Text 1: Philosopher Dr. Sarah Long defends animal rights. "Capacity for suffering, not species membership, grounds moral standing," Long argues. "If suffering matters morally, it matters regardless of who experiences it."
Text 2: Bioethicist Dr. Robert Wu explores edge cases. "Suffering-based criteria face boundary problems," Wu observes. "Insects might suffer; plants might have forms of sentience. Where do we draw lines? Species-neutral criteria generate conclusions most find implausible."
What challenge does Wu's analysis present to Long's argument?
That suffering doesn't exist anywhere
That applying the criterion consistently may lead to conclusions difficult to accept
That moral philosophy cannot make arguments
That species membership is always irrelevant
Correct Answer: B
Choice B is the correct answer. Wu asks where Long's criterion leads—insects, plants, perhaps more. If suffering grounds moral status, the criterion may extend beyond comfortable limits. Consistency creates uncomfortable conclusions.
- Evidence: Wu: criterion generates "conclusions most find implausible."
- Reasoning: Following the principle consistently produces disturbing results.
- Conclusion: Long's logic, if applied consistently, has unwelcome implications.
Choice A is incorrect because Wu accepts suffering exists. Choice C is incorrect because Wu engages philosophically. Choice D is incorrect because Wu questions species-neutral criteria.