Which statement is identified as a problem with deontological ethics of animal rights?

Which statement is identified as a problem with deontological ethics of animal rights?

• A. Actions more important than consequences
• B. Does not always allow for sympathy
• C. It resolves all conflicts easily
• D. It fully accounts for animal welfare

Answer: (A)

In deontological ethics, moral judgment hinges on duties and rules rather than on the outcomes of an action. When this approach is applied to animal rights, the rightness of an act is judged by whether it respects the relevant rights, not by how much good or harm results for animals overall. The statement that actions are more important than consequences captures this emphasis directly. It’s identified as a problem because rigidly elevating rule-following can prevent beneficial outcomes if those outcomes require bending or suspending a duty. In other words, you might be compelled to uphold a rule that protects an animal’s rights even when breaking it would reduce suffering or save more animals. The other statements don’t target this central tension: sympathy can be a feature or critique in other ethical views, but it isn’t the core issue here; claiming that conflicts are easily resolved is inaccurate for deontology; and saying it fully accounts for animal welfare contradicts the idea of a potential misalignment between duties and welfare outcomes.

In deontological ethics, moral judgment hinges on duties and rules rather than on the outcomes of an action. When this approach is applied to animal rights, the rightness of an act is judged by whether it respects the relevant rights, not by how much good or harm results for animals overall. The statement that actions are more important than consequences captures this emphasis directly. It’s identified as a problem because rigidly elevating rule-following can prevent beneficial outcomes if those outcomes require bending or suspending a duty. In other words, you might be compelled to uphold a rule that protects an animal’s rights even when breaking it would reduce suffering or save more animals. The other statements don’t target this central tension: sympathy can be a feature or critique in other ethical views, but it isn’t the core issue here; claiming that conflicts are easily resolved is inaccurate for deontology; and saying it fully accounts for animal welfare contradicts the idea of a potential misalignment between duties and welfare outcomes.