The claim that sentience, coupled with the ability to experience pleasure and pain, is sufficient for moral consideration is not a strong enough statement to create a set of moral rules. This claim is not strong because it is based on one simple perspective with an unclear definition of the various features presented in the claim. The first issue this claim faces is that it considers any form of sentience. While this is good at the basic level, there are too many sentient beings that create so many variables to consider. Additionally, this makes it difficult to define a common pain or pleasure scale, especially since we do not share these feelings across the many different sentient beings. This would require greater research to understand how each being feels pleasure and pain, where their limits may be and the if the negative effects outweigh the positive effects. This would also require further research into various situations about when these moral dilemmas will occur and what options are presented.
The vague definitions and undefined limitations are the basic problem of this claim. However, there is one more obvious problem which comes from the final phrase: “moral consideration.” This phrase is unspecific for what actions can be taken against other sentience. To be more specific, this phrase allows for action from an individual against another sentient being, even though they may experience pleasure and pain. The phrase “moral consideration” forces people to consider a situation based on the feelings of another sentient being, but it does not clearly define how a person can act after the consideration of the other life. Overall, this claim is weak because of its simplicity and expectation that all people will define and understand the terms in the same way.