Peter Singer's utilitarian arguments for animal rights compare suffering across species, arguing that species membership alone shouldn't determine moral treatment. Critics from disability rights have noted with concern that Singer's logic also implies severely cognitively disabled humans might deserve less consideration than some animals. Singer accepts this implication but maintains that abandoning the 'speciesism' that gives all humans automatic priority is still correct—though his position remains deeply controversial.
Based on the passage, it can be inferred that
all ethicists agree with Singer's utilitarian approach
ethical theories may have implications beyond their original focus that create additional controversies
Singer rejects all moral consideration for animals
disability rights advocates fully support Singer's arguments
Correct Answer: B
Choice B is the best answer. Arguments for animal rights have implications about disabled humans.
- Context clues: Logic developed for animal rights extends to implications about disabled humans.
- Meaning: One argument may have unintended consequences in other domains.
- Verify: The controversy shows these unexpected implications create issues.
💡 Strategy: When arguments extend beyond their original domain, infer theory-wide implications.
Choice A is incorrect because the position is "deeply controversial." Choice C is incorrect because Singer argues for more animal consideration, not less. Choice D is incorrect because disability rights advocates "noted with concern."