[ddewey]

You're probably being downvoted because you're stating an uncommon opinion (humans are no more morally relevant than other species) as fact, and your only support is an argument from similarity to child-like selfishness.

I'd argue that humans are more morally relevant because humans have richer mental lives (evidenced by language, culture, etc.), so we have a higher capacity for suffering and caring about our future lives, and suffering/caring are the two factors I find to be intuitively "morally relevant".

How would you convince me that humans are not more important than anything else? Do you have an argument?

[sorbus]

Yes, that was why I thought I was being downvoted, and as a comparison it could have been better - no one likes being insulted.

So, an individual human is more mentally unique than an individual, say, mouse, and that makes us more valuable than mice? Makes sense. Using that logic, since mice are easy to make more of, and are all essentially the same (birds might be better here, because their minds are even simpler, at least pigeons), they're not so valuable. Which also makes sense, and is basically a restating of the original claim.

No, I don't have an argument to prove that humans aren't inherently more morally relevant; but, before this, neither did I have an argument for why humans are more morally relevant, instead perceiving it as being because we're very self-centered. But now I do have an argument as to why we are, which is an improvement and allows me to take all of the assertions of us being more valuable as somewhat valid, instead of an unproven a priori assumption. So thank you for that.