What do you think?
Rate this book
Animal Liberation
The Book That Started A Revolution
Since its original publication in 1975, this groundbreaking work has awakened millions of concerned men and women to the shocking abuse of animals everywhere -- inspiring a worldwide movement to eliminate much of the cruel and unnecessary laboratory animal experimentation of years past.
In this newly revised and expanded edition, author Peter Singer exposes the chilling realities of today's "factory forms" and product-testing procedures -- offering sound, humane solutions to what has become a profound environmental and social as well as moral issue. An important and persuasive appeal to conscience, fairness, decency and justice, Animal Liberation is essential reading for the supporter and the skeptic alike.
324 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1975
About the author
Peter Singer
153 books8,783 followersPeter Singer is sometimes called "the world’s most influential living philosopher" although he thinks that if that is true, it doesn't say much for all the other living philosophers around today. He has also been called the father (or grandfather?) of the modern animal rights movement, even though he doesn't base his philosophical views on rights, either for humans or for animals.
In 2005 Time magazine named Singer one of the 100 most influential people in the world, and the Gottlieb Duttweiler Institute ranked him 3rd among Global Thought Leaders for 2013. (He has since slipped to 36th.) He is known especially for his work on the ethics of our treatment of animals, for his controversial critique of the sanctity of life doctrine in bioethics, and for his writings on the obligations of the affluent to aid those living in extreme poverty.
Singer first became well-known internationally after the publication of Animal Liberation in 1975. In 2011 Time included Animal Liberation on its “All-TIME” list of the 100 best nonfiction books published in English since the magazine began, in 1923. Singer has written, co-authored, edited or co-edited more than 50 books, including Practical Ethics; The Expanding Circle; How Are We to Live?, Rethinking Life and Death, The Ethics of What We Eat (with Jim Mason), The Point of View of the Universe (with Katarzyna de Lazari-Radek), The Most Good You Can Do, Ethics in the Real World and Utilitarianism: A Very Short Introduction. His works have appeared in more than 30 languages.
Singer’s book The Life You Can Save, first published in 2009, led him to found a non-profit organization of the same name. In 2019, Singer got back the rights to the book and granted them to the organization, enabling it to make the eBook and audiobook versions available free from its website, www.thelifeyoucansave.org.
Peter Singer was born in Melbourne, Australia, in 1946, and educated at the University of Melbourne and the University of Oxford. After teaching in England, the United States and Australia, he has, since 1999, been Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics in the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University. He is married, with three daughters and four grandchildren. His recreations include hiking and surfing. In 2012 he was made a Companion of the Order of Australia, the nation’s highest civic honour.
In 2005 Time magazine named Singer one of the 100 most influential people in the world, and the Gottlieb Duttweiler Institute ranked him 3rd among Global Thought Leaders for 2013. (He has since slipped to 36th.) He is known especially for his work on the ethics of our treatment of animals, for his controversial critique of the sanctity of life doctrine in bioethics, and for his writings on the obligations of the affluent to aid those living in extreme poverty.
Singer first became well-known internationally after the publication of Animal Liberation in 1975. In 2011 Time included Animal Liberation on its “All-TIME” list of the 100 best nonfiction books published in English since the magazine began, in 1923. Singer has written, co-authored, edited or co-edited more than 50 books, including Practical Ethics; The Expanding Circle; How Are We to Live?, Rethinking Life and Death, The Ethics of What We Eat (with Jim Mason), The Point of View of the Universe (with Katarzyna de Lazari-Radek), The Most Good You Can Do, Ethics in the Real World and Utilitarianism: A Very Short Introduction. His works have appeared in more than 30 languages.
Singer’s book The Life You Can Save, first published in 2009, led him to found a non-profit organization of the same name. In 2019, Singer got back the rights to the book and granted them to the organization, enabling it to make the eBook and audiobook versions available free from its website, www.thelifeyoucansave.org.
Peter Singer was born in Melbourne, Australia, in 1946, and educated at the University of Melbourne and the University of Oxford. After teaching in England, the United States and Australia, he has, since 1999, been Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics in the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University. He is married, with three daughters and four grandchildren. His recreations include hiking and surfing. In 2012 he was made a Companion of the Order of Australia, the nation’s highest civic honour.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 895 reviews
January 16, 2018
I write this review from a place of some bias.
Sausages. Rotisserie chicken. Lamb chops. Bratwurst. Roast Beef. These words marked out the evenings of my childhood. We ate meat twice a day, and on holidays thrice, moving through the day from a bacon fry-up to a ham-sandwich to a steak with mushroom sauce. A meal without meat was considered incomplete, and vegetarianism was a scorned and alien disease that infected no-one among my family or friends.
I was no supermarket meat-eater, hiding from the realities of the slaughterhouse. My father took me into faraway mountains and across deep seas where we wielded rifle, rod and spear in anticipation of the evening's cook-pot while never contemplating the lives ended at our hands.
And yet, I became a Vego. A tofu-muncher. A salad-scarer. The scourge of the suburban B-B-Q.
Seventeen years ago, when I first considered becoming a vegetarian, this book, Peter Singer's Animal Liberation was the catalyst that pushed me over the line. As a result, this book holds a special place in my heart as a road-marker on the trail of my own personal philosophy.
My bias aside, Animal Liberation is a powerful work by a renowned ethicist and a fantastic introduction to the ethical arguments for cessation (or at least reduction) of animal slaughter and animal experimentation.
Singer is no mung-bean guzzling hippy blowhard. He is a serious (currently working at Princeton) and often controversial thinker and he brings rigour to his arguments against the way we treat animals. He argues strongly and effectively that to treat sentient beings more poorly than we do our fellow humans is simply speciesism (a neologism that has stuck with me since I encountered it).
I personally find his arguments convincing, and his conclusions sound. Of course, I'm a long time vegetarian, so depending on your views of how red-in-claw nature is, or where exactly you like to see yourself in the hierarchy of the food chain, you may not get the mileage I do from a tankful of Singer.
For the weak of stomach, be aware that some of what is discussed in Animal Liberation is pretty damn disturbing. Horrible animal experiments, cruel slaughter and cruelty in general all share the page here, but hey, using animal products and products tested on animals makes us all culpable for these abuses, so the least we can do is bear witness and acknowledge that we have caused great pain to our fellow earthlings.
Anyway, if you're at all interested in this topic, or ethics in general, read this book. Animal Liberation was one of the first mainstream books on the ethics of our treatment of animals when it was published in 1975, and you've probably encountered its literary and ethical children already, but the old warhorse is still worth a look, and bears its heavy burdens well.
Postscript: This book includes recipes, so if you're so fired up by Singer's arguments that you immediately swear off animal products you can flick to the back and make yourself a vego meal (A seventies-style vego meal if you have an older edition).
Sausages. Rotisserie chicken. Lamb chops. Bratwurst. Roast Beef. These words marked out the evenings of my childhood. We ate meat twice a day, and on holidays thrice, moving through the day from a bacon fry-up to a ham-sandwich to a steak with mushroom sauce. A meal without meat was considered incomplete, and vegetarianism was a scorned and alien disease that infected no-one among my family or friends.
I was no supermarket meat-eater, hiding from the realities of the slaughterhouse. My father took me into faraway mountains and across deep seas where we wielded rifle, rod and spear in anticipation of the evening's cook-pot while never contemplating the lives ended at our hands.
And yet, I became a Vego. A tofu-muncher. A salad-scarer. The scourge of the suburban B-B-Q.
Seventeen years ago, when I first considered becoming a vegetarian, this book, Peter Singer's Animal Liberation was the catalyst that pushed me over the line. As a result, this book holds a special place in my heart as a road-marker on the trail of my own personal philosophy.
My bias aside, Animal Liberation is a powerful work by a renowned ethicist and a fantastic introduction to the ethical arguments for cessation (or at least reduction) of animal slaughter and animal experimentation.
Singer is no mung-bean guzzling hippy blowhard. He is a serious (currently working at Princeton) and often controversial thinker and he brings rigour to his arguments against the way we treat animals. He argues strongly and effectively that to treat sentient beings more poorly than we do our fellow humans is simply speciesism (a neologism that has stuck with me since I encountered it).
I personally find his arguments convincing, and his conclusions sound. Of course, I'm a long time vegetarian, so depending on your views of how red-in-claw nature is, or where exactly you like to see yourself in the hierarchy of the food chain, you may not get the mileage I do from a tankful of Singer.
For the weak of stomach, be aware that some of what is discussed in Animal Liberation is pretty damn disturbing. Horrible animal experiments, cruel slaughter and cruelty in general all share the page here, but hey, using animal products and products tested on animals makes us all culpable for these abuses, so the least we can do is bear witness and acknowledge that we have caused great pain to our fellow earthlings.
Anyway, if you're at all interested in this topic, or ethics in general, read this book. Animal Liberation was one of the first mainstream books on the ethics of our treatment of animals when it was published in 1975, and you've probably encountered its literary and ethical children already, but the old warhorse is still worth a look, and bears its heavy burdens well.
Postscript: This book includes recipes, so if you're so fired up by Singer's arguments that you immediately swear off animal products you can flick to the back and make yourself a vego meal (A seventies-style vego meal if you have an older edition).
August 25, 2022
I think it is very fair that I start this review by speaking about my own personal bias.
I’m a vegan. I’m also an animal rights activist and I’m an academic with an interest in diet and the development of vegan ideas. I have the words “animal liberation” tattooed on my arm. I believe in it. I want it. I work for it. Therefore, I am naturally predisposed to agree with the arguments presented in this book. I am very unlikely to criticise them because many of them are also my own beliefs. So, if you want to understand what this book means to me and why I think these arguments are of vital importance, please read on. I promise to talk in a factual and relatively non-judgemental way.
Firstly, it is important to start by establishing exactly what animal liberation is as per Peter Singer’s definition. There’s are many common misconceptions associated with the term animal rights. It’s often satirised because it is seen as an indictment for giving animals rights equal to us in society. That’s not the case. On a very basic level, animal rights in the context of this book means the right to live. Animal Liberation is a case, an argument, that advocates that animals have the same natural inherent rights as us: they have the right to live and to not be used and exploited by others. Animals are not ours to eat or use in anyway. They have their own natural independence by this reasoning.
A large proportion of the book is focused on vivisection. It came out in the 1970s when much of this information was, perhaps, not as well known as it is today. It discusses all manner of animal experimentation that led to fruitless results. The counter for the animal rights argument is often that scientific advancement, medicine, and cures for various diseases would not have been achieved without animal-based research. It’s often dubbed as a necessity for human progress, but there are ethic alternatives available. And more to the point: Peter Singer demonstrates, through case after case, how much of this experimentation was completely pointless and fuelled by corruption, money and greed. It was often about producing paper after paper rather than achieving any real results.
It is my most earnest belief that the world would be a much better place if we had animal liberation because I believe that if we had a world where we treated animals as they should be treated – with respect and dignity- we would also have a world where we treated other humans so too. It is a logical extension of such a moral code. How could we harm another human when we cannot harm an animal? This is, of course, all hypothetical (and perhaps even idealistic) but there’s no denying that we would be more ethical, altruistic and better as a society if we did not use animals in such heinous way (or anyway.)
This is a book about ethics, the ethics of using and exploiting animals. Peter Singer provides a compelling and convincing case. He supports his claims with stories, examples and statistics to elucidate just how horrific the systems that exploit animals are. And I urge everyone to read it because it just may challenge the way in which you see the world.
___________________________________
You can connect with me on social media via My Linktree.
__________________________________
I’m a vegan. I’m also an animal rights activist and I’m an academic with an interest in diet and the development of vegan ideas. I have the words “animal liberation” tattooed on my arm. I believe in it. I want it. I work for it. Therefore, I am naturally predisposed to agree with the arguments presented in this book. I am very unlikely to criticise them because many of them are also my own beliefs. So, if you want to understand what this book means to me and why I think these arguments are of vital importance, please read on. I promise to talk in a factual and relatively non-judgemental way.
Firstly, it is important to start by establishing exactly what animal liberation is as per Peter Singer’s definition. There’s are many common misconceptions associated with the term animal rights. It’s often satirised because it is seen as an indictment for giving animals rights equal to us in society. That’s not the case. On a very basic level, animal rights in the context of this book means the right to live. Animal Liberation is a case, an argument, that advocates that animals have the same natural inherent rights as us: they have the right to live and to not be used and exploited by others. Animals are not ours to eat or use in anyway. They have their own natural independence by this reasoning.
A large proportion of the book is focused on vivisection. It came out in the 1970s when much of this information was, perhaps, not as well known as it is today. It discusses all manner of animal experimentation that led to fruitless results. The counter for the animal rights argument is often that scientific advancement, medicine, and cures for various diseases would not have been achieved without animal-based research. It’s often dubbed as a necessity for human progress, but there are ethic alternatives available. And more to the point: Peter Singer demonstrates, through case after case, how much of this experimentation was completely pointless and fuelled by corruption, money and greed. It was often about producing paper after paper rather than achieving any real results.
It is my most earnest belief that the world would be a much better place if we had animal liberation because I believe that if we had a world where we treated animals as they should be treated – with respect and dignity- we would also have a world where we treated other humans so too. It is a logical extension of such a moral code. How could we harm another human when we cannot harm an animal? This is, of course, all hypothetical (and perhaps even idealistic) but there’s no denying that we would be more ethical, altruistic and better as a society if we did not use animals in such heinous way (or anyway.)
This is a book about ethics, the ethics of using and exploiting animals. Peter Singer provides a compelling and convincing case. He supports his claims with stories, examples and statistics to elucidate just how horrific the systems that exploit animals are. And I urge everyone to read it because it just may challenge the way in which you see the world.
___________________________________
You can connect with me on social media via My Linktree.
__________________________________
May 3, 2016
So this book.
I love this book for what it did for bringing animal rights into the semi-mainstream. Singer was a proper philosopher, not (just) a kookie hippie. His importance cannot be overstated.
But it wasn’t a shocking or profound read for me personally, probably because it’s so very influential. I spend a lot of time reading about animal ethics, so nothing- neither the animal abuses recounted nor the philosophical arguments against speciesism- was new to me.
Still, I feel remiss giving it less than 5 stars, because everything I’ve read on animal ethics was influenced by this, which was the only thing that made it a bit uneventful for me to read, after all.
An interesting note: I think it’s very significant that Peter Singer is a man. If a woman had written this, how would it have been received in the 1970s? How would it be received now?
