
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