As for the bit about “subhuman gentiles”, I suspect that you are importing another agenda into this debate, especially when you invoke a line like “jew are called adam and non-jews are not called adam”. If you were familiar with the source you would know that this is another bit of technical legalese, with no relevance to the topic at hand.

Of course you are right. The question is, are non-Jews considered Adam?

As I show in my above-reference essay, Rav Soloveitchik was quite clear on that topic: They are.

Given the choice, therefore, between a positivist conception of a static halacha, or of an ethically-motivated, evolving halacha, it’s quite clear that the latter approach, as detailed by R’ Eliezer Berkovits, is of course correct.

As I understand R’ Carmy’s essay, it is quite clear that he is finally firmly advocating the Berkovits position (contra, for example, R’ Herschel Schachter.) Given the fundamental role of human reasoning and creativity in the Halachic process — as enunciated so eloquently by the Rav in Ish HaHalacha and elsewhere — R’ Carmy wisely chose to write in a style which forces ourselves to reason to the correct conclusion, rather than relying on his authority — because the Halachic system is one that relies as much on what the Rav calls Human grandeur as it does on individual humility.

Thank you for your timely look at the halachic sources. However, I think you’ve misconstrued R’ Carmy as advocating the worst sort of immoral religious fundamentalism. In fact, I think R’ Carmy is making an argument — albeit esoteric, in the Straussian sense — on behalf of what you’re advocating, that is, the ethical notion of a meta-halachic ethic as described most thoroughly by Eliezer Berkovits. That’s a rather large claim, I know, particularly for this small comment box; so I refer you to my blog where I spell this out in detail. I look forward to your comments there.