I guarantee, if Peter Singer were Petra Singer, she would be accused of sentimentalism and bleeding heart nonsense and “Bambi mentality.” People might disagree with [Peter] Singer, but he’d never be accused of making his argument because it breaks his heart to see fluffy bunnies get hurt. “Petra” Singer would be, and every solid argument she made would be delegitimized and dismissed on that basis. Hands fucking down. Makes me ragey.
Anyway, without Animal Liberation, it would be so difficult to talk about animal rights and be taken seriously, rather than labeled a fruitcake. These days, you’d be hard-pressed to find a philosopher who seriously argues that animals should have no moral standing at all. It’s mainstream ethics. I love it. Thank you, Peter Singer, for writing this book- for helping create a world where this book isn’t revolutionary anymore. Does that make sense?
I love this book for what it did for bringing animal rights into the semi-mainstream. Singer was a proper philosopher, not (just) a kookie hippie. His importance cannot be overstated.
But it wasn’t a shocking or profound read for me personally, probably because it’s so very influential. I spend a lot of time reading about animal ethics, so nothing- neither the animal abuses recounted nor the philosophical arguments against speciesism- was new to me.
Still, I feel remiss giving it less than 5 stars, because everything I’ve read on animal ethics was influenced by this, which was the only thing that made it a bit uneventful for me to read, after all.
An interesting note: I think it’s very significant that Peter Singer is a man. If a woman had written this, how would it have been received in the 1970s? How would it be received now?
I guarantee, if Peter Singer were Petra Singer, she would be accused of sentimentalism and bleeding heart nonsense and “Bambi mentality.” People might disagree with [Peter] Singer, but he’d never be accused of making his argument because it breaks his heart to see fluffy bunnies get hurt. “Petra” Singer would be, and every solid argument she made would be delegitimized and dismissed on that basis. Hands fucking down. Makes me ragey.
Anyway, without Animal Liberation, it would be so difficult to talk about animal rights and be taken seriously, rather than labeled a fruitcake. These days, you’d be hard-pressed to find a philosopher who seriously argues that animals should have no moral standing at all. It’s mainstream ethics. I love it. Thank you, Peter Singer, for writing this book- for helping create a world where this book isn’t revolutionary anymore. Does that make sense?
March 26, 2017
Australian philosopher, Peter Singer, wrote "Animal Liberation: A New Ethics For Our Treatment of Animals" over forty years ago. I was still in high school and it was one of the "buzz" books of my generation. I decided to re-read it with the new additions this year because my son is a life long vegetarian, he loves animals and I wondered does it still hold up? Would this younger generation still want to read it? The answer is yes.
The treatment of farm and lab animals are still as bad as they were forty years ago and maybe
even worse. Pigs and chickens are shoved into pens that are too small for them as the large industrial farming complex needs to make more and more profits. They are kept inside and might never see the light of day their entire lives. Their level of suffering, as the author points out, is inhumane and exploitative and it is our "moral" right not to allow this harm to continue.
I don't eat red meat or pork but I do eat fowl and fish. This book made me wonder, if I needed to change my ways and become a vegan, as author Peter Singer suggests. In my opinion, any book that makes you question your life style choices is a good one and his argument is intelligent and persuasive. If you want to educate yourself and maybe take on a new perspective, than this classic book will be for you. I gave it five stars because it deserves it for being so ahead of its time and bringing animals rights to the attention of people. The author's wish is that his book would change the world and that a vast amount of animal suffering can be avoided.
The treatment of farm and lab animals are still as bad as they were forty years ago and maybe
even worse. Pigs and chickens are shoved into pens that are too small for them as the large industrial farming complex needs to make more and more profits. They are kept inside and might never see the light of day their entire lives. Their level of suffering, as the author points out, is inhumane and exploitative and it is our "moral" right not to allow this harm to continue.
I don't eat red meat or pork but I do eat fowl and fish. This book made me wonder, if I needed to change my ways and become a vegan, as author Peter Singer suggests. In my opinion, any book that makes you question your life style choices is a good one and his argument is intelligent and persuasive. If you want to educate yourself and maybe take on a new perspective, than this classic book will be for you. I gave it five stars because it deserves it for being so ahead of its time and bringing animals rights to the attention of people. The author's wish is that his book would change the world and that a vast amount of animal suffering can be avoided.
July 7, 2022
This is an animal rights classic, and although there are so many animal rights books now, this is still worth a read. It's been a very infuential book to many and hasn't lost much of its impact over time.
September 17, 2020
ممکنه این سوال پیش بیاد در کشوری که حقوق اولیه مردمش به ویژه زنان و کودکان به راحتی پایمال میشه، صحبت کردن از حقوق حیوانات چه معنا و ضرورتی داره؟ زمانی احمد شاملو به طعنه به سهراب سپهری گفته بود سر آدمهای بی گناه رو لب جوب می برند و من دو قدم پایین تر بایستم و توصیه کنم "آب را گل نکنید!". سهراب سپهری به زیبایی پاسخ داده بود: انسانی که نگران آب خوردن یک کبوتر نباشد به همان راحتی آدم میکشد.
حیوانات؛ به ویژه پستانداران، درد و رنج رو حس میکنند و استرس و افسردگی پیدا میکنند. رفتار ما انسانها با حیوانات بسیار تکان دهنده است. برای مثال در دامداری های صنعتی به خصوص در کشورهای غربی با سنگدلی زیاد گوشت صورتی و خوش رنگ گوساله یا جگر چرب غاز تولید میکنند تا ما آدمهای خودخواه بیشتر از خوردنشون لذت ببریم.
با خوندن این کتاب گیاه خوار نشدم اما باعث شد نگرشم تغییر زیادی پیدا کنه و حتی رژیم غذایی خودم رو تغییر بدم.
حیوانات؛ به ویژه پستانداران، درد و رنج رو حس میکنند و استرس و افسردگی پیدا میکنند. رفتار ما انسانها با حیوانات بسیار تکان دهنده است. برای مثال در دامداری های صنعتی به خصوص در کشورهای غربی با سنگدلی زیاد گوشت صورتی و خوش رنگ گوساله یا جگر چرب غاز تولید میکنند تا ما آدمهای خودخواه بیشتر از خوردنشون لذت ببریم.
با خوندن این کتاب گیاه خوار نشدم اما باعث شد نگرشم تغییر زیادی پیدا کنه و حتی رژیم غذایی خودم رو تغییر بدم.
January 24, 2023
Peter Singer did for animals what Rachel Carson did for the environment by initiating and boosting the animal rights and protection movement.
Not really much has changed, instead, it got even worse.
Over 4 decades after it first was published, Singer's work is even more important because the problems have worsened and both habitat destruction and the gruesomeness of meat production reached levels that Singer might not have even imagined in his worst nightmares.
He did create preference utilitarianism
and bashed both speciesism and anthropomorphism in a way only a true philosopher could do to show society its disgusting bigotry. Ethics and philosophy played and will play important roles in unmasking the grievances of the system and visionary thinkers like Singer are essential as voices and inspirations for both activists and the creatures unable to speak for themselves.
I did already mention many points in the review of Herzog Hals´ Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
and Jonathan Foers´Eating animals
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
Extinction rebellion is just the beginning
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6...
of another peaceful revolution to stop atrocities so shocking nobody ever wants to talk about it.
A wiki walk can be as refreshing to the mind as a walk through nature in this completely overrated real-life outside books:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthrop...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prefere...
Not really much has changed, instead, it got even worse.
Over 4 decades after it first was published, Singer's work is even more important because the problems have worsened and both habitat destruction and the gruesomeness of meat production reached levels that Singer might not have even imagined in his worst nightmares.
He did create preference utilitarianism
and bashed both speciesism and anthropomorphism in a way only a true philosopher could do to show society its disgusting bigotry. Ethics and philosophy played and will play important roles in unmasking the grievances of the system and visionary thinkers like Singer are essential as voices and inspirations for both activists and the creatures unable to speak for themselves.
I did already mention many points in the review of Herzog Hals´ Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
and Jonathan Foers´Eating animals
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
Extinction rebellion is just the beginning
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6...
of another peaceful revolution to stop atrocities so shocking nobody ever wants to talk about it.
A wiki walk can be as refreshing to the mind as a walk through nature in this completely overrated real-life outside books:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthrop...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prefere...
March 18, 2023
●○ Animal ●○ - a living organism that feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli.
●○ Liberation ●○ - freedom from limits on thought or behavior.
This book focuses on the treatment of animals, the processes of factory farming, product testing, and touches on their philosophical history. If you are so inclined to read it, know that it is pretty heavy material. Material we should all know about, but extremely graphic in its own right. This isn’t really the place to have a full on conversation about the issues brought up in this book, but they are extremely important and I will be mulling them over in mind for a very, very long time.
For the past five years, I have been transitioning to a plant based diet and will be fully in by the end of this year. The reason I bring this up is because I have a hard time explaining my reasons to friends and family in a way that helps them understand. Now, I’ll just point them to this informative book.
──∗ ⋅◈⋅ ∗── 5 ★'s ──∗ ⋅◈⋅ ∗──
●○ Liberation ●○ - freedom from limits on thought or behavior.
This book focuses on the treatment of animals, the processes of factory farming, product testing, and touches on their philosophical history. If you are so inclined to read it, know that it is pretty heavy material. Material we should all know about, but extremely graphic in its own right. This isn’t really the place to have a full on conversation about the issues brought up in this book, but they are extremely important and I will be mulling them over in mind for a very, very long time.
For the past five years, I have been transitioning to a plant based diet and will be fully in by the end of this year. The reason I bring this up is because I have a hard time explaining my reasons to friends and family in a way that helps them understand. Now, I’ll just point them to this informative book.
──∗ ⋅◈⋅ ∗── 5 ★'s ──∗ ⋅◈⋅ ∗──
August 3, 2010
This book made me grateful for having cut my vegan teeth on abolitionist theory without first getting tangled up in this sort of watery utilitarian thinking. Apart from introducing the philosophically convenient (and I think accurate) concept of speciesism, this book presents little of real ethical value.
In fact, my complaint with this book is the same as my complaint with welfarism and utilitarian theories of animal ethics as a whole: it acknowledges the problem of animal abuse without striking at the social and cultural principle of animals as resources that enables these abuses in the first place. Singer details the worst instances of factory farming and animal experimentation, and then makes sure we understand that scaling down the horror will solve the problem. Veganism is presented as a noble though hardly necessary step, above and beyond the baseline of considering whether a particular act of consumption is justifiable. It turns out, for all Singer's condemning of animal cruelty, there are all kinds of justifiable consumptions, but no one effective solution. This is a weak and disheartening book.
Singer, it must be said, remains consistent throughout his book, that is, consistently superficial. This book accurately diagnoses the cancer of nonhuman slavery rampant in our culture, then blithely prescribes a regimen of Band-Aids and filtered cigarettes as the ultimate solution.
Oh yeah, his recipe suggestions sucked too.
In fact, my complaint with this book is the same as my complaint with welfarism and utilitarian theories of animal ethics as a whole: it acknowledges the problem of animal abuse without striking at the social and cultural principle of animals as resources that enables these abuses in the first place. Singer details the worst instances of factory farming and animal experimentation, and then makes sure we understand that scaling down the horror will solve the problem. Veganism is presented as a noble though hardly necessary step, above and beyond the baseline of considering whether a particular act of consumption is justifiable. It turns out, for all Singer's condemning of animal cruelty, there are all kinds of justifiable consumptions, but no one effective solution. This is a weak and disheartening book.
Singer, it must be said, remains consistent throughout his book, that is, consistently superficial. This book accurately diagnoses the cancer of nonhuman slavery rampant in our culture, then blithely prescribes a regimen of Band-Aids and filtered cigarettes as the ultimate solution.
Oh yeah, his recipe suggestions sucked too.
Read
April 2, 2022I was sitting in a doctor's office many years ago when a young woman came out of the doctor's office, looked over at me sitting in his waiting room and blared out, "I just ruined by health by being a vegetarian!" It isn't easy being a vegetarian, it sure wasn't for her, so if anyone takes on this endeavor, I hope they are well read up on the subject.
This book doesn't take this into account; instead he says to not worry about your health, it will be okay.
Then he says that he grows his own food. Of course, if you have land, if you make your soil nutritious, and if you knew how to farm, you could grow your own food, but in some years you will be wiped out. So you better learn how to can your own food, which would be better than freezing it since those of us in the country have long power outages some years. And even now, the poor people in the country kill their own food since they are hungry, and they do this whenever they can, and that doesn't always mean deer, it means raccoons, squirrels, rabbits, and so on.
One year I spent $50 on organic vegetable seeds, and the spring rains wiped out the little plants. When it rains here it often pours. It poured. It flooded. We never get to eat our watermelon or cantaloupe, the ground hogs get them first, so we plant for them now, we really do. And the squirrels take the fruit off the trees, but it doesn't matter since they all have brown rot anyway.
Growing your own food would certainly be more nutritious than even buying organic at a health food store, since by the time it gets there it is depleted of much nutrition. And did I mention that grocery store foods are almost lifeless? The vegetables look like they are whimpering, and how do we know that they aren't when they are pulled from the ground? I remember what a swami in Vedanta told a woman who complained of their eating meat: "The rice also suffers." Anyway, it is impossible for most people to grow their own food, and there are many people in America that can't even afford organic, so being vegetarian isn't always healthy, but not much of anything is anymore.
Next, Singer says that we should eat grains and soy products. Soy isn't good or you and now, in more recent studies, neither is wheat or even grains.
I had been a complete vegetarian when I was in Hinduism and then in Buddhism, but while in these groups, I learned that not many of their leaders were vegetarians or even vegan, even though some of them encouraged us lay members to become vegetarians. Still, many people get the idea that they are vegetarians. I know I did for a long time.
At least in the Vedanta Society we were taught to not judge others who ate meat, which was a good lesson to learn, as some vegetarians are very judgmental of those who aren't like them.
When I was in Buddhism we were also taught that it was only morally wrong to kill your own food. In Tibet, the Buddhists just had the Muslims kill the animals, passing on to them what could have been some kind of rotten karma.
And then I learned that even the Vedanta swamis and gurus ate meat. I only knew because I was often invited to eat at their table, and we were served chicken and lamb, which I passed on, I was assuming too much again all because they only served vegetarian at their festivals, and I had not yet heard the woman arguing about their eating meat.
But I wrote all this due to Singer's moral stance on eating meat and his claim that strict Hindus hadn't eaten meat for the past 2,000 years. Actually, most Hindus always ate meat, just not beef and pork. It wasn't until modern times that many more became vegetarians or even vegans. Which point is, while the gurus popularized vegetarianism or even a vegan diet in America, which was a good thing in most part, they didn't always follow through themselves.
