Anthropocentric Narcissism

Few people would claim - occasionally due to fear of politically correct repercussions - that they are "better" than someone with, say, Downs Syndrome. Why, then, is it perfectly acceptable to claim superiority to animals based logically in greater cognitive complexity and abilities? Where do we draw the line among sentient beings?

Claiming superiority based on species is a tautological argument, thus the reliance on cognitive superiority, but that claim was once (and still is occasionally) used against black people, women, Jews, etc. So again, where do we draw the line?

When one is simply born with greater cognitive abilities than another, that fact does not connote superiority or greater virtue and certainly does not justify exploitation, abuse, torture and murder of claimed "inferior" beings. There is no "line" that ever justifies such treatment whether based on race, gender, species or nationality. This is why anthropocentrism, and any "centrism" for that matter, is dangerous. There is no "center" of the universe. Centrality of this nature, like dualism, is a construct, and constructs are created and used for individual benefit.

I would suggest that if one must make comparisons at all, such comparisons may only be based on merit. What have you done lately with your cognitive abilities? Ironically, the people who tend to claim cognitive and thus moral superiority to animals are those who a) have the least cognitive ability of the human race or b) are too fucking lazy to use it.