Objective morality will always trump subjective but if the basis of that objectivism is unreasonable then you have to start again. My view is that humans are the basis for what constitutes objectivity and that we have to embrace speciesism as a result. If we don't embrace speciesism then we have to view animals as moral agents and judge sharks when they forcefully mate as described by Craig. To judge animals morally seems to imply intentionality combined with consciousness which flies in the face of conventional moral thought and religious moral thought as well. Furthermore, animals as moral agents have no means of salvation as they can not come to know and acknowledge Jesus for salvation.

Yes, this is a Christian interpretation of God as far as this debate goes but this is the context that Craig does and has debated in previously.

superior? bah!

whether the impetus for survival be cooperative or competitive, native cultures around the world and throughout history have been made extinct through attrition, disease and assimilation

to me, the question of why must be added to the what, who and how

h. sapiens of that time also knew how to live in harmony with nature... you see, the population of the entire earth, until the advent of agriculture, didn't break 1 million souls

if you don't like the implied speciesism, we can fast-forward a couple of decamillenium and look at what happened to europe's 'white indians' - do we mourn aspects of lost cultures and societies like those of the belgics, franks, jutes, picts, celts, angles, saxons, frisians, etc?

what happened to them? who did it? why did it happen?

did native american tribes engage in the same sort of behavior? yes, of course they did - they knew war, they knew rape, they knew genocide -- we can play a game if you like: name a common era tribal culture, and i'll do my best to discover which less successful tribes they dominated to extinction or complete assimilation

I won't condone the way Garofalo put it because there are no rigorous scientific definitions of any of the adjectives she used, but there is something to it.

http://www.videosift.com/video/The-Difference-Between-Democrats-and-Republicans-TED

As determined by psychological testing:

Liberal Concerns
Harm/Benefit (aka utility)
Fairness

Conservative Concerns
Authority (as an end in itself, not as a tool for benefit/fairness)
Purity (as an end in itself, not as a tool for benefit/fairness, hijacked by whatever notions of purity happen to occur in the location of their birth)
In-group Loyalty (as an end in itself, not as a tool for benefit/fairness). In various circumstances this is known as tribalism, nepotism, cronyism, nationalism, chauvinism, jingoism, xenophobia, racism, sexism, patriotism, speciesism, or ageism.

The latter three are a crude system of morals that might have suited humanity well before it developed a germ theory of disease, representative government, and global commerce.

"There are no outstanding elephants."

Blatant speciesism.