It was Gandhi who may have first launched the vegan movement after his reading a booklet by Salt, "A Pleas for Vegetarianism, published in 1885. Salt's next book was written in 1892, "Animals' Rights, Considered in Relation to Social Progressed." And yet he couldn't stick to being a strict vegan:
“I would give up milk if I could, but I cannot. I have made that experiment times without number. I could not, after a serious illness, regain my strength unless I went back to milk. That has been the tragedy of my life. But the basis of my vegetarianism is not physical, but moral. If any said that I should die if I did not take beef-tea or mutton, even under medical advice, I would prefer death. That is the basis of my vegetarianism.”
And while the Dalai Lama had been a vegetarian or a vegan, maybe after coming to India, but he was told by his doctor that he had to begin eating meat in order to cure his hepatitis, which he did and was cured.
Singer wrote: "Having at least one meat free day a week has made a bigger difference than the increasing number of vegetarians and vegans." Maybe that is all we can hope for in our society, but I hope for more than this: I hope that someday people will realize the suffering that is being done to animals in how they are being raised, and that more people will act to pass even more laws protecting animals from the cruelty of feedlots, the science labs, and etc. Right now Animal Activists are fighting the "ag gag" law that prevents them from secretly going in and taping the cruelty done to animals, which should tell you that they have a lot to hide. And maybe someday we will find it necessary to eat less beef due to climate change, if for no other reason.
In the meantime, we can only do what we can.
This book doesn't take this into account; instead he says to not worry about your health, it will be okay.
Then he says that he grows his own food. Of course, if you have land, if you make your soil nutritious, and if you knew how to farm, you could grow your own food, but in some years you will be wiped out. So you better learn how to can your own food, which would be better than freezing it since those of us in the country have long power outages some years. And even now, the poor people in the country kill their own food since they are hungry, and they do this whenever they can, and that doesn't always mean deer, it means raccoons, squirrels, rabbits, and so on.
One year I spent $50 on organic vegetable seeds, and the spring rains wiped out the little plants. When it rains here it often pours. It poured. It flooded. We never get to eat our watermelon or cantaloupe, the ground hogs get them first, so we plant for them now, we really do. And the squirrels take the fruit off the trees, but it doesn't matter since they all have brown rot anyway.
Growing your own food would certainly be more nutritious than even buying organic at a health food store, since by the time it gets there it is depleted of much nutrition. And did I mention that grocery store foods are almost lifeless? The vegetables look like they are whimpering, and how do we know that they aren't when they are pulled from the ground? I remember what a swami in Vedanta told a woman who complained of their eating meat: "The rice also suffers." Anyway, it is impossible for most people to grow their own food, and there are many people in America that can't even afford organic, so being vegetarian isn't always healthy, but not much of anything is anymore.
Next, Singer says that we should eat grains and soy products. Soy isn't good or you and now, in more recent studies, neither is wheat or even grains.
I had been a complete vegetarian when I was in Hinduism and then in Buddhism, but while in these groups, I learned that not many of their leaders were vegetarians or even vegan, even though some of them encouraged us lay members to become vegetarians. Still, many people get the idea that they are vegetarians. I know I did for a long time.
At least in the Vedanta Society we were taught to not judge others who ate meat, which was a good lesson to learn, as some vegetarians are very judgmental of those who aren't like them.
When I was in Buddhism we were also taught that it was only morally wrong to kill your own food. In Tibet, the Buddhists just had the Muslims kill the animals, passing on to them what could have been some kind of rotten karma.
And then I learned that even the Vedanta swamis and gurus ate meat. I only knew because I was often invited to eat at their table, and we were served chicken and lamb, which I passed on, I was assuming too much again all because they only served vegetarian at their festivals, and I had not yet heard the woman arguing about their eating meat.
But I wrote all this due to Singer's moral stance on eating meat and his claim that strict Hindus hadn't eaten meat for the past 2,000 years. Actually, most Hindus always ate meat, just not beef and pork. It wasn't until modern times that many more became vegetarians or even vegans. Which point is, while the gurus popularized vegetarianism or even a vegan diet in America, which was a good thing in most part, they didn't always follow through themselves.
It was Gandhi who may have first launched the vegan movement after his reading a booklet by Salt, "A Pleas for Vegetarianism, published in 1885. Salt's next book was written in 1892, "Animals' Rights, Considered in Relation to Social Progressed." And yet he couldn't stick to being a strict vegan:
“I would give up milk if I could, but I cannot. I have made that experiment times without number. I could not, after a serious illness, regain my strength unless I went back to milk. That has been the tragedy of my life. But the basis of my vegetarianism is not physical, but moral. If any said that I should die if I did not take beef-tea or mutton, even under medical advice, I would prefer death. That is the basis of my vegetarianism.”
And while the Dalai Lama had been a vegetarian or a vegan, maybe after coming to India, but he was told by his doctor that he had to begin eating meat in order to cure his hepatitis, which he did and was cured.
Singer wrote: "Having at least one meat free day a week has made a bigger difference than the increasing number of vegetarians and vegans." Maybe that is all we can hope for in our society, but I hope for more than this: I hope that someday people will realize the suffering that is being done to animals in how they are being raised, and that more people will act to pass even more laws protecting animals from the cruelty of feedlots, the science labs, and etc. Right now Animal Activists are fighting the "ag gag" law that prevents them from secretly going in and taping the cruelty done to animals, which should tell you that they have a lot to hide. And maybe someday we will find it necessary to eat less beef due to climate change, if for no other reason.
In the meantime, we can only do what we can.
July 2, 2007
Animal Liberation is credited with launching the animal rights movement in the industrialized world when it was first published in 1975 by the then relatively unknown, Peter Singer ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Si...]). You can blame all of the illogical stupidity of [http://www.peta.org] PETA on this book. But PETA's antics tend to blind people to any logical discussion of the real points in Animal Liberation. Singer does not support the animal rights movement epitomized by PETA but holds many of the same views, referred to as speciesism ([http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciesism]), based on a logical examination of the practices of the industrialized societies in their use of animals. The examination is based on Utilitarian ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitar...]) morals and ethics and you have to read the book with that frame of mind, even if you don't agree you have to be open to utilitarian ideas, to understand some of what Singer is talking about.
Most people in the industrial world are far removed from how their food is produced and how their beauty products or drugs are tested and approved. This blinds many people to the true magnitude of the use of animals in sustaining or modern standard of living. Animal liberation strips off the blinders and exposes the realities of our system of animal exploitation. Animal Liberation is an academic book on ethics but is also in-your-face and readable.
I first read Animal Liberation when I worked in the fish store back in C'ville. One of our regular customers was a post-doc biologist at the university. She came in one day to buy 100 Zebra Danios to be used in an experiment. I'm not sure now what the exact nature of the experiment was but Jason argued with her and said he would not sell them to her if she was going to 'cut their heads open and stick electrodes in their brains.' Jason continues to argue by asking her 'have you even read Animal Liberation?' to which she responded, 'yes, have you?' The only thing Jason could say was, 'um. No, actually.'
Even though Jason, John and myself had, for a time, been vegetarian neither Jason or I had read Animal Liberation yet and I'm not sure if John had finished it yet. We'd become vegetarians based on discussion of the principles in Animal Liberation with several of our customers and friends, including a ethics teacher at the university. This was when I picked up my first copy of the book, figuring that I could not speak intelligently about the decision I had made, could not even justify the decision unless I had actually read the book. I'm glad it was Jason and not me that got caught on the soap box without being prepared.
If it's hard to imagine going vegetarian or vegan read Animal Liberation and then think about it. It's hard for anyone I've meet to read Animal Liberation and not change their lifestyle in some way. Not everyone goes vegetarian or vegan but they all change some, the arguments are compelling and the images and examples of humans use of non-humans are graphic and disturbing.
Most people in the industrial world are far removed from how their food is produced and how their beauty products or drugs are tested and approved. This blinds many people to the true magnitude of the use of animals in sustaining or modern standard of living. Animal liberation strips off the blinders and exposes the realities of our system of animal exploitation. Animal Liberation is an academic book on ethics but is also in-your-face and readable.
I first read Animal Liberation when I worked in the fish store back in C'ville. One of our regular customers was a post-doc biologist at the university. She came in one day to buy 100 Zebra Danios to be used in an experiment. I'm not sure now what the exact nature of the experiment was but Jason argued with her and said he would not sell them to her if she was going to 'cut their heads open and stick electrodes in their brains.' Jason continues to argue by asking her 'have you even read Animal Liberation?' to which she responded, 'yes, have you?' The only thing Jason could say was, 'um. No, actually.'
Even though Jason, John and myself had, for a time, been vegetarian neither Jason or I had read Animal Liberation yet and I'm not sure if John had finished it yet. We'd become vegetarians based on discussion of the principles in Animal Liberation with several of our customers and friends, including a ethics teacher at the university. This was when I picked up my first copy of the book, figuring that I could not speak intelligently about the decision I had made, could not even justify the decision unless I had actually read the book. I'm glad it was Jason and not me that got caught on the soap box without being prepared.
If it's hard to imagine going vegetarian or vegan read Animal Liberation and then think about it. It's hard for anyone I've meet to read Animal Liberation and not change their lifestyle in some way. Not everyone goes vegetarian or vegan but they all change some, the arguments are compelling and the images and examples of humans use of non-humans are graphic and disturbing.
Read
April 1, 2022Edited 4/1/22 to adjust star rating and note continued discussion in the replies.
In a word: yikes.
My relationship with Singer and the entire philosophical foundation of this book is complicated, to say the least. There were pages where I nodded along to the familiar litany of abuses and exploitation that I have, myself, brought up in discussions about my plant-based diet. And then there were all the other pages, where I had to set the book down and move it away from me to prevent a violent incident in my own living room. General summary: this book was not for me, even as a vegan of five years. Now on to the specific critiques, in no particular order:
1) Singer's prose was trite, preachy, and painfully moralistic (not in the cool moral philosopher way but in the annoying vegan way).
2) I read the updated 2009 edition, and yet none of the facts or statistics have been updated since 1988. Cogent arguments about animal welfare depend on reliable facts and relevant information, dontcha know.
3) I almost twisted my ankle on all the logical fallacies in this book. It's the 21st century, I should not have to explain that anecdotal evidence and appeal to authority are ineffective. Come on.
4) The racism and ableism. This should probably be number one. Yes, animal agriculture is harmful and flawed and causes tremendous amounts of suffering that we should work to prevent. No, that doesn't mean that you can equate it to the sufferings of Black people who interact with institutionalized racism. No, that doesn't mean we can condemn individuals with disabilities to the same status as non-human animals just because they aren't "normal human adults" (Singer's words, not mine). There was no acknowledgment that ruling groups have long used dehumanization tactics to oppress others, and there certainly was no swift condemnation of those who do so. In fact, Singer used dehumanization multiple times throughout the book to support his own allegedly "radical" arguments (he cited the example of someone who successfully prosecuted an instance of child abuse as a case of cruelty to animals/ private property. A child, y'all).
5) All of the views expressed came from a distinctly, painfully white, male, Western perspective. Singer appears blissfully ignorant of the traditions of cultures other than his own, as well as the possibility that his sanitized version of "vegetarianism" is not the only moral path. The entire thing reeked of moral absolutism.
6) When I read a book about moral philosophy, I do not want to hear the cute personal anecdotes about your backyard garden or your understanding yet meat-loving friends. Leave that at the door, I beg of you.
7) A complete disregard of economics and socioeconomic status. Zero understanding of poverty. Implied condemnation of those who cannot afford the specific flavor of vegetarianism that Singer proposes.
8) For all of the above reasons, the ideas and philosophies put forth in this book are largely what gives vegans a bad rap. Voices like Singer's, specifically those voices of white men who think they know everything and loudly speak over everyone else in the room, dominate the discourse around the treatment of animals. There is no nuance, only an ill-formed litany of opinions that is problematic AT BEST.
And this brings me to my final point (at least for right now, I'm kind of incensed about this book). Singer and I may share similar diets, but we lie on opposite sides of the philosophical line due to this one particular sentence in Chapter 6: "We are still a long way from the point at which it is possible to put pressure on restaurants and food manufacturers to eliminate animal products altogether." Read: it is the personal responsibility of each god-forsaken reader who picks up this book to single-handedly remedy the faults of a flawed society. Singer is punching down, not up, and I can't quite forgive him for that.
In a word: yikes.
My relationship with Singer and the entire philosophical foundation of this book is complicated, to say the least. There were pages where I nodded along to the familiar litany of abuses and exploitation that I have, myself, brought up in discussions about my plant-based diet. And then there were all the other pages, where I had to set the book down and move it away from me to prevent a violent incident in my own living room. General summary: this book was not for me, even as a vegan of five years. Now on to the specific critiques, in no particular order:
1) Singer's prose was trite, preachy, and painfully moralistic (not in the cool moral philosopher way but in the annoying vegan way).
2) I read the updated 2009 edition, and yet none of the facts or statistics have been updated since 1988. Cogent arguments about animal welfare depend on reliable facts and relevant information, dontcha know.
3) I almost twisted my ankle on all the logical fallacies in this book. It's the 21st century, I should not have to explain that anecdotal evidence and appeal to authority are ineffective. Come on.
4) The racism and ableism. This should probably be number one. Yes, animal agriculture is harmful and flawed and causes tremendous amounts of suffering that we should work to prevent. No, that doesn't mean that you can equate it to the sufferings of Black people who interact with institutionalized racism. No, that doesn't mean we can condemn individuals with disabilities to the same status as non-human animals just because they aren't "normal human adults" (Singer's words, not mine). There was no acknowledgment that ruling groups have long used dehumanization tactics to oppress others, and there certainly was no swift condemnation of those who do so. In fact, Singer used dehumanization multiple times throughout the book to support his own allegedly "radical" arguments (he cited the example of someone who successfully prosecuted an instance of child abuse as a case of cruelty to animals/ private property. A child, y'all).
5) All of the views expressed came from a distinctly, painfully white, male, Western perspective. Singer appears blissfully ignorant of the traditions of cultures other than his own, as well as the possibility that his sanitized version of "vegetarianism" is not the only moral path. The entire thing reeked of moral absolutism.
6) When I read a book about moral philosophy, I do not want to hear the cute personal anecdotes about your backyard garden or your understanding yet meat-loving friends. Leave that at the door, I beg of you.
