Animal activists bite Singer
Peter Singer has long been an eloquent defender of the idea that animals should ‘weigh’ just as much as humans in ethical considerations. Why should we discriminate against animals, or treat them as disposable, simply because they of a different species?
Now, however, Singer has riled the animal liberation lobby by applying the logic in reverse. According to First Things, Singer was in conversation with a neurosurgeon, Tipu Aziz who told him that “to date 40,000 people have been made better” by his research, while “I would guess only 100 monkeys were used”. Singer replied,
Well, I think if you put a case like that, clearly I would have to agree that was a justifiable experiment. I do not think you should reproach yourself for doing it, provided—I take it you are the expert in this, not me—that there was no other way of discovering this knowledge. I could see that as justifiable research.
Singer went on to clarify his remarks by saying,
I'm not saying you can't do any research, obviously. You should ask yourself: Do I think this experiment is so important that I would be able to perform it on a human being at a similar mental level if that alternative were open to me?
In other words, if 100 retarded human two-year-olds needed to be sacrificed in research that would benefit 40,000 patients (whether animal or human), and it was the only way to benefit such patients, then that would be justifiable research. And so likewise, if 100 monkeys need to pay the ultimate price for the sake of 40,000 humans, then that's OK too.
This leaves animal rights activists madder than a monkey who's lost his bananas. It leaves the rest of us dumbfounded that such folly and wickedness could be dignified with the label ‘ethics’.