Peter Singer, professor of bioethics at Princeton University, in New Jersey, whose first book ‘Animal Liberation’ was published in 1975, wrote a column in the Guardian on Monday about his pet topic, animal liberation.
Singer is the so-called world’s leading philosopher who makes a habit of trashing fishing whenever he can.
In the Guardian he writes: “But it is not only with the species closest to humans that scientific research is providing insights into lives. Lynne Sneddon and other scientists at the Roslin Institute have given new life to the case against fishing, providing strong evidence that fish feel pain and that being hooked in the lips is painful to them. Though the research caused distress to fish, if it helps to turn the tide of public opinion against the “sport” of angling, it will have reduced the total amount of pain fish experience by millions of times that which the researchers caused.”
Amazing isn’t it, that the ‘world’s leading philosopher’ can justify deliberately and coldly causing distress (he reckons anyway) to fish when it suits. And isn’t it curious how ‘pain’ has become ‘distress’ in this anti-angling research, whereas in pro-angling research it is always ‘pain’.
And in the lengthy article there is no mention of the Rose research that found that fish do not feel pain.
But are we surprised? Are we hell!
However, what you may find surprising (or maybe not) is that in the past Singer has gone so far as to suggest that under certain circumstances it was okay for humans to have sex with animals.
Again, are we surprised? Altogether now: “ARE WE HELL!”
