Click on a thumbnail to go to Google Books.
Loading... Animal liberation (original 1975; edition 1995)by Peter SingerSinger, Peter. Animal Liberation. 1975. 40th Anniversary edition. Open Road Media, 2015. There is an irony in the fact that Peter Singer’s Animal Liberation popularize the animal rights movement, even though Singer specifically rejects rights-based arguments for the treatment of animals. Instead, he invokes a Utilitarian principle of equality based on the ability of the animal to feel pain. It is an argument that would be right at home in the work of Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832). It is significant that Singer never mentions Bentham’s godson, John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), a disciple of Bentham who argued that human beings matter more than animals in that humans are capable of pleasures other animals cannot experience. These arguments lead Singer to advocate ethical vegetarianism, an end to animal testing for products like cosmetics, and other practices that mistreat animals. He did not go so far as advocating an end to all use of animals in medical testing, because as Star Trek’s Spock once said, the needs of the many may outweigh the needs of the one. He also rejects the violence sometimes advocated by animal rights groups. The book is a must-read for anyone interested in the ethical treatment of animals. 5 stars. Classic of the animal rights movement. I have had this book on my shelf for many years but always hesitated to read it- it’s written by a philosopher who specializes in ethics and I thought it would be difficult material. Not so. I was surprised to find it very readable and easy to understand. I also assumed it would be full of absurdly extremist ideas or overly sentimental appeals. Quite the contrary. Although at the end Singer makes a few conclusions and suggestions for future action that sound extreme and impossible (doing away with all carnivorous animals in the world to eliminate animal suffering!! what??) he doesn’t explore those any further and admits they are likely untenable. He does think zoos and farms that raise animals for consumption should disappear though. Getting ahead of myself. The main premise of the book is: animals feel just like we do and can suffer pain and emotional distress (wow, see my previous read for a lot more detail on that point). Singer makes many clear and logical arguments that humans should not cause suffering, or think we are “better than” animals, or control their lives so completely as we often do. They should just be allowed to live and do their own thing. I have to agree with some of that. He doesn’t just point out that we shouldn’t cause animals pain or treat them like objects to create meals for us at the lowest possible monetary cost, but also argues that meat from animals that were terrified or in pain when they died is of lesser quality, that raising animals for food is more costly to the environment, and that plants give us more energy return. There’s a lot more of course, I’m just mentioning some bits that stood out to me. I found of most interest (unexpectedly) the chapter that explores historically the beliefs that cemented in western thought this idea that we as humans have a right to rule over the rest of sentient life. Starting with the bible and going through Greek and Roman thinkers. I have to say it sounds like Descartes is hugely to blame for the idea many people still firmly: that animals are instinctive automatons without any feeling. There are parts of this book that discuss the horrors of factory farming, animal experimentation and product testing. I would hope that many of the things described are now of the past. I know that at least nowadays you can easily find beauty products that were not tested on animals and buy eggs laid by chickens that roamed free outside (whatever that actually means) for example. There are photos in this book which disturbingly make the point of how much animals suffered in labs and factory farms, thankfully they are few (the book could have easily stuffed a ton more in there to make its point). Personally, I am not a strict vegetarian though this book makes very good points on why one should be. I have for many years now made an effort to eat less meat and to choose it as wisely as I can- milk from “grass-fed” cows, meat from pasture-raised beef or bison, fish that was “sustainably harvested”. My conundrum is twofold: how do I know those labels are factual? If I don’t go visit the farm where those cows grazed to see for myself, does “pasture-raised” really mean what I think it does? My other issue: what about all the other life that dies to make a field profitable for growing plants we eat? I have read reports that vast fields of crops which use large machinery to harvest kill billions of small wild animals- rabbits, mice, birds, snakes, etc etc.