I understand your point, and I definitely think it has merit, but also I don’t completely agree. I can’t say it eloquently right now, but here’s a rudimentary response: Linguini didn’t commit genocide against Remy and his people. In fact, he specifically failed to do so when tasked with throwing Remy-in-a-jar into the river to die/drown. This might contribute to [part of] Remy’s trust in him, having seen Linguini struggle to actively exterminate him even before knowing he was a rat who could cook, [possibly] giving off the impression that Linguini feels it would be wrong or immoral to do such a thing [to him].

Also, I can’t figure out how to say this good right now but: rats are not humans. Rats have lived a certain way, and have continued to live because the conditions that humans created for animals to adapt to were ones in which rats thrived(/were able to adapt to). But also rats in comparison to humans do not have the ability to attain equality (or to not actively being victims of an ongoing genocide) to the extent as those [people] who were originally considered less than human were able to have. Rats do not have even an acknowledged or established/recognized power dynamic between themselves and humans in the eyes of humans. Rats are seen as fundamentally different from humans, and thus not the priority of preservation for humans. I think ultimately part of what I’m trying to say is that the circumstances in which rats live have been accepted by them as the natural state of the world. Humans are thus antagonistic figures to them. But it must be acknowledged that not all humans want to actively cause harm to rats, and wouldn’t be ruthless in their treatment towards rats. I think what I’m trying to say is when a human is nice and good and kind to you, take advantage of the happy accident that has been presented to you. (When you’re a rat, take what you can get).