7) A complete disregard of economics and socioeconomic status. Zero understanding of poverty. Implied condemnation of those who cannot afford the specific flavor of vegetarianism that Singer proposes.
8) For all of the above reasons, the ideas and philosophies put forth in this book are largely what gives vegans a bad rap. Voices like Singer's, specifically those voices of white men who think they know everything and loudly speak over everyone else in the room, dominate the discourse around the treatment of animals. There is no nuance, only an ill-formed litany of opinions that is problematic AT BEST.
And this brings me to my final point (at least for right now, I'm kind of incensed about this book). Singer and I may share similar diets, but we lie on opposite sides of the philosophical line due to this one particular sentence in Chapter 6: "We are still a long way from the point at which it is possible to put pressure on restaurants and food manufacturers to eliminate animal products altogether." Read: it is the personal responsibility of each god-forsaken reader who picks up this book to single-handedly remedy the faults of a flawed society. Singer is punching down, not up, and I can't quite forgive him for that.
December 7, 2022
Animal liberation review
This book is very hard to read, what I mean by that is, this is the book that disclose the ugliness of humankind and their violent behaviour towards other species on our planet.
The book begins with an introduction of animal liberation and the common argument, then follows with the truth in animal lab, factory farm and how unnecessary it is to force such violence and pain to other sentient beings. In the end, there’s a history of the forming of speciesism, and speciesism in modern days.
As a vegan activist, I’ve been boycotting cruelty towards animals for many years, this book is my very own reminder. I believe in animal liberation as much as I believe in human liberation, gender equality and racial equality.
At this point, it’s not a matter of a diet nor lifestyle, it’s a philosophic thought on morality. There’s a quote by Bentham that author used many times throughout the book: “The question is not, Can they reason?, nor Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?”
This book is very hard to read, what I mean by that is, this is the book that disclose the ugliness of humankind and their violent behaviour towards other species on our planet.
The book begins with an introduction of animal liberation and the common argument, then follows with the truth in animal lab, factory farm and how unnecessary it is to force such violence and pain to other sentient beings. In the end, there’s a history of the forming of speciesism, and speciesism in modern days.
As a vegan activist, I’ve been boycotting cruelty towards animals for many years, this book is my very own reminder. I believe in animal liberation as much as I believe in human liberation, gender equality and racial equality.
At this point, it’s not a matter of a diet nor lifestyle, it’s a philosophic thought on morality. There’s a quote by Bentham that author used many times throughout the book: “The question is not, Can they reason?, nor Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?”
December 31, 2012
Peter Singer builds a step-by-step, iron-clad ethical case for considering the welfare of animals as part of our ever-expanding circle of moral consideration. While non-human animals may not be our equals in many respects, the only thing that really matters is their shared ability to experience pain and suffering. Any attempt to draw a line between what makes humans worthy of consideration and non-human animals not worthy of consideration fails in establishing any kind of logical distinction. If we are to include all humans as having the right to avoid suffering, then that includes many developmentally disabled humans that are exceeded in their capacities by many non-humans.
Singer establishes these ethical foundations and then examines at length the use of animals in laboratory experiments and in factory farming. While he outlines some of the other areas in which our interests conflict with those of animals, these are the two he focuses on for the greater balance of the book. While at times I suspected that his extrapolations on figures and facts should be treated as speculations (he does present them as such), the underlying logic is well-defended. An account is given also of the progression of Western thought about animals and interaction with animals. While necessarily brief and not all-inclusive, it helps to paint the broad canvas of humanity's inhumanity to non-humans as well as the progress of animal advocacy and consciousness-raising.
Another significant aim of the book is to encourage a vegetarian diet. As a life-long meat eater, this was incredibly important for me to read. For, if these ethical implications are true (they are), then one must take a vegetarian and even a vegan diet seriously into consideration in order to be morally and ethically consistent. Singer does not create this as a black-and-white proposition; he explores the potential situations in which meat eating could be ethical, and the spectrum of consideration that corresponds to relative degrees of suffering. He also addresses dietary concerns, social impact, and the language and practice of speciesism; I found his treatment nuanced and thought-provoking. (Spoiler: the only potential nutrient a vegan needs to be concerned about lacking is vitamin B12, which can be had via supplements.)
I'd already heard these arguments through various other sources, and as a result have made efforts to reduce my meat consumption over the past 11 months that I have been monitoring it. I admit it has not been easy for me nor a clean break, but Animal Liberation has renewed my commitment to strive for a diet that is consistent with my morals.
Singer establishes these ethical foundations and then examines at length the use of animals in laboratory experiments and in factory farming. While he outlines some of the other areas in which our interests conflict with those of animals, these are the two he focuses on for the greater balance of the book. While at times I suspected that his extrapolations on figures and facts should be treated as speculations (he does present them as such), the underlying logic is well-defended. An account is given also of the progression of Western thought about animals and interaction with animals. While necessarily brief and not all-inclusive, it helps to paint the broad canvas of humanity's inhumanity to non-humans as well as the progress of animal advocacy and consciousness-raising.
Another significant aim of the book is to encourage a vegetarian diet. As a life-long meat eater, this was incredibly important for me to read. For, if these ethical implications are true (they are), then one must take a vegetarian and even a vegan diet seriously into consideration in order to be morally and ethically consistent. Singer does not create this as a black-and-white proposition; he explores the potential situations in which meat eating could be ethical, and the spectrum of consideration that corresponds to relative degrees of suffering. He also addresses dietary concerns, social impact, and the language and practice of speciesism; I found his treatment nuanced and thought-provoking. (Spoiler: the only potential nutrient a vegan needs to be concerned about lacking is vitamin B12, which can be had via supplements.)
I'd already heard these arguments through various other sources, and as a result have made efforts to reduce my meat consumption over the past 11 months that I have been monitoring it. I admit it has not been easy for me nor a clean break, but Animal Liberation has renewed my commitment to strive for a diet that is consistent with my morals.
December 25, 2013
Even after so many years, most people remains either unaware or indifferent to the horrible way we are treating animals. Most people are unaware because it is difficult to see connections when you live in a city you never leave and just see a piece of red, inanimate matter wrapped in plastic that just tastes delicious.
Animal liberation must have been a shocking book, a revelation to many people about the unfair use and abuse animals suffer because of our insatiable search for pleasure, our ignorance about food, the power of the food sector and the fear of... of what? Just like abolitionists, Singer is a pioneer of the animal liberation movement and argues that there is fundamentally no difference among racists, sexists and specieists.
Almost three years ago, I decided to stop eating animals. I just did, with nobody telling me anything. Never, ever, had people (besides my mom when I was a child) been so worried about what I ate. Nobody had ever worried about my protein intake or pretty much anything else. Suddenly, they do now. Why is it that they feel my choices threatening? Is there some guilt in them just to see me reject animals in my plate?
I do not think you need justifications to break your connections to this infamous, inhumane and disgusting industry. However, Animal Liberation helps you to see many facts you have probably not seen and help you take that step.
Animal liberation must have been a shocking book, a revelation to many people about the unfair use and abuse animals suffer because of our insatiable search for pleasure, our ignorance about food, the power of the food sector and the fear of... of what? Just like abolitionists, Singer is a pioneer of the animal liberation movement and argues that there is fundamentally no difference among racists, sexists and specieists.
Almost three years ago, I decided to stop eating animals. I just did, with nobody telling me anything. Never, ever, had people (besides my mom when I was a child) been so worried about what I ate. Nobody had ever worried about my protein intake or pretty much anything else. Suddenly, they do now. Why is it that they feel my choices threatening? Is there some guilt in them just to see me reject animals in my plate?
I do not think you need justifications to break your connections to this infamous, inhumane and disgusting industry. However, Animal Liberation helps you to see many facts you have probably not seen and help you take that step.
August 31, 2021
هرکسی که این کتابو نخونده به نظرم حتما باید بخونه و هرکی بخونه یا کاملا گیاهخوار میشه یا مصرف گوشتو به حد اقل میرسونه
July 10, 2020
Найважча але найважливіша книжка цього року.
"Вбивство тварини - це гнітючий вчинок. Уже згадувалось про те, що якби нам доводилось самим добувати собі їжу,
ми усі були б вегетаріанцями. Звісно ж, небагато людей побувало на скотобійні, а телебачення зазвичай не показує фільми про те, що ж там відбувається. Люди можуть сподіватись, що вони взяли з полиці магазину м'ясо тварини, яка померла без болю, але ніхто насправді не хоче знати правду. Проте ті, хто своїми покупками стимулює вбивства тварин, не заслуговують на те, щоб бути захищеними від інформації про ці процеси або й про будь-які інші аспекти виробництва м'яса, яке вони купують";
"...Рух за визволення тварин потребуватиме більшого альтруїзму, ніж будь-який інший визвольний рух.
Тварини не здатні вимагати власного визволення або ж протестувати проти умов утримання чи голосувати, проводити демонстрації та бойкоти. Ми маємо владу продовжувати гноблення інших видів вічно або принаймні доки не зробимо нашу планету непридатною для життя. Чи буде тиранія людей продовжуватись, тим самим доводячи, що мораль не має значення, коли виникає конфлікт з егоїстичними інтересами, як завжди стверджували найцинічніші поети та філософи? Чи, може, ми приймемо виклик і доведемо, що здатні на справжній альтруїзм, припинивши безжальну експлуатацію залежних від нас видів, і зробимо це не тому, що нас змусять бунтівники та терористи, а тому, що зрозуміємо — наша теперішня позиція морально невиправдана?
Відповідь на це питання залежить від того, що на це скаже кожен з нас".
"Вбивство тварини - це гнітючий вчинок. Уже згадувалось про те, що якби нам доводилось самим добувати собі їжу,
ми усі були б вегетаріанцями. Звісно ж, небагато людей побувало на скотобійні, а телебачення зазвичай не показує фільми про те, що ж там відбувається. Люди можуть сподіватись, що вони взяли з полиці магазину м'ясо тварини, яка померла без болю, але ніхто насправді не хоче знати правду. Проте ті, хто своїми покупками стимулює вбивства тварин, не заслуговують на те, щоб бути захищеними від інформації про ці процеси або й про будь-які інші аспекти виробництва м'яса, яке вони купують";
"...Рух за визволення тварин потребуватиме більшого альтруїзму, ніж будь-який інший визвольний рух.
Тварини не здатні вимагати власного визволення або ж протестувати проти умов утримання чи голосувати, проводити демонстрації та бойкоти. Ми маємо владу продовжувати гноблення інших видів вічно або принаймні доки не зробимо нашу планету непридатною для життя. Чи буде тиранія людей продовжуватись, тим самим доводячи, що мораль не має значення, коли виникає конфлікт з егоїстичними інтересами, як завжди стверджували найцинічніші поети та філософи? Чи, може, ми приймемо виклик і доведемо, що здатні на справжній альтруїзм, припинивши безжальну експлуатацію залежних від нас видів, і зробимо це не тому, що нас змусять бунтівники та терористи, а тому, що зрозуміємо — наша теперішня позиція морально невиправдана?
Відповідь на це питання залежить від того, що на це скаже кожен з нас".
September 10, 2020
Książka udziela wyczerpujących odpowiedzi natury etycznej i filozoficznej w kontekście zjadania i wykorzystywania zwierząt. Peter Singer rozprawia się nawet z najgłupszymi pytaniami. Ja – jako osoba już przekonana – nie znalazłam tam żadnych nowych argumentów, za to po raz pierwszy miałam okazję czytać tak wiele na temat eksperymentów na zwierzętach – to jeden z dwóch głównych obszarów wykorzystywania zwierząt, na których, w celach rozważań filozoficznych i moralnych, skupia się autor. Drugim jest oczywiście hodowla przemysłowa. Dla mnie ważnym elementem książki była też przedmowa Dariusza Gzyry, którego teksty bardzo cenię. Nie jestem z tych, które powiedzą: „Gdy przeczytacie tę książkę, przestaniecie jeść mięso” (pewnie znajdą się takie osoby, ale jedzenie mięsa to zbyt złożony proces, by wszystkim od razu udało się przeskoczyć z jednego systemu, w którym wychowywani i karmieni jesteśmy od dziecka, do drugiego, który produkty odzwierzęce całkowicie odrzuca). Myślę jednak, że na pewno będzie ważną cegiełką w budowaniu własnego światopoglądu – a to już spory krok. I żeby nie było, że jestem bezkrytyczna: mały zarzut to klasizm – nie każdy może sobie wyhodować własny ogródek i żywić się z własnych plonów, jak robi i sugeruje to Singer, ale to jedynie drobny element, do którego mogłabym się przyczepić w tej książce, która ostatecznie przecież dotyczy argumentów filozoficznych a nie tych praktycznych czy ekonomicznie możliwych. Czytajcie.
June 3, 2017
Sur la couverture de la nouvelle édition française en poche de La Libération animale, de Peter Singer, il y a : un cheval, un cerf et une biche, un lion, un cavalier king charles, un paon, un faisan, deux lévriers afghans, un renard, deux pigeons, une petite salamandre jaune et noire, une belette et un drôle d'oiseau. Le cheval et le cerf se regardent comme si ils devaient décider de la direction où mener toute leur petite troupe (putain de société patriarcale). Tout le monde a l'air de vivre en bonne harmonie, même le lion, qui est pourtant visiblement grognon. Le tout sur fonds de pâturages verts, et d'arbres, avec d'autres animaux au loin. Ça m'a rappelé un tract des témoins de Jéhovah que j'avais un jour reçu dans ma boîte aux lettres : une tripotée d'animaux différents qui vivaient dans l'harmonie la plus totale avec des humains. Je me rappelle qu'il y avait un petit garçon noir qui caressait un lion dans un bosquet, dans une sorte de vision paradisiaque, où les hommes vivraient en accord avec les animaux - enfin, avec certains animaux, les animaux politiquement acceptables : animaux sauvages à défendre, animaux domestique mignons, mais fi des porcs et des poulets.
Dans la Libération animale de Peter Singer, nous parlerons pourtant de porcs et de poulets. Nous parlerons de bœufs, de vaches, de veaux anémiés en fer qui tentent de lécher leur urine pour se nourrir, de truies confinées qui écrasent leurs petits, de poules élevées en batterie, sur des grillages, réduites à l'immobilité, à tel point que leurs pattes se fondent parfois dans les grilles, de beagles auxquels on arrache les yeux, de chats qu'on mutile sexuellement, de singes auxquels on découpe la boîte crânienne, le tout sans anesthésie. Nous parlerons mutilations et électrocutions, antibiotiques, amputation du bec ou de la queue, meulage de dents, déclenchement de la dépression chez les bébés singes. Vous risquez de faire de drôles de grimaces en lisant ça dans le métro.
