Well, most ethical pronouncements in social life are justifications for prior behavior, not guidance for future behavior, but I'll let that pass.
> if, like singer, you are a utilitarian, or you are a particular type of
> humanist (or even leftist), you may use other rules. perhaps you may say
> that since we value both life and consciousness (the conscious living
> and experiencing of life) we would provide the medicine to the ill but
> conscious person.
>
> singer's point is that if you were to apply such a set of rules
> consistently, then you would be obliged to oppose experiments on
> primates, and from there all the way to consumption of animals when
> alternatives are available.
Okay, I'm getting it: the fundamental axiom is that suffering is bad. Why is it bad? It just is, according to Luke's "common intuition". I agree that you and Singer make sense if we accept that axiom; I see no compelling reason to accept it, and no meaningful argument is given other than "of course suffering is bad!"
Leave that aside, consider this scenario: experiments on a few primates are crucial to the development of a medical intervention that will save the life of millions of ill people. By the principle of reducing suffering, wouldn't you and Singer be logically compelled to support the primate research?
Miles