As Close To Subhuman As Possible

If treating people in a certain way is wrong, it does not matter who they are or what they have done.  They would still deserve not to be treated illicitly by virtue of being human.  If moral rights and obligations exist, rationalists and non-rationalists would have this much in common, though the latter would be too stupid or lost to understand even the basic concepts of moral obligation, truth, or certainty or to live consistently in light of them.  With or without the existence of moral obligations, they are relying on truths (even just logical axioms) that they deny or flee from or disregard.  Every trial and calamity born from stupidity is ultimately brought about by someone's avoidable philosophical assumptions or inconsistency in acknowledging the truth, which can only be known thanks to the laws of logic.  All cruelty, arrogance, hypocrisy, and other such destructive traits inescapably reduce down to either the utter irrationality of assuming one's preferences and perceptions define reality or the irrationality of knowing this does not logically follow and believing or acting as one wishes anyway.

Of course it would still be irrational and unjust, partly because of sheer hypocrisy, to think non-rationalists or, more precisely, anti-rationalists have none of whatever human rights actually exist (if there is such a thing as moral obligation, it is rooted in the nature of sentient beings like God and humanity, metaphysically rooted in God but governing how humans should treat themselves, each other, and other conscious or seemingly conscious beings).  After all, even anti-rationalists are human too, and it would be irrational and immoral to treat them irrationally or unjustly no matter what they believe or do in spite of how many problems they are the source of.  All of the world's social problems, at least the most significant and unrepented ones, stem from them, yes, but they are no more or less human because of it.

All the same, anti-rationalists in particular are lesser than rationalists--not less human, but lesser beings by choice, and, if truth matters, then the rationalists who intentionally, carefully come to truth are morally superior to non-rationalists as well.  They have already positioned themselves to be in alignment with the heart of reality moreso than non-rationalists ever could be; logical necessities are inherently true even if morality does not exist.  If truth has no moral value, then non-rationalists cannot have value, or else it would be true that they have objective significance.  If truth has value, non-rationalists who actively resist or oppose rationalism have made themselves the enemy of the only things that could matter.  They are either worthless or of lesser value than rationalists depending on whether truth has moral value (if it does not, nothing can).

There is no such thing as an anti-rationalist who is truly the equal of a rationalist.  Either way, there is no such thing as an anti-rationalist who is the intellectual equal of a rationalist.  By turning their backs on reality, anti-rationalists knowingly or unknowingly make themselves the shallowest, lowest kind of person.  They are objectively as close to subhuman as possible, thanks to their stupidity, hypocrisy, emotionalism, lack of concern for truth, and willingness to inconsistently care for logical truths or even hypothetical moral obligations as emotionalistically satisfies their worthless whims.  Not every rationalist wants to relish their superiority, but their superiority is there one way or another all the same.