Le classique de Singer est souvent décrié : dernièrement, j'ai encore eu l'occasion de voir Léa Salamé à la télévision, expliquer que Singer justifie les maltraitances sur les personnes handicapées mentales, alors qu'il demande à ses lecteurs de bien traiter les animaux. La vie d'un animal non-humain en bonne santé aurait donc plus de valeur que celle d'un humain déficient.
C'est toujours une bonne idée de lire et de comprendre le livre avant de raconter n'importe quoi sur une chaîne de grande audience, du coup je l'ai fait après coup pour Léa : Singer amène effectivement l'argument d'une personne handicapée, pour se demander dans quelle mesure la discrimination peut-elle être justifiée envers les êtres vivants. Nous entendons souvent dire que l'homme est plus fort que les animaux, ce qui justifierait sa domination : cet argument serait-il valable, si l'on envisage le cas d'un être humain en pleine santé, et d'un être humain en situation de handicap ? Nous entendons également régulièrement dire que l'homme est plus intelligent que l'animal, ce qui justifierait également sa domination sur l'animal : faudrait-il alors admettre qu'une personne déficiente a moins de valeur qu'une personne non-déficiente ? Pourrait-on justifier la pratique de la vivisection sur cette personne, à supposer qu'elle ne comprenne pas ce qui lui arrive ? Et Singer de rappeler qu'il y a peu encore, les nouveaux-nés étaient opérés sans anesthésie préalable.
L'argument convoqué, s'il peut choquer, est amené, évidemment, pour que le lecteur y réponde de manière négative : rien ne justifie un mauvais traitement d'une personne déficiente mentalement. Et alors, si on ne justifie pas par la force, par l'intelligence, ou par quelque autre moyen, la domination de l'homme sur les animaux, ne faudrait-il pas admettre qu'on doit respecter la vie des animaux en soi, juste parce qu'ils ont un intérêt à vivre ? Comme nous le faisons pour une personne déficiente mentale, évidemment, ou pour un nouveau-né.
S'ensuivent deux chapitres : l'un concerne l'expérimentation animale, et il m'a durablement choquée. Depuis que j'ai commencé à lire autour du sujet, j'ai toujours zigzagué entre les ouvrages évoquant la vivisection, car, même si je vois la nécessité qu'il y a d'en apprendre plus sur le sujet, j'ai clairement du mal à affronter. Les descriptions des méthodes de vivisection, les rapports d'expérimentations sur animaux, étaient simplement horrifiques. Je fais déjà attention à utiliser des marques de cosmétiques ou de produits d'entretien qui ne testent pas, mais le chapitre m'a donné envie de me renseigner plus précisément sur le sujet - aujourd'hui en France, quelles sont les pratiques encore en vogue, comment peut-on s'y opposer, etc.
Le deuxième chapitre évoquait les pratiques d'élevage. Celui-ci a un peu valeur de document socio-historique : ce sont des pratiques qui se faisaient dans les années 80, aux Etats-Unis, qui diffèrent encore de celles pratiquées aujourd'hui en France. Toutefois, il est intéressant de voir jusqu'où on a pu aller dans l'horreur, de constater que certains pays ont légiféré à l'époque sans acter depuis, de voir que la situation de certains animaux en élevage n'a aucunement progressé.
Enfin, la dernière partie du livre plaide pour le végétarisme. Le végétalisme, le véganisme, ne sont que rapidement abordés ; l'auteur pense que revendiquer la 'pureté' d'un régime entièrement végétal peut décourager d'autres personnes de prendre la voie d'une alimentation sans cruauté, qu'il vaut mieux aller dans le bon sens, tout en militant. Une position critiquable-mais-bon-c'est-aussi-l'époque.
Les questions d'environnement, de santé, d'empathie avec les animaux, qui pourraient nous mener à un mode de vie plus éthique, sont quant à elles laissées de côté : finalement, la seule question qui mène le texte est d'ordre moral : peut-on moralement faire du mal aux animaux, alors que nous n'y sommes pas obligés ?
Quatre cents pages qui ont changé la philosophie, et qui contribuent encore, à petits pas, à changer le monde.
Tiens, si tu as la flemme de lire parce qu'il fait chaud, voilà le lien d'une conférence de Peter Singer (et de Mathieu Ricard puis d'Aymeric Caron) :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEZgI...
Dans la Libération animale de Peter Singer, nous parlerons pourtant de porcs et de poulets. Nous parlerons de bœufs, de vaches, de veaux anémiés en fer qui tentent de lécher leur urine pour se nourrir, de truies confinées qui écrasent leurs petits, de poules élevées en batterie, sur des grillages, réduites à l'immobilité, à tel point que leurs pattes se fondent parfois dans les grilles, de beagles auxquels on arrache les yeux, de chats qu'on mutile sexuellement, de singes auxquels on découpe la boîte crânienne, le tout sans anesthésie. Nous parlerons mutilations et électrocutions, antibiotiques, amputation du bec ou de la queue, meulage de dents, déclenchement de la dépression chez les bébés singes. Vous risquez de faire de drôles de grimaces en lisant ça dans le métro.
Le classique de Singer est souvent décrié : dernièrement, j'ai encore eu l'occasion de voir Léa Salamé à la télévision, expliquer que Singer justifie les maltraitances sur les personnes handicapées mentales, alors qu'il demande à ses lecteurs de bien traiter les animaux. La vie d'un animal non-humain en bonne santé aurait donc plus de valeur que celle d'un humain déficient.
C'est toujours une bonne idée de lire et de comprendre le livre avant de raconter n'importe quoi sur une chaîne de grande audience, du coup je l'ai fait après coup pour Léa : Singer amène effectivement l'argument d'une personne handicapée, pour se demander dans quelle mesure la discrimination peut-elle être justifiée envers les êtres vivants. Nous entendons souvent dire que l'homme est plus fort que les animaux, ce qui justifierait sa domination : cet argument serait-il valable, si l'on envisage le cas d'un être humain en pleine santé, et d'un être humain en situation de handicap ? Nous entendons également régulièrement dire que l'homme est plus intelligent que l'animal, ce qui justifierait également sa domination sur l'animal : faudrait-il alors admettre qu'une personne déficiente a moins de valeur qu'une personne non-déficiente ? Pourrait-on justifier la pratique de la vivisection sur cette personne, à supposer qu'elle ne comprenne pas ce qui lui arrive ? Et Singer de rappeler qu'il y a peu encore, les nouveaux-nés étaient opérés sans anesthésie préalable.
L'argument convoqué, s'il peut choquer, est amené, évidemment, pour que le lecteur y réponde de manière négative : rien ne justifie un mauvais traitement d'une personne déficiente mentalement. Et alors, si on ne justifie pas par la force, par l'intelligence, ou par quelque autre moyen, la domination de l'homme sur les animaux, ne faudrait-il pas admettre qu'on doit respecter la vie des animaux en soi, juste parce qu'ils ont un intérêt à vivre ? Comme nous le faisons pour une personne déficiente mentale, évidemment, ou pour un nouveau-né.
S'ensuivent deux chapitres : l'un concerne l'expérimentation animale, et il m'a durablement choquée. Depuis que j'ai commencé à lire autour du sujet, j'ai toujours zigzagué entre les ouvrages évoquant la vivisection, car, même si je vois la nécessité qu'il y a d'en apprendre plus sur le sujet, j'ai clairement du mal à affronter. Les descriptions des méthodes de vivisection, les rapports d'expérimentations sur animaux, étaient simplement horrifiques. Je fais déjà attention à utiliser des marques de cosmétiques ou de produits d'entretien qui ne testent pas, mais le chapitre m'a donné envie de me renseigner plus précisément sur le sujet - aujourd'hui en France, quelles sont les pratiques encore en vogue, comment peut-on s'y opposer, etc.
Le deuxième chapitre évoquait les pratiques d'élevage. Celui-ci a un peu valeur de document socio-historique : ce sont des pratiques qui se faisaient dans les années 80, aux Etats-Unis, qui diffèrent encore de celles pratiquées aujourd'hui en France. Toutefois, il est intéressant de voir jusqu'où on a pu aller dans l'horreur, de constater que certains pays ont légiféré à l'époque sans acter depuis, de voir que la situation de certains animaux en élevage n'a aucunement progressé.
Enfin, la dernière partie du livre plaide pour le végétarisme. Le végétalisme, le véganisme, ne sont que rapidement abordés ; l'auteur pense que revendiquer la 'pureté' d'un régime entièrement végétal peut décourager d'autres personnes de prendre la voie d'une alimentation sans cruauté, qu'il vaut mieux aller dans le bon sens, tout en militant. Une position critiquable-mais-bon-c'est-aussi-l'époque.
Les questions d'environnement, de santé, d'empathie avec les animaux, qui pourraient nous mener à un mode de vie plus éthique, sont quant à elles laissées de côté : finalement, la seule question qui mène le texte est d'ordre moral : peut-on moralement faire du mal aux animaux, alors que nous n'y sommes pas obligés ?
Quatre cents pages qui ont changé la philosophie, et qui contribuent encore, à petits pas, à changer le monde.
Tiens, si tu as la flemme de lire parce qu'il fait chaud, voilà le lien d'une conférence de Peter Singer (et de Mathieu Ricard puis d'Aymeric Caron) :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEZgI...
June 12, 2023
speciesists DESTROYED with FACTS and LOGIC
I've been a vegetarian for about seven years, and although my initial decision was based more on convenience (living with vegans) and ecological concerns, the fate of animals increasingly concerned me. Even so, I went into this book expecting to disagree with a lot of it. In fact, I was surprised how little I disagreed. Singer presents a compelling case for animal liberation as a movement that I think is pretty difficult to refute. I think most aversion to veganism & animal liberation is based on ignorance, often willful ignorance (it's unpleasant to think about how the animals we eat are treated). And I think even most of the well-thought out arguments against veganism are just cope.
Discarding speciesism has wide implications in philosophy and theology, especially with respect to humanist doctrines and Christianity, and although Singer delves into that, I'm curious to look elsewhere for a more thorough treatment.
Basically this book owns and people should stop complaining about vegans being annoying
I've been a vegetarian for about seven years, and although my initial decision was based more on convenience (living with vegans) and ecological concerns, the fate of animals increasingly concerned me. Even so, I went into this book expecting to disagree with a lot of it. In fact, I was surprised how little I disagreed. Singer presents a compelling case for animal liberation as a movement that I think is pretty difficult to refute. I think most aversion to veganism & animal liberation is based on ignorance, often willful ignorance (it's unpleasant to think about how the animals we eat are treated). And I think even most of the well-thought out arguments against veganism are just cope.
Discarding speciesism has wide implications in philosophy and theology, especially with respect to humanist doctrines and Christianity, and although Singer delves into that, I'm curious to look elsewhere for a more thorough treatment.
Basically this book owns and people should stop complaining about vegans being annoying
June 12, 2021
‘This book does not make sentimental appeals for sympathy towards cute animals, but it is an attempt to think through the question of how we ought to treat nonhuman animals.’
And nothing is less true. What an amazing book.
Peter Singer wrote this piece of art back in 1975, when animal liberation was even more of a joke to the general public than it is now. At the end of the book, he mostly pleads for being a vegetarian, since veganism wasn’t even a thing yet. However, Singer starts with an introduction written years later on how even though certain things have improved, there is much more to still fight for, and on how the fundaments of his book are still relevant. Yuval Harari, who inspired me to go vegan in the first place after reading his book ‘Sapiens’, also wrote an introduction to the book, adding to the timeless importance of this piece in general.
Animal Liberation takes the reader with on a journey, firstly by exploring the main ethical point of view and what this means for us and for animals. Then Singer guides us past two examples of animal exploitation in the world, namely factory farming and animal testing. After this the history of our ethics (mainly based on religion) are discussed and in the conclusive notes Singer nicely brings everything together.
Some parts were new to me, some weren’t. I had already consumed a lot of information on factory farming from different sources, but handling practices in animal testing were less known to me. I have quite some knowledge of the (often wrongful) prejudices and obstacles surrounding veganism, but the role religion played in our history of animal handling was something I’d also never touched upon. To me, the best part of the book was Singer’s Introduction and his subsequent ethical and philosophical viewpoint on the exploitation of animals. He makes a strong case for having interests (and thus deserving consideration) depending on an ability to suffer, instead of being able to talk, being blessed with cute eyes, or being intelligent (see below: Part 1/4). This angle is refreshing in showing that it is not needed to be sentimental to treat nonhuman animals with respect, and that this can in fact be a fully rational decision.
Peter Singer definitely has a way with words and is a professional at holding his reader’s attention. In all honesty I would even call it a page-turner despite the gravity of the subject.
There are some minor points in the book that I have to disagree with, however. Singer does not find the killing of animals wrong would it be fast and painless (which it definitely isn’t today), since it doesn’t necessarily lead to suffering. This is quite narrow-minded. It doesn’t take into account the family or community of the animal left behind, the panic preceding slaughter which many beings endure, or the quality of life left hadn’t the animal been killed. This brings up the interesting moral question if it should be better to live a hard life, or to not have lived / keep on living at all.
Another point is that he pleads for drawing the line somewhere (whichbeings can we eat?) and he suggests this line should be between a shrimp and an oyster, but he then says we should stay away from consuming oysters as well, since we can’t be sure they cannot suffer.
Moreover, he skips the point of bycatch and thus, of indirect suffering. If mussels are incapable of suffering, does it still mean we can eat them considering how many turtles and dolphins get caught in the nets during fishing practices, since they are on the other hand perfectly capable of suffering? What is the amount of suffering we can tolerate?
Singer could have definitely done these three points more justice than solely exploring them over the course of one paragraph.
Still, this work belongs with my favourites. I’ve read many books surrounding animal exploitation, such as Eating Animals and The Face on Your Plate, but this is the one that rules them all. Peter Singer kicked off the Animal Liberation movement with this piece in 1975. His view was, at that time, revolutional to say the least, but it is no less refreshing today. The combination of ethics, philosophy and our history shines a unique light on how we ought to treat animals. I would highly recommend this to anyone who is interested in animal liberation. If reading a whole book is too much, I would suggest reading at least the Introduction & Ethics chapters.
Below I have jotted down what I learned from each chapter for if I would ever want to remind myself of why this book is so imporant to me. I also refer to quotes below the notes of each separate chapter.
