Philosopher: Wolves do not tolerate an attack by one wolf on another if the latter wolf demonstrates submission by b...

Naz on July 8, 2015

Alright so let's break down the philosopher's argument.

Conclusion: "It would be erroneous to deny that animals have rights on the grounds that only human beings are capable of obeying moral rules."

Why? Wolves, dogs and foxes do not tolerate an attack by one wolf on another if the latter wolf demonstrated submission by baring its throat.

So, the philosopher is arguing that one cannot say animals do not have rights based on the premise that only human beings are capable of obeying moral rules. To back this statement up, the philosopher brings up three examples of different animals--wolves, foxes and dogs--that will not tolerate an attack on another animal of the same species if the latter demonstrates submission.

Thus, in a way, the philosopher has shown a moral code that is followed among these three animals: they will not allow one animal to attack another if the latter submits. Therefore, by showing examples that go against the premise that "ONLY human beings are capable of obeying moral rules," the philosopher makes his point that stating that animals do not have rights is in error.

So, as you can see, answer choice (A) is correct because it delineates what we explained above: "provide counterexamples to refute a premise on which a particular conclusion is based."

Hope that clears thing up! Please let us know if you have any other questions.