- but then there’s arguments that those numbers are not what they seem- I just read six different articles on it, so now I don’t know what to think. Eating strictly plants does not mean we are causing less harm to living things, or to the environment. I would like to think I am making the best choices, standing there in the grocery store staring at packages, but sometimes I feel like I have to go home and do more research- and it just gives me a headache. I try to eat local, in-season, raised-as-humanely-as-possible foods, but sometimes it’s hard to know what to choose. I don’t think eschewing all animal products is the answer. I do think we should avoid supporting companies that perform needlessly cruel experiments on animals or raise them for food in appallingly stressful, crowded and unhygienic conditions. It’s hard to know which reports are truthful, though. Definitely this is a book I think everyone should read. more at the Dogear Diary Animal Liberation is the book that started the modern animal rights movement. Peter Singer, the author, is an Australian philosopher. He is the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, and laureate professor at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics (CAPPE), University of Melbourne. He specializes in applied ethics, approaching ethical issues from a secular preference utilitarian perspective. In 1975, the first edition of Animal Liberation was published. It has become the centerpiece of the movement. The book was revised in 1990 and again this year for the 40th anniversary. The philosophy does not change, but the material is updated for the current time. For example, Revlon is no longer testing beauty products on animals and factory farming grown at an incredible pace. Singer uses reason and sound arguments to make his points. He does not make emotional appeals. His writing on speciesism reminded me of a news story here in Texas a few years ago. There was a news story with a crying teenage girl. She had sold here horse only to find out that it was bought by a slaughterhouse. She thought it wasn't right, even though she sold the horse as one would sell a piece of property. She thought the horse she sold was going to a good home and felt betrayed. The story made me wonder if she felt the same way when she ate a hamburger. What is the difference between mammals? Why is there no problem in the slaughtering millions of cattle or pigs, but there is a problem slaughtering horses or dogs. Also, why are dogs and cats protected from abuse but cattle, sheep, swine, and birds are not? Singer, however, does not devote the largest part of his book to what we eat, but how we treat animals and the reasons why. He also points out the hypocrisy in the way we think about animals like I pointed out above. People oppose wearing fur, but at the same time see no problem with leather. We say we love animals --kittens and puppies -- while eating a ham sandwich. Singer also looks at Western civilization and the reasons we think about animals the way we do. From the Book of Genesis, though Greek thinkers, Roman society, and philosophers in the Age of Reason, the present Western mindset of animal rights or more appropriately the lack of rights is set. We have made progress from Roman times, but it is slow and suffers many setbacks. Some of this is how we are raised. Today we are so separated from our food many do not associate it with its source. I remember real butcher shops where men still cut your meat from sides of beef right in front of you. Today meat comes in white styrofoam packaging with pads underneath to absorb any excess blood. Blood might remind a customer of the process. We tend to forget or ignore how the meat gets into the neat packaging. We think of "happy cows" on a farm, not feed lots. We think of farmers hand milking cows and animals living long happy lives grazing in fields rather than cows that "used up" after two years. Image and reality are vastly different. Animal Liberation still holds true to its principles after forty years. The updates have kept up with current developments and Singer still does use reason over emotion to back his points. It is an informative read, but not one that gives comfort or pleasure. It is information that does need to get out, read, and discussed. No matter which side of animal rights the reader stands, this book reminds the reader of what is really taking place and let's his or her conscious make the decision. A pioneering work which places animal treatment by people withing the ambit of human ethical behaviour. Whoever else deals with this subject, Peter Singer will always be the first philosopher to have confronted, analysed and resolved many of the key arguments. In the past, I can only think of St Francis of Assisi as a someone of significance who considered how non-human animals should be treated. Singer takes it to the next level which demands we change how we conduct ourselves. This is an incredibly eye-opening book and the most widely read on this subject. It starts with the a priori assumption that all beings deserve equal consideration, from which follows the axiom of Utilitarianism that the interest of any one individual is of no more importance than the interest of another. "At an absolute minimum," Singer says, all beings have "an interest in not suffering." Because all animals (or at the very least all mammals) can suffer, there is as much reason to prevent their suffering as to prevent human suffering. The fact that this principle of the equal consideration of interests is usually not extended to non-humans indicates that "speciesism" is a social problem at least as pernicious as racism or sexism. He illustrates this point with the example of our consideration and treatment of human infants, or adult humans with permanent brain damage or with severe learning disabilities. It is generally assumed that we should consider the interests of humans such as these as no less important than our own, though their cognitive abilities are at most no greater the most intelligent nonhumans. Thus, it follows that if we are consistent we cannot deny the same considerations to any being with the same interests. Or we may also decide that it is acceptable to eat or perform scientific experiments on brain damaged humans, too. But we cannot