PART 1/4: INTRODUCTION, ETHICS & BECOMING VEGETARIAN
Notes
- Being a vegetarian/vegan does not have to be sentimental per se: it can actually be a really rational decision. (A)
- We should base our attitudes towards other beings on the ability of suffering (B), instead of on language (C), intelligence (D) or cute looks.
- Sometimes, this could even mean it woud be legal to harm people that are not capable of suffering due to disabilities. But certainly, it means that we have to give more animals consideration than we do today. The ability of being able to suffer is still a better yardstick than the other three possibilities often used to refute giving animals more rights (which are intelligence, cuteness or language). That is to say, the issue with giving some humans less consideration would also be present if you use these arguments, since some humans (like disabled people or babies) are also subordinate in capacity of those things.
- It is often a taboo to talk about suffering of insects or crustaceans/molluscs in the vegan community, since vegans step away from eating all animals, despite their differences in ability to suffer. However, I also think such a line is necessary, and Singer at least tries to draw it (E). Otherwise it will become really hard to argue why you can eat plants but cannot eat insects or even corals (yes, corals are animals), for example. Drawing the line between an animal that cannot ‘feel’ and a plant seems weird from this point of view, in the same way that drawing the line between humans and other animals is unacceptable (F).
Quotes
- (A) ‘The assumption that in order to be interested in [animal liberation] one must be an animal-lover is itself an indication of the absence of the slightest inkling that the moral standards that we apply among human beings might extend to other animals. (…) This book does not make sentimental appeals for sympathy towards cute animals, but it is an attempt to think through the question of how we ought to treat nonhuman animals.’
- (B) ‘The capacity for suffering and enjoyment is a prerequisite for having interests at all.’
• (C) ‘The ability to use language is not relevant to the question of how a being ought to be treated (…) The statement ‘I am in pain’ may be one piece of evidence for the conclusion that the speaker is in pain, but it is not the only possible evidence.’
- (D) ‘Sometimes animals may even suffer more because of their more limited understanding’
- (E) ‘Somewhere between a shrimp and an oyster seems as good a place to draw the line as any’
- (F) ‘The only position that is irredeemably speciecist is the one that tries to make the boundary of the right to life run exactly parallel to the boundary of our own species’
- ‘The extension of the basic principle of equality from one group to another does not imply that we must treat both groups in exactly the same way, or grant exactly the same rights to both groups. Whether we should do so will depend on the nature of the members of the two groups.’
- ‘It is in the rightness of our cause, and not the fear of our bombs, that our prospects of victory lie.’
- ‘The dangers of sentimental anthromorphism are less serious than the opposite danger of the convenient and self-serving idea that animals are lumps of clay whom we can mold in whatever manner we please.’
- ‘Vegetarianism is a form of boycott (…) the aim of the boycott is not to alter the past but to prevent the continuation of the conditions to which we object’
PART 2/4: LABORATORY PRACTICES
Notes
- A lot of laboratory research practices either are predictable, irrelevant, or cannot even be of help to humans. It’s crazy how much animals have to endure just because we want to use skin fresheners, bubble baths, cool ink colours, zipper lubricants, christmas tree sprays and church candles, and it might be possible we would get some of it in our eyes. And it’s quite common sense to do research on how heat affects us and if we coud die from it (spoiler: yes), and so quite unnecessary to kill thousands of animals just to be sure. (A)
- There is a contradiction concerning performing laboraty practices on nonhuman animals which can be summarized with the following: they are like us and so we do research on them to see what effects things could have on us, but they are also not like us since we may perform research on them but not do it to our fellow human beings. (B)
- It is indeed highly risky to compare nonhuman beings to us. It could lead to drugs refused since they don’t work on animals, which might have worked on us. It could also lead to the opposite: drugs working on animals, but having dangerous effects on us, which we have seen with several medicines in the past.
- Of course, some research is more useful and we don’t have enough alternatives to stop animal laboratory practices right at this moment. But we should at least focus more on them, for example by subsidizing other solutions that have potential (cell and tissue culture, computer modeling, human models).
Quotes
- (A) ‘Despite the suffering the animals have gone through, the results obtained, even as reported by the experimenters itself, are trivial, obvious or [often] meaningless’.
- (B) ‘If the experimental psychologist did not believe in the analogue of the human being and the lower animal even he, presumably, would find his work largely unjustified. (…) The researcher’s dilemma exists in an especially acute form of psychology: either the animal is not like us, in which case there is no reason for performing the experiment; or else the animal is like us, in which case we ought not to perform on the animal an experiment that would be considered outrageous.’
- ‘Speciecism allows researchers to regard the animals they experiment on as items of equipment, laboratory tools rather than living, suffering creatures. (…) One section of the law requires that those private businesses (…) must file a report stating that when painful experiments were erformed without the use of pain-relieving drugs, this was necessary to achieve the objectives of the research project. No attempt is made to assess whether these objectives are sufficiently important to justify inflicting pain. (…) Can we justify forcing thousands of animals to inhale cigarette smoke so that they develop lung cancer, when we know we could virtually wipe out the disease by eliminating the use of tobacco? If people decide to continue to smoke, knowing that by doing so they risk lung cancer, is it right to make animals suffer the cost of this decision? (…) There is nothing sacred about the right to pursue knowledge’.
PART 3/4: FACTORY FARMING
Notes
-The intensive industry seems to contradict Darwinian evolution, since animals can suffer greatly yet if you measure their success in terms of numbers, chickens, cows and pigs are the most succesful animals ever.
-It’s crazy how much food, space and money are saved just be refusing nonhuman animals the right to have enough space (this goes especially for sows and veal calves).
-The story of veal calves is explained really clearly: male calves are useless in the dairy industry, so they are sold for their flesh. But the whiter the flesh, the more wanted it is. Thus, they are kept on liquid diets low on nutrients such as iron. Therefore they chew on the metal of their cages and chains. Consequently, most farmers have replaced the iron with wood. They cannot even turn around or sit down, since that would go against the tenderness of the flesh. They are deprived of water and can only consume it through their food, just so they eat more and gain weight very quickly. In conclusion, they are highly anemic, depressed, have chronic diarrhea, and are deprived of sitting down, turning around, sleeping in a normal way, and cleaning themselves.
PART 4/4: OBSTACLES & HISTORY
Notes
- Conservatism, financial interests (A), the solid weight of history and tradition are mentioned as the most important obstacles. However for the general public, I think ‘taste’ is a big individual argument as well.
- Different religions have had a big role in carnivorism, since antropocentrism makes us believe we as humans are better than all other animals and that these beings are only here to serve us (B). Yet another reason to dislike religion.
- Some religious beliefs keep certain horrific ways of slaughter (such as halal) in practice. If you truly care so much about how they are slaughtered, there is also an option of not eating them at all (C).
- People are manipulated into believing many things. This already starts when we are children (D). We are told meat and dairy are good for us and that what is on our plate is not an animal (food names, labels, euphemisms of slaughter, changing colour are all used to make us feel good about consuming animal products. We aren’t taught much about cows or chicken, actually we probably know more about wild sharks and cheetahs than we do of the millions of animals slaughtered each day for our consumer choices. We don’t have access to laboratories or slaughterhouses, or the animals that leave or enter these places.
Quotes
- (A) ‘The members of the British Parliament are against cruelty except when it produces their breakfast’.
- (B) ‘The old testament did at least show flickers of concern for [non-human animals’] sufferings. The New Testament is completely lacking in any injunction against cruelty to animals, or any recommendation to consider their interests. (…) The moral attitudes of the past are too deeply embedded in our thought and our practices to be upset by a mere change in our knowledge of ourselves and of other animals.’
- (C) ‘Those who do not wish to eat meat slaughtered contrary to the current teachings of their religion have a simple alternative: not to eat meat at all.’
- (D) ‘We eat animals long before we are capable of understanding that what we are eating is the dead body of an animal. Thus we never make a conscious, informed decision’
And nothing is less true. What an amazing book.
Peter Singer wrote this piece of art back in 1975, when animal liberation was even more of a joke to the general public than it is now. At the end of the book, he mostly pleads for being a vegetarian, since veganism wasn’t even a thing yet. However, Singer starts with an introduction written years later on how even though certain things have improved, there is much more to still fight for, and on how the fundaments of his book are still relevant. Yuval Harari, who inspired me to go vegan in the first place after reading his book ‘Sapiens’, also wrote an introduction to the book, adding to the timeless importance of this piece in general.
Animal Liberation takes the reader with on a journey, firstly by exploring the main ethical point of view and what this means for us and for animals. Then Singer guides us past two examples of animal exploitation in the world, namely factory farming and animal testing. After this the history of our ethics (mainly based on religion) are discussed and in the conclusive notes Singer nicely brings everything together.
Some parts were new to me, some weren’t. I had already consumed a lot of information on factory farming from different sources, but handling practices in animal testing were less known to me. I have quite some knowledge of the (often wrongful) prejudices and obstacles surrounding veganism, but the role religion played in our history of animal handling was something I’d also never touched upon. To me, the best part of the book was Singer’s Introduction and his subsequent ethical and philosophical viewpoint on the exploitation of animals. He makes a strong case for having interests (and thus deserving consideration) depending on an ability to suffer, instead of being able to talk, being blessed with cute eyes, or being intelligent (see below: Part 1/4). This angle is refreshing in showing that it is not needed to be sentimental to treat nonhuman animals with respect, and that this can in fact be a fully rational decision.
Peter Singer definitely has a way with words and is a professional at holding his reader’s attention. In all honesty I would even call it a page-turner despite the gravity of the subject.
There are some minor points in the book that I have to disagree with, however. Singer does not find the killing of animals wrong would it be fast and painless (which it definitely isn’t today), since it doesn’t necessarily lead to suffering. This is quite narrow-minded. It doesn’t take into account the family or community of the animal left behind, the panic preceding slaughter which many beings endure, or the quality of life left hadn’t the animal been killed. This brings up the interesting moral question if it should be better to live a hard life, or to not have lived / keep on living at all.
Another point is that he pleads for drawing the line somewhere (whichbeings can we eat?) and he suggests this line should be between a shrimp and an oyster, but he then says we should stay away from consuming oysters as well, since we can’t be sure they cannot suffer.
Moreover, he skips the point of bycatch and thus, of indirect suffering. If mussels are incapable of suffering, does it still mean we can eat them considering how many turtles and dolphins get caught in the nets during fishing practices, since they are on the other hand perfectly capable of suffering? What is the amount of suffering we can tolerate?
Singer could have definitely done these three points more justice than solely exploring them over the course of one paragraph.
Still, this work belongs with my favourites. I’ve read many books surrounding animal exploitation, such as Eating Animals and The Face on Your Plate, but this is the one that rules them all. Peter Singer kicked off the Animal Liberation movement with this piece in 1975. His view was, at that time, revolutional to say the least, but it is no less refreshing today. The combination of ethics, philosophy and our history shines a unique light on how we ought to treat animals. I would highly recommend this to anyone who is interested in animal liberation. If reading a whole book is too much, I would suggest reading at least the Introduction & Ethics chapters.
Below I have jotted down what I learned from each chapter for if I would ever want to remind myself of why this book is so imporant to me. I also refer to quotes below the notes of each separate chapter.
PART 1/4: INTRODUCTION, ETHICS & BECOMING VEGETARIAN
Notes
- Being a vegetarian/vegan does not have to be sentimental per se: it can actually be a really rational decision. (A)
- We should base our attitudes towards other beings on the ability of suffering (B), instead of on language (C), intelligence (D) or cute looks.
- Sometimes, this could even mean it woud be legal to harm people that are not capable of suffering due to disabilities. But certainly, it means that we have to give more animals consideration than we do today. The ability of being able to suffer is still a better yardstick than the other three possibilities often used to refute giving animals more rights (which are intelligence, cuteness or language). That is to say, the issue with giving some humans less consideration would also be present if you use these arguments, since some humans (like disabled people or babies) are also subordinate in capacity of those things.
- It is often a taboo to talk about suffering of insects or crustaceans/molluscs in the vegan community, since vegans step away from eating all animals, despite their differences in ability to suffer. However, I also think such a line is necessary, and Singer at least tries to draw it (E). Otherwise it will become really hard to argue why you can eat plants but cannot eat insects or even corals (yes, corals are animals), for example. Drawing the line between an animal that cannot ‘feel’ and a plant seems weird from this point of view, in the same way that drawing the line between humans and other animals is unacceptable (F).
Quotes
- (A) ‘The assumption that in order to be interested in [animal liberation] one must be an animal-lover is itself an indication of the absence of the slightest inkling that the moral standards that we apply among human beings might extend to other animals. (…) This book does not make sentimental appeals for sympathy towards cute animals, but it is an attempt to think through the question of how we ought to treat nonhuman animals.’
- (B) ‘The capacity for suffering and enjoyment is a prerequisite for having interests at all.’
• (C) ‘The ability to use language is not relevant to the question of how a being ought to be treated (…) The statement ‘I am in pain’ may be one piece of evidence for the conclusion that the speaker is in pain, but it is not the only possible evidence.’
- (D) ‘Sometimes animals may even suffer more because of their more limited understanding’
- (E) ‘Somewhere between a shrimp and an oyster seems as good a place to draw the line as any’
- (F) ‘The only position that is irredeemably speciecist is the one that tries to make the boundary of the right to life run exactly parallel to the boundary of our own species’
- ‘The extension of the basic principle of equality from one group to another does not imply that we must treat both groups in exactly the same way, or grant exactly the same rights to both groups. Whether we should do so will depend on the nature of the members of the two groups.’
- ‘It is in the rightness of our cause, and not the fear of our bombs, that our prospects of victory lie.’
- ‘The dangers of sentimental anthromorphism are less serious than the opposite danger of the convenient and self-serving idea that animals are lumps of clay whom we can mold in whatever manner we please.’
- ‘Vegetarianism is a form of boycott (…) the aim of the boycott is not to alter the past but to prevent the continuation of the conditions to which we object’
PART 2/4: LABORATORY PRACTICES
Notes
- A lot of laboratory research practices either are predictable, irrelevant, or cannot even be of help to humans. It’s crazy how much animals have to endure just because we want to use skin fresheners, bubble baths, cool ink colours, zipper lubricants, christmas tree sprays and church candles, and it might be possible we would get some of it in our eyes. And it’s quite common sense to do research on how heat affects us and if we coud die from it (spoiler: yes), and so quite unnecessary to kill thousands of animals just to be sure. (A)
- There is a contradiction concerning performing laboraty practices on nonhuman animals which can be summarized with the following: they are like us and so we do research on them to see what effects things could have on us, but they are also not like us since we may perform research on them but not do it to our fellow human beings. (B)
- It is indeed highly risky to compare nonhuman beings to us. It could lead to drugs refused since they don’t work on animals, which might have worked on us. It could also lead to the opposite: drugs working on animals, but having dangerous effects on us, which we have seen with several medicines in the past.
