>Utilitarianism doesn't change the fact that it would be immoral to randomly kill a bunch of people for questionable gain, in a pharmaceutical setting. Actuall

>Utilitarianism doesn't change the fact that it would be immoral to randomly kill a bunch of people for questionable gain, in a pharmaceutical setting. Actually loeg made the Utilitarianism argument 'well known downside[let sick people die]. The upside is we kill fewer humans' my disagreement was limited to the use of the word fewer. >How many of those "willing participants" [are willing] Good point. The best reasoning would be [for the test subjects] that in their current financial situation it makes sense to take this chance.. If this is immoral then we should be questioning every dangerous job out there. i don't know, maybe we should be. I feel like a lot of animal testing is worthless; And i get the impression its done to prove to the wrong people(CEOs Shareholders media) that we value human life. The point here is that it might very well cost human life, and not a small amount at that.