Final answer:
The ethical status of animals and the criteria for moral status are debated philosophically, with some arguing for species membership and others for rational capacities as the grounds for moral value. Kantian ethics focus on human reason and morality, while neuroscience research suggests underlying brain processes may drive moral reasoning. The treatment of animals in research also raises ethical concerns around consent and humane treatment.
Step-by-step explanation:
The claim that only rational, autonomous, and self-conscious beings deserve full and equal moral status, and thus animals should be granted moral status, reflects a complex ethical question that cannot be answered definitively as 'True' or 'False'. Philosophical perspectives on this matter vary greatly. For instance, Ronald Dworkin argues that full moral status is inherent to humans simply because they are members of the human species. This view considers the species membership as sufficient for moral status rather than the existence of rational capacities.
From another angle, there are arguments stating that our rational nature grounds our moral status, meaning that all humans, including children and those with developing or impaired rational capacities, have moral value. This point of view opposes the idea that moral status depends solely on present rational abilities, which could exclude non-rational beings like animals from having moral status.
Lastly, the debate around ethical treatment of animals in research also surfaces. Since animals cannot consent, the ethicality of using animals for research is questioned. Therefore, if animals are used in research, additional precautions should be in place to ensure humane treatment.