- Of course, some research is more useful and we don’t have enough alternatives to stop animal laboratory practices right at this moment. But we should at least focus more on them, for example by subsidizing other solutions that have potential (cell and tissue culture, computer modeling, human models).
Quotes
- (A) ‘Despite the suffering the animals have gone through, the results obtained, even as reported by the experimenters itself, are trivial, obvious or [often] meaningless’.
- (B) ‘If the experimental psychologist did not believe in the analogue of the human being and the lower animal even he, presumably, would find his work largely unjustified. (…) The researcher’s dilemma exists in an especially acute form of psychology: either the animal is not like us, in which case there is no reason for performing the experiment; or else the animal is like us, in which case we ought not to perform on the animal an experiment that would be considered outrageous.’
- ‘Speciecism allows researchers to regard the animals they experiment on as items of equipment, laboratory tools rather than living, suffering creatures. (…) One section of the law requires that those private businesses (…) must file a report stating that when painful experiments were erformed without the use of pain-relieving drugs, this was necessary to achieve the objectives of the research project. No attempt is made to assess whether these objectives are sufficiently important to justify inflicting pain. (…) Can we justify forcing thousands of animals to inhale cigarette smoke so that they develop lung cancer, when we know we could virtually wipe out the disease by eliminating the use of tobacco? If people decide to continue to smoke, knowing that by doing so they risk lung cancer, is it right to make animals suffer the cost of this decision? (…) There is nothing sacred about the right to pursue knowledge’.
PART 3/4: FACTORY FARMING
Notes
-The intensive industry seems to contradict Darwinian evolution, since animals can suffer greatly yet if you measure their success in terms of numbers, chickens, cows and pigs are the most succesful animals ever.
-It’s crazy how much food, space and money are saved just be refusing nonhuman animals the right to have enough space (this goes especially for sows and veal calves).
-The story of veal calves is explained really clearly: male calves are useless in the dairy industry, so they are sold for their flesh. But the whiter the flesh, the more wanted it is. Thus, they are kept on liquid diets low on nutrients such as iron. Therefore they chew on the metal of their cages and chains. Consequently, most farmers have replaced the iron with wood. They cannot even turn around or sit down, since that would go against the tenderness of the flesh. They are deprived of water and can only consume it through their food, just so they eat more and gain weight very quickly. In conclusion, they are highly anemic, depressed, have chronic diarrhea, and are deprived of sitting down, turning around, sleeping in a normal way, and cleaning themselves.
PART 4/4: OBSTACLES & HISTORY
Notes
- Conservatism, financial interests (A), the solid weight of history and tradition are mentioned as the most important obstacles. However for the general public, I think ‘taste’ is a big individual argument as well.
- Different religions have had a big role in carnivorism, since antropocentrism makes us believe we as humans are better than all other animals and that these beings are only here to serve us (B). Yet another reason to dislike religion.
- Some religious beliefs keep certain horrific ways of slaughter (such as halal) in practice. If you truly care so much about how they are slaughtered, there is also an option of not eating them at all (C).
- People are manipulated into believing many things. This already starts when we are children (D). We are told meat and dairy are good for us and that what is on our plate is not an animal (food names, labels, euphemisms of slaughter, changing colour are all used to make us feel good about consuming animal products. We aren’t taught much about cows or chicken, actually we probably know more about wild sharks and cheetahs than we do of the millions of animals slaughtered each day for our consumer choices. We don’t have access to laboratories or slaughterhouses, or the animals that leave or enter these places.
Quotes
- (A) ‘The members of the British Parliament are against cruelty except when it produces their breakfast’.
- (B) ‘The old testament did at least show flickers of concern for [non-human animals’] sufferings. The New Testament is completely lacking in any injunction against cruelty to animals, or any recommendation to consider their interests. (…) The moral attitudes of the past are too deeply embedded in our thought and our practices to be upset by a mere change in our knowledge of ourselves and of other animals.’
- (C) ‘Those who do not wish to eat meat slaughtered contrary to the current teachings of their religion have a simple alternative: not to eat meat at all.’
- (D) ‘We eat animals long before we are capable of understanding that what we are eating is the dead body of an animal. Thus we never make a conscious, informed decision’
March 24, 2020
Šioje knygoje autorius kalba apie mūsų dabartinį santykį su gyvūnais, koks jis buvo anksčiau ir koks jis galėtų būti ateityje, jeigu tik įsisąmonintume, kodėl tai, kas vyksta su gyvūnais dabar, turi būti visiškai pakeista. Svarbiausi pasikeitimai, kurie turėtų įvykti, yra intensyvioji gyvulininkystė ir moksliniai eksperimentai su gyvūnais. Tačiau tam, kad pokyčiai įvyktų, neužtenka vien žinoti tam tikrus faktus. Pirmiausia turime atsakyti į pagrindinį moralinį klausimą – kuo remdamiesi mes laikome gyvūnus prastesniais už save ir kodėl neatsižvelgiame net į menkiausius jų gyvenimo interesus?Atrodo akivaizdu, kad gyvūnai labai smarkiai nuo mūsų skiriasi, tarkim protu ar gebėjimu kalbėti, tačiau autoriui tokie argumentai atrodo neįtikinami. Kuo tada yra paremta žmonių lygybė, nors žmonės tarpusavyje labai skiriasi, yra skirtingų gebėjimų, o kai kurie net protiškai atsilikę. Tuomet autorius iškelia savo pagrindinę knygos idėją, kurią suformulavo remdamasis Benthamo raštais – visus žmones vienija „gebėjimas jausti kančią ir džiaugsmą“(P.45). Tai vienija ir visus kitus „nežmogiškus gyvūnus“, tačiau į jų interesus neatsižvelgiame, nes vadovaujamės tik savo rūšies interesais.
Knygoje svarbiausias yra kančios, o ne mirties klausimas, todėl tiek daug dėmesio skiriama gyvūnų kančioms eksperimentų metu arba gyvūnų laikymui mikroskopiniuose garduose, kuriuose jie net net negali apsisukti. Čia išskirsiu kelius pagrindinius dalykus, kurie geriau atskleidžia knygos esmę:
1. Moterys ar juodaodžiai turi lygias teises ne todėl, kad buvo įrodyta, jog jie yra tokio paties intelektinio lygio kaip ir vyrai. Svarbiausia yra tai, kad jie sugeba jausti kančią, todėl ir gyvūnų atžvilgiu nereikėtų taikyti savo rūšistiniu pažiūrų vien todėl, kad jie yra žemesnio intelekto(P.43-44).
2. Moksliniai eksperimentai su gyvūnais dažniausiai yra niekam tikę. Dažniausiai jais nieko neįrodoma, nes žmonių organizmas dažnai reaguoja skirtingai į ligas, kurios gyvūnams gali būti nepavojingos.
P.104. „Tarp kitų vaistų, kurie po bandymų su gyvūnais buvo patvirtinti kaip saugūs, o vėliau pasirodė žalingi, galima paminėti vaistą nuo širdies negalavimų „Practolol“, nuo kurio žmonės apako, ir kosulį slopinantį vaistą „Zipeprol“ – kai kuriems vartojusiems asmenims jis sukėlė traukulius, o kai kuriems – net komos būseną“.
3. Intensyviosios gyvulininkystės verslininkų vykdomas gyvūnų kankinimas, kai jie būna uždaromi ankštuose narvuose ar garduose. Visi naminiai gyvuliai yra socialūs gyvūnai, tokie pat kaip šunys ar katės, todėl jie turi tam tikrų poreikių. Patys svarbiausi poreikiai – nuolatos judėti ir patiems susirasti maisto.
4. Mirtis turi būti kiek įmanoma mažiau skausminga, tačiau tai ne visada įmanoma, pavyzdžiui, dėl religinių priežasčių ar dėl paprasčiausios darbo skubos, kai darbuotojai pernelyg apkraunami darbu. Elektrošokas iš tikrųjų sukelia skausmą!(P.221)
5. Reikia keisti mitybos įpročius ir tapti vegetaru. Aišku, geriau būti veganu, bet šiuolaikiniame pasaulyje viskas yra labai susiję ir nevisada galima pasakyti, kada produkte yra pieno produktų. Nereikia siekti tobulumo, svarbiausia, kad būtų atsisakoma pačios mėsos. Mėsos ir pieno klausimai yra pakankamai komplikuoti ir, reikia pasakyti, pačioje knygoje gana menkai jie yra aptariami.
Žinoma, pati knygos tema yra pernelyg plati, kad viena knyga būtų galima visapusiškai viską aptarti, tačiau tai yra puikus įvadas visiems tiems, kurie nori susipažinti su pagrindiniais gyvūnų išlaisvinimo judėjimo teiginiais arba tiems, kurie planuoja žengti ar jau yra žengę vegetarizmo/veganizmo keliu. Knyga yra smarkiai atnaujinta nuo pirminio 1975 metų leidimo, todėl ji yra aktuali ir šiandien.
March 21, 2013
So glad to have finaly read what many consider as the "Bible of Animal Rights". It certaintly met my expectations and grounded, developed and solidified my views on the subject.
I assumed that it would be just philosophicaly centered all the way through, with a few references here and there to shed light on what animals actualy go through behind the scenes. I was pleasently surprised that he dedicated two whole chapters to describing the realities behind animal testing and factory farming.
Chapter two (about animal testing) made me sick to my stomach. I realize this was written in the 70's and is quite outdated in that respect but that doesn't mean that these experiments should be buried in history and never mentioned again. Singer talks about the cruelty of the experimenters in the vivisection community and also attempts to explain how normal human beings can be driven to performing such atrocities. He provides us with quotes and transcripts from the "scientists" themselves that really show how trivial and cruel the vast majority of the testing was.
This to me is the most outdated section of the book, but it's still important to learn about. I would advise not to discredit it on that basis as long as you keep in mind that this is not exactly how it works nowadays (even though it's still a lingering issue). For example, the EU has recently banned all animal tested cosmetic products (even if the experimentation was conducted outside the EU). So, to me, all evidence points to a tipping point on this matter.
In chapter three however (factory farming) very little change has been made since publication. It's still pretty much the same and again, the descriptions are heart wrenching. Making it impossible to ignore.
The thing is, since he talked so much about experimentation and farming I feel he could have at least gone a little further and talked about other problems. Maybe not go on as much as he did with the previous two but maybe one more chapter concerning the fur trade, circuses, bullfights, things of that nature. To me it was a bit odd he didn't elaborate a bit more on those aspects of the animal rights movement. Maybe he didn't want to make the book too long but for me it felt like something was missing.
The second half is purely philosophical with a good history lesson on the animal rights movement, all the way from Aristotle and Pythagoras. Which I enjoyed and found quite interesting.
In general this is a solid book for the animal rights activist. Not so much for the common meat eater though. Honestly, his writing isn't terribly inviting. It didn't bother me too much but I can imagine people finding it a tad monotonous. Some enthusiasm was missing but at the same time I recognize he wanted to remain as objective as possible.
It does a good job of arguing the case for vegetarianism and so forth but it could have done with a bit more readability.
That said, from an argumentative and philosophical standpoint it was a great read.
I assumed that it would be just philosophicaly centered all the way through, with a few references here and there to shed light on what animals actualy go through behind the scenes. I was pleasently surprised that he dedicated two whole chapters to describing the realities behind animal testing and factory farming.
Chapter two (about animal testing) made me sick to my stomach. I realize this was written in the 70's and is quite outdated in that respect but that doesn't mean that these experiments should be buried in history and never mentioned again. Singer talks about the cruelty of the experimenters in the vivisection community and also attempts to explain how normal human beings can be driven to performing such atrocities. He provides us with quotes and transcripts from the "scientists" themselves that really show how trivial and cruel the vast majority of the testing was.
This to me is the most outdated section of the book, but it's still important to learn about. I would advise not to discredit it on that basis as long as you keep in mind that this is not exactly how it works nowadays (even though it's still a lingering issue). For example, the EU has recently banned all animal tested cosmetic products (even if the experimentation was conducted outside the EU). So, to me, all evidence points to a tipping point on this matter.
In chapter three however (factory farming) very little change has been made since publication. It's still pretty much the same and again, the descriptions are heart wrenching. Making it impossible to ignore.
The thing is, since he talked so much about experimentation and farming I feel he could have at least gone a little further and talked about other problems. Maybe not go on as much as he did with the previous two but maybe one more chapter concerning the fur trade, circuses, bullfights, things of that nature. To me it was a bit odd he didn't elaborate a bit more on those aspects of the animal rights movement. Maybe he didn't want to make the book too long but for me it felt like something was missing.
The second half is purely philosophical with a good history lesson on the animal rights movement, all the way from Aristotle and Pythagoras. Which I enjoyed and found quite interesting.
In general this is a solid book for the animal rights activist. Not so much for the common meat eater though. Honestly, his writing isn't terribly inviting. It didn't bother me too much but I can imagine people finding it a tad monotonous. Some enthusiasm was missing but at the same time I recognize he wanted to remain as objective as possible.
It does a good job of arguing the case for vegetarianism and so forth but it could have done with a bit more readability.
That said, from an argumentative and philosophical standpoint it was a great read.
June 8, 2020
This is a book that I wish was required reading in schools. Everyone needs to have read it - even if they don’t agree with everything in it.
July 20, 2012
An intriguing and informative book. I'll give it 4 stars because it's well written and makes you think, though I can't say I'd bother reading it again.
Modern philosopher Peter Singer argues--both abstractly and with detailed, concrete examples--that we are currently "speciesist" who must acknowledge that animals may not be our intellectual equals, but the relevant question is whether they, like we, suffer. He documents how they can and do, both psychologically and physically, in animal experiments and in our food system. He argues that we must seek to abolish animal experiments--except insofar as we'd allow the same experiments on human (whether humans in general, or severely mentally disabled humans who have the capacity of animals)--that we should dramatically reform our factory food system, and that we should become vegetarians. Honestly, it's hard to disagree with most of his argumentation. Though I don't know that I plan to change the way I eat, I must admit that the amount of physical and psychological that an animal goes through to become my dinner is remarkable.
