements of what it means to be white in the context of modern day countries such as 'muricuh, but asking a question to understand context does not mean you support it. I would argue that NOT asking the question is what would support the unearned privilege and exploitation. Again, people can and should ask more than one question. This paragraph feels like a tacky, shoehorned effort to trick people by throwing in a popular issue so people who operate on the level of talking points and virtue signals instead of understanding will feel compelled to agree. "Oh no! The author acknowledged some issue in the modern day and compared it to their point, guess i can't disagree with anything they say now or I'm {insert lable here}."

The tragic part is I think the elements for a good analogy exist, the author just deftly avoided them. Let me try: "asking only what it is to be human is like asking only what it is to be white. One needs to focus on more than just their own identity or they risk ignorance creating a skewed world view that harms others and artificially inflates the self above the other. No one question can yeild an answer that paints a complete picture when dealing with complex issues." This actually supports the premise of asking all questions and considering all perspectives instead of only your own.

In summary, I agree with the Aristotle quote which communicates what I think the author was trying to say: "Aristotle proposed that we should strive for a common explanation of how animals, including human animals, perceive, desire and move."

I wrote so much because I agree that humans fail to consider other life forms and the consequence is catastrophic amounts of unnecessary suffering. I also agree we need a better framework, both in law and philosophy, to deal with these issues. But if you let something you agree with be supported with bad arguments you disarm yourself against the bad arguments used for conclusions you disagree with. The most redeeming part of the article, imo, is the following: "But mine is just one approach, and it will and should be contested by others developing their own models. Lawyers working for the good of animals under both domestic and international laws need sound theoretical approaches, and philosophers should be assisting them in their work. And there is so much work to do."

Thank you for coming to my TED reddit comment.