Anthropocentrism ought to be valued above biocentrism.

In many ways the anthropocentrist argument is very similar to the objective morality position. Objective morality has been tried to be justified by the religious authority in order to maintain there "irrational" position. Yet my use of the term "irrational" is a means of showing that my moral standards of other people is subjective, not objective. For the simple fact that my views on morality is influenced by the cultural and researching rejecting views of thought. From Mayan sacrificial ceremonies to the inquisition man has been forced into accepting the slave morality (as Nietzsche called it) of the ruling class and unjustified authority. Now you may be wondering how this all relates to anthropocentrism. Well, ultimately the anthropocentrist position claims that humans are the only species on this planet which has morality. "Rationality is what determines if a thing has any moral worth" Again we must remember that morality is subjective, even if there was an all powerful god in control who dictated a certain moral code that all humans must follow this would not change the fact that morality is subjective. The concept of rationality is just as much subjective as morality is itself. By saying that rationality is a standard for determining whether a sentient being is moral my opponent has put forth her view of determining whether an animal has morality, but has consistently ignored and failed to show any evidence whatsoever why this should be so. Moreover why we ought to value anthropocentrism over biocentrism? Even if her claim about morality was true this would still not be an adequate reason for human beings to value anthopocentrism over biocentrism. We "ought" to value it says who? a god, a deity, a religious/political authority? As well as using "rationality" as a moral crutch to try to bring about a justification for anthropocentrism, she has not defined rationality? So because a species such as humans recently aquired the ability to question why they exist does this make them any more moral than other species this argument simply make no sense and requires biased assertions to accept this notion. Now I will go back to free will as she uses this as a grand separator between humans and other species. She views free will as required to have morality. Yet as I have said before there is no evidence in the natural sciences that prove free will. In fact scientific evidence has shown that humans are more like complex machines that function off reactions in the brain. My opponent had stated that because she could view all the angles in a scenario and select on this decision somehow makes her and all other humans to have free will. Rather I think humans have a complexly evolved instinct, and this complex and diverse decision making process in are brain creates the illusion of free will. A fox can certainly see the angles in killing it's prey. We may see more angles in how to use a computer or do mathematics, but at hunting the fox has different angles than perhaps we. We may think that we are so much greater than the fox, yet there may be areas in where the fox can see more than us. Remember we only evolved traits that affected are survival, and we used different methods of survival so different parts of the brain was selected for certain applications. Some animals might be able to feel emotions in different ways or even emotions we don't have, there sensory abilities may be much more complex, given them the ability to feel more pain. Just because evolution selected these certain cards for us humans does not mean we are the greatest or the most moral. I think we should be open and look at the abilities and behaviors of animals and see what they don't have that we do and what we don't have of there's. This is an amazing scientific period which we should not waste because of the ignorance of the anthropocentrists. Anthropocentrism does not value animals rather views them as inferior and for use and manipulation of the capitalist, the religious authority and the state. This dominating view is killing animals and ultimately the survival of all sentient beings on this planet. When ignorant ideologies are put into place by the leading institutions of are time, it can lead to great suffering to the other inhabitants on this planet. We should not value are existence over there's because are survival is linked with there's. To answer the question should we value anthropocentrism over biocentrism is irrelevant and an absurd position to try to justify. We should not be selfish and care only for ourselves and steal millions of resources and cause the genocide of at least 200 species per day on earth. Our morality or perception of it is simply a survival tool that cannot be applied to the universe. We had the racists, the Nazis, the fascists, sexists, and so forth and now we have the athropocentrists.