similarlyitwouldfollowthatwehavetherighttorearand
kill them for food.
For philosophers discussing the problem of equality, the
easiestway outof thedifficultyposedby theexistenceof
humanbeingswhoareprofoundlyandpermanentlydisabled
intellectuallywastoignoreit.TheHarvardphilosopherJohn
Rawls,inhislongbookATheoryofJustice,cameupagainst
thisproblemwhentryingtoexplainwhyweowejusticeto
humanbeingsbutnottootheranimals,buthebrusheditaside
withtheremark,“Icannotexaminethisproblemhere,butI
assumethattheaccountofequalitywouldnotbematerially
affected.”^36 This is an extraordinary way of handling the
issueofequaltreatment:itwouldappeartoimplyeitherthat
we maytreat people whoareprofoundly and permanently
disabled intellectually as we now treat animals, or that,
contrary to Rawls’sownstatements,we do owejustice to
animals.
Whatelsecouldphilosophersdo?Iftheyhonestlyconfronted
theproblemposedbytheexistenceofhumanbeingswithno
morally relevant characteristics not also possessed by
nonhuman beings, it would be impossible to cling to the
equality of human beings without suggesting a radical
revisioninthestatusofnonhumans.Inadesperateattemptto
savetheusuallyacceptedviews,itwasevenarguedthatwe
should treat beings according to what is “normal for the
species”ratherthanaccordingtotheiractualcharacteristics.^37
Tosee howoutrageousthisis,imaginethatatsomefuture
dateevidenceweretobefoundthat,evenintheabsenceof
any cultural conditioning,it wasnormal for morefemales
than malesin a society to stay at homelooking after the
childreninsteadofgoingouttowork.Thisfindingwould,of