At mock trials in which jury instructions were given in technical legal jargon, jury verdicts tended to mirror the ju...

shunhe on April 17, 2020

Hi @odsimkins,

Thanks for the question! We’re told here that some animals don’t tolerate attacks on other wolves if those wolves have submitted. The philosopher then concludes that it’s wrong to deny that animals have rights if the reasoning is that only human beings can obey moral rules.

Now, let’s take a look at (C). (C) tells us that the philosopher tries to cast doubt on the principle that being capable of obeying moral rules is a necessary condition for having rights. But that’s not exactly what’s going on here. It could still be possible that being able to obey moral rules is a necessary condition to have rights. What the author is trying to show is that some animals do have this condition, so even if it were a necessary condition, then animals shouldn’t be denied rights based on the lack of this necessary condition.

(A), however, explains what the philosopher does. The philosopher is providing counterexamples to refute a premise on which a particular conclusion is based. The counterexamples the philosopher provides are the wolves, foxes, and dogs that seem to obey moral rules. The refuted premise is that animals are not capable of obeying moral rules. The conclusion that is based off that premise is the conclusion that animals don’t have rights.

Hope this helps. Feel free to ask any further questions that you might have.