Quotes:
"The idea of 'The Rights of Animals' actually was once used to parody the case for women's rights. When Mary Wollstonecraft, a forerunner of later feminists, published her Vindication of the Rights of Women in 1792, her ideas were widely regarded as absurd, and they were satirized in an anonymous publication entitled A Vindication of the Rights of Brutes." - p1
Thomas Jefferson wrote, "but whatever be [Black people's] degree of talent it is no measure of their rights. Because Sir Isaac Newton was superior to others in understanding, he was not therefore lord of the person or property of others." Singer's take: "If possessing a higher degree of intelligence does not entitle one human to use another for his or her own ends, how can it entitle humans to exploit nonhumans for the same purpose?" - p6
Bentham wrote, "The question is not, Can they reason? nor Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?" - p7
"Although Bentham speaks of “rights” in the passage I have quoted, the argument is really about equality rather than about rights. Indeed, in a different passage, Bentham famously described “natural rights” as “nonsense” and “natural and imprescriptable rights” as “nonsense upon stilts." - p8
"There are other differences between humans and animals that cause other complications. Normal adult human beings have mental capacities which will, in certain circumstances, lead them to suffer more than animals would in the same circumstances. If, for instance, we decided to perform extremely painful or lethal scientific experiments on normal adult humans, kidnapped at random from public parks for this purpose, every adult who entered a park would become fearful that he or she would be kidnapped. The resultant terror would be a form of suffering additional to the pain of the experiment.
"The same experiments performed on nonhuman animals would cause less suffering since the animals would not have the anticipatory dread of being kidnapped and experimented upon. This does not mean, of course, that it would be right to perform the experiment on animals, but only that there is a reason, which is not speciesist, for preferring to use animals rather than normal adult humans, if the experiment is to be done at all. It should be noted, however that this same argument gives us a reason for preferring to use human infants - orphans perhaps - or retarded human beings for experiments, rather than adults, since infants and retarded human beings would also have no idea of what was going to happen to them.
"So far as this argument is concerned nonhuman animals and infants and retarded human beings are in the same category; and if we use this argument to justify experiments on non human animals we have to ask ourselves whether we are also prepared to allow experiments on human infants and retarded adults; and if we make a distinction between animals and these humans, on what basis can we do it, other than a bare-faced - and morally indefensible - preference for members of our own species?" - p16
"I conclude, then, that a rejection of speciesism does not imply that all lives are of equal worth. While self-awareness, the capacity to think ahead and have hopes and aspirations for the future, the capacity for meaningful relations with others, and so on are not relevant to the question of inflicting pain--since pain is pain, whatever other capacities, beyond the capacity to feel pain, the being may have--these capacities are relevant to the question of taking life. It is not arbitrary to hold that the life of a self-aware being...is more valuable than the life of a being without those capacities. To see the difference between the issues of inflicting pain and taking life, consider how we would choose within our own species. If we had to choose to save the life of the normal human being or a mentally defective human being, we would probably choose to save the life of the normal one; but if we had to choose between preventing pain in the normal human being or in the mentally defective - imagine that both have received painful but superficial injuries, and we only have enough painkiller for one of them - it is not nearly so clear how we ought to choose." - p20
"I shall have nothing, or virtually nothing, to say about these things, because as I indicated in the preface to this edition, this book is not a compendium of all the nasty things we do to animals." - p22
"For most human beings, especially in modern urban and suburban communities, the most direct form of contact with non-human animals is at mealtimes: we eat them." - p95
"Companies that had no connection with agriculture have become farmers on a huge scale in order to gain tax concessions or diversify profits. Greyhound Corporation now produces turkeys, and your roast beef may have come from John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance." - p97
"The sufferings of laying chickens begin early in life. The newly hatched chicks are sorted into males and females by a 'chick-puller.' Since male chicks have no commercial value, they are discarded. Some companies gas the little birds, but often they are dumped alive into a plastic sack and allowed to suffocate under the weight of the other chicks dumped on top of them. Others are ground up, while still alive, to be turned into feed for their sisters." - p108
On castration: "Anesthetics are generally not used." - p145
"More than a third of North America is taken up with grazing." - p166
"The Bible tells us that God made man in His own image. We may regard this as man making God in his own image. Either way, it allots human beings a special position in the universe." - p187
"In 1821, Richard Martin, a land-owner in Galway, proposed a law to prevent the ill-treatment of horses. The following account conveys the tone of the ensuing debate: 'When Alderman C. Smith suggested that protection should be given to asses, there were such howls of laughter that The Times reporter could hear little of what was said. When the Chairman repeated this proposal, the laughter was intensified. Another member said that Martin would be legislating for dogs next, which caused a further roar of mirth, and a cry of “And cats!” sent the House into convulsions.'" - p204
"Benjamin Franklin used the same argument--the weakness of which Paley exposed-as a justification for returning to a flesh diet after some years as a vegetarian. In his Autobiography he accounts how he was watching some friends fishing, and noticed that some of the fish they caught had eaten other fish. He therefore concluded, 'If you eat one another, I don't see why we may not eat you.' Franklin, however, was at least more honest than some who use this argument, for he admits that he reached this conclusion only after the fish was in the frying pan and began to smell 'admirably well'; and he adds that one of the advantages of being a 'reasonable creature' is that one can find a reason for whatever one wants to do." - p209
Singer quotes Schopenhauer arguing that vegetarianism is not morally obligatory because Northerners need to eat meat (unlike, say, vegetarians in India, whose existence he could not deny). Singer also quotes Bentham arguing that vegetarianism is not called for, because animals are probably happier being raised for food than struggling to exist in the wild. Singer then summarizes, "One cannot help feeling that in these passages Schopenhauer and Bentham lowered their normal standards of argument." - p210
In the 19th century(!), Lewis Gompertz, the second secretary of the RSPCA, was "a strict vegetarian who refused to ride in horse-drawn vehicles." - p232
Modern philosopher Peter Singer argues--both abstractly and with detailed, concrete examples--that we are currently "speciesist" who must acknowledge that animals may not be our intellectual equals, but the relevant question is whether they, like we, suffer. He documents how they can and do, both psychologically and physically, in animal experiments and in our food system. He argues that we must seek to abolish animal experiments--except insofar as we'd allow the same experiments on human (whether humans in general, or severely mentally disabled humans who have the capacity of animals)--that we should dramatically reform our factory food system, and that we should become vegetarians. Honestly, it's hard to disagree with most of his argumentation. Though I don't know that I plan to change the way I eat, I must admit that the amount of physical and psychological that an animal goes through to become my dinner is remarkable.
Quotes:
"The idea of 'The Rights of Animals' actually was once used to parody the case for women's rights. When Mary Wollstonecraft, a forerunner of later feminists, published her Vindication of the Rights of Women in 1792, her ideas were widely regarded as absurd, and they were satirized in an anonymous publication entitled A Vindication of the Rights of Brutes." - p1
Thomas Jefferson wrote, "but whatever be [Black people's] degree of talent it is no measure of their rights. Because Sir Isaac Newton was superior to others in understanding, he was not therefore lord of the person or property of others." Singer's take: "If possessing a higher degree of intelligence does not entitle one human to use another for his or her own ends, how can it entitle humans to exploit nonhumans for the same purpose?" - p6
Bentham wrote, "The question is not, Can they reason? nor Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?" - p7
"Although Bentham speaks of “rights” in the passage I have quoted, the argument is really about equality rather than about rights. Indeed, in a different passage, Bentham famously described “natural rights” as “nonsense” and “natural and imprescriptable rights” as “nonsense upon stilts." - p8
"There are other differences between humans and animals that cause other complications. Normal adult human beings have mental capacities which will, in certain circumstances, lead them to suffer more than animals would in the same circumstances. If, for instance, we decided to perform extremely painful or lethal scientific experiments on normal adult humans, kidnapped at random from public parks for this purpose, every adult who entered a park would become fearful that he or she would be kidnapped. The resultant terror would be a form of suffering additional to the pain of the experiment.
"The same experiments performed on nonhuman animals would cause less suffering since the animals would not have the anticipatory dread of being kidnapped and experimented upon. This does not mean, of course, that it would be right to perform the experiment on animals, but only that there is a reason, which is not speciesist, for preferring to use animals rather than normal adult humans, if the experiment is to be done at all. It should be noted, however that this same argument gives us a reason for preferring to use human infants - orphans perhaps - or retarded human beings for experiments, rather than adults, since infants and retarded human beings would also have no idea of what was going to happen to them.
"So far as this argument is concerned nonhuman animals and infants and retarded human beings are in the same category; and if we use this argument to justify experiments on non human animals we have to ask ourselves whether we are also prepared to allow experiments on human infants and retarded adults; and if we make a distinction between animals and these humans, on what basis can we do it, other than a bare-faced - and morally indefensible - preference for members of our own species?" - p16
"I conclude, then, that a rejection of speciesism does not imply that all lives are of equal worth. While self-awareness, the capacity to think ahead and have hopes and aspirations for the future, the capacity for meaningful relations with others, and so on are not relevant to the question of inflicting pain--since pain is pain, whatever other capacities, beyond the capacity to feel pain, the being may have--these capacities are relevant to the question of taking life. It is not arbitrary to hold that the life of a self-aware being...is more valuable than the life of a being without those capacities. To see the difference between the issues of inflicting pain and taking life, consider how we would choose within our own species. If we had to choose to save the life of the normal human being or a mentally defective human being, we would probably choose to save the life of the normal one; but if we had to choose between preventing pain in the normal human being or in the mentally defective - imagine that both have received painful but superficial injuries, and we only have enough painkiller for one of them - it is not nearly so clear how we ought to choose." - p20
"I shall have nothing, or virtually nothing, to say about these things, because as I indicated in the preface to this edition, this book is not a compendium of all the nasty things we do to animals." - p22
"For most human beings, especially in modern urban and suburban communities, the most direct form of contact with non-human animals is at mealtimes: we eat them." - p95
"Companies that had no connection with agriculture have become farmers on a huge scale in order to gain tax concessions or diversify profits. Greyhound Corporation now produces turkeys, and your roast beef may have come from John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance." - p97
"The sufferings of laying chickens begin early in life. The newly hatched chicks are sorted into males and females by a 'chick-puller.' Since male chicks have no commercial value, they are discarded. Some companies gas the little birds, but often they are dumped alive into a plastic sack and allowed to suffocate under the weight of the other chicks dumped on top of them. Others are ground up, while still alive, to be turned into feed for their sisters." - p108
On castration: "Anesthetics are generally not used." - p145
"More than a third of North America is taken up with grazing." - p166
"The Bible tells us that God made man in His own image. We may regard this as man making God in his own image. Either way, it allots human beings a special position in the universe." - p187
"In 1821, Richard Martin, a land-owner in Galway, proposed a law to prevent the ill-treatment of horses. The following account conveys the tone of the ensuing debate: 'When Alderman C. Smith suggested that protection should be given to asses, there were such howls of laughter that The Times reporter could hear little of what was said. When the Chairman repeated this proposal, the laughter was intensified. Another member said that Martin would be legislating for dogs next, which caused a further roar of mirth, and a cry of “And cats!” sent the House into convulsions.'" - p204
"Benjamin Franklin used the same argument--the weakness of which Paley exposed-as a justification for returning to a flesh diet after some years as a vegetarian. In his Autobiography he accounts how he was watching some friends fishing, and noticed that some of the fish they caught had eaten other fish. He therefore concluded, 'If you eat one another, I don't see why we may not eat you.' Franklin, however, was at least more honest than some who use this argument, for he admits that he reached this conclusion only after the fish was in the frying pan and began to smell 'admirably well'; and he adds that one of the advantages of being a 'reasonable creature' is that one can find a reason for whatever one wants to do." - p209
Singer quotes Schopenhauer arguing that vegetarianism is not morally obligatory because Northerners need to eat meat (unlike, say, vegetarians in India, whose existence he could not deny). Singer also quotes Bentham arguing that vegetarianism is not called for, because animals are probably happier being raised for food than struggling to exist in the wild. Singer then summarizes, "One cannot help feeling that in these passages Schopenhauer and Bentham lowered their normal standards of argument." - p210
In the 19th century(!), Lewis Gompertz, the second secretary of the RSPCA, was "a strict vegetarian who refused to ride in horse-drawn vehicles." - p232
November 21, 2021
Strong philosophical moral case against speciesism.
This book by Peter Singer, written in 1975, is for everyone who wants to deal with the basics of animal ethics or in general the value of life. More or less the important starting point of the animal rights and anti-speciesism movement. Animal Liberation is already a required reading in most ethics courses, and rightly so.
Can influence many of your daily choices.
Don't expect to get through this quickly, it's quite dense so expect your mind to experience things you haven't been able to experience yet. You will spend a fair share amount of time with this book.
An absolute classic.
This book by Peter Singer, written in 1975, is for everyone who wants to deal with the basics of animal ethics or in general the value of life. More or less the important starting point of the animal rights and anti-speciesism movement. Animal Liberation is already a required reading in most ethics courses, and rightly so.
Can influence many of your daily choices.
Don't expect to get through this quickly, it's quite dense so expect your mind to experience things you haven't been able to experience yet. You will spend a fair share amount of time with this book.
An absolute classic.
Read
August 16, 2019گیاهخواری صرفا ژستی نمادین نیست. همچنین تلاشی برای منزوی ساختن خود از واقعیتهای زشتِ جهان هم نیست، که خود را بدونِ مسئولیتی در قبال ستم و کشتارِ سرتاسر جهان پاکیزه نگاه داریم. گیاهخواری گامی علمی و کارآمد است که با انتخاب آن میتوان هم به کشتن حیوانات خاتمه داد و هم به وارد ساختن رنج به آنها.
October 23, 2007
i've read some of singer's later work on euthanasia and infanticide. guess it all flows logically from this. i want an edition printed on vellum, and bound in leather.
March 19, 2020
4,5/5
Tengo pegas en cosillas pero bueno, go vegan
Tengo pegas en cosillas pero bueno, go vegan
April 16, 2023
Completo e rigoroso nel suo esplorare alcune delle forme più eclatanti attraverso cui si manifesta il dominio dell'uomo sul mondo animale, stimolante e incisivo nell'esplorare l'infondatezza e l'ingiustizia delle stesse a livello etico-morale.
A 50 anni dalla pubblicazione rimane fondamentale; peccato solo per qualche sezione un po' troppo lunghetta.
A 50 anni dalla pubblicazione rimane fondamentale; peccato solo per qualche sezione un po' troppo lunghetta.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 895 reviews