Death of the Emperor

There has been a lot of news coverage over the shooting of the red deer stag known as the Emperor of Exmoor. I have been to Exmoor many times and have seen the hunters out with their guns and, I admit, they represent one aspect of humanity that I am none too impressed with (aside from anything else, they just look ridiculous). But I am curious over the outrage at this shooting which, incidentally, is perfectly legal. The anger is a moral one, and so I am wondering what the moral arguments are here. One newspaper argued that it is wrong because the Emperor is 'wild and beautiful', but is this a good reason to not shoot it? Lots of things are 'wild', and should we really base our preferences on whether we find something beautiful or not? There is certainly no shortage of red deer roaming around Exmoor. Perhaps the standard utilitarian response works here: the pleasure of seeing this animal roaming around alive (not to mention the pleasure of the Emperor itself?) is much greater than that priovided by its antlers danging from the wall of someone's stately home?

Bullfighting banned in Catalonia...

So here we have a clear contrast between claims for cultural value, and claims of universal animal rights... - how do we disentangle them?

Fox news (!) has a view HERE and the usual BBC Have Your Say crowd are HERE

More detail is HERE

Peter Singer / Animal Testing & Utilitarianism

Philosopher Peter Singer has been in the news again. While most well-known for his advocacy of animal rights, he has surprised many by claming that some animal testing may be justified. While some animals rights campaigners may be shocked - students may recongise the view that, as he is a utilitarian (of some kind), he would not have an in principle, objection - if the benefit can be said to outweigh the harm. Read here: http://news.independent.co.uk/people/profiles/article2035119.ece about Singer's recent statements - and his seeming ability to upset just about everyone...

What is your view of animal testing? Is it justified in a consequentialist manner? On some other grounds? Or not at all?

Dave