arbitrarily exclude nonhumans from consideration, unless we baldly admit that we are guilty of speciesism, for reasons no better than the prejudice of racists and sexists. The biggest part of the book is dedicated to exposing the atrocities that are being committed in animal research labs and in factory farms. Singer's research on these issues is thoroughly documented, based on objective and original sources, and provides many little-known mind-blowing statistics. (Around 60 million mice, rats, guinea pigs, hamsters, and rabbits were used in labs in 1965; of 1.6 million animals reported by the USDA in 1988, over 90,000 were reported to have experienced "unrelieved pain or distress;" p.37) Citing this book, Derrick Jensen rightly says it is not for the faint of heart, but its information is incredibly important given the dismal ignorance about (denial of?) these realities. Striking a weird note, Singer says that in a totally vegetarian world he hopes that eventually "the only herds of cattle and pigs to be found will be on large reservations" but the question remains whether they should be born at all. He doesn't go into any more detail than this, but the reserve idea strikes me as pretty absurd. I don't see cattle and pigs acquiring the status of pets; their domestication was exclusively agricultural. Their companionship was neither the intent nor a consequence of their breeding, and zoo animals are only interesting for their lack of domestication. (The only tenable alternatives seem to be extinction or readaptation to the forces of natural selection.) He also raises the issue of nonhuman carnivores, and goes so far as to consider whether humans might have an obligation to eliminate carnivorous species in order to reduce suffering. Thankfully he dismisses this idea, but disturbingly not because he finds it inherently wrong (no joke!); he just thinks that humans have thus far demonstrated a practical inability to police all of nature. Taken to its logical conclusion here, it's obvious to me his whole utilitarian system falls apart, and even a logically less airtight ecological ethic (that values whole species and communities) aligns much better with the larger reality. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that the plight of animals used in labs and factory farms can hardly be represented better than Singer does. In the final chapter Singer responds to his detractors. He includes a great refutation of the Carrot juice is murder! claim that that we must either cause suffering or starve, which is too clever not to share: Even if plants can feel pain just like animals, it still makes more sense not to eat flesh if we don't want to inflict pain. This is because, by eating an animal, we are "responsible for the indirect destruction of at least ten times as many plants" (100 calories of an animal's flesh required his/her consumption of at least 1000 calories). If carrot juice is murder, then rabbit stew is genocide. I read this book for some background research. A philosopher with a specialty in ethics, Singer discusses "specieism" (prejudice toward non-human animals) and offers vivid accounts of its most gruesome by-products--chilling, horrific documentation of animals victimized in military, scientific, and consumer product research, and the gut-wrenching realities of factory farming. Singer makes a well-reasoned, compelling argument for vegetarianism and veganism, but I'm not yet ready to make that leap. Enlightening, provocative, troubling, and consciousness-raising. Classic book. I've heard it referred to as the "bible of the animal rights movement." Best conclusions are that more humans could eat if fewer humans ate meat. We need to consume grains and not feed them to protien-on-the-hoof. Eating meat is an affront to starving humans on our planet, and a habit that demonstrates the attitude of indifference. This book had a pivotal influence on my life. It pushed me over the edge to become a vegetarian. The author's argument here is not really "utilitarian." All Singer argues is: any logic that gets us not to hurt or kill humans, will also get us not to hurt or kill animals, at least most of the time, and certainly enough of the time to get us to be vegetarian. A seminal book that stakes out an important issue of great relevance to anyone who wants to bring her conduct in line with defensible principles. It does a god job at identifying and presenting two specific domains in which our treatment of animals is not what most people think (we do to them worst things than we think for reasons that are less necessary than we think). It is an excellent book as a source of political inspiration. Philosophically, however, it is rather underdeveloped. This is an interesting and thoughtful book about how animals are treated and how they should be treated. Singer did a considerable amount of research for this book and put a great deal of thought into his arguments. Not surprisingly, he arrives at a unique point of view that does not always coincide with the views of mainstream animal rights adherents. If anything, this fact will make this book even more interesting to people interested in the rights or welfare of animals. The first section of the book presents his overall argument that animals should be treated much better than they currently are by western society. The presentation is logical and slightly abstract. It will appeal to independent thinkers who find logic persuasive. However, readers who feel animals are so fundamentally different from humans that they need not be included in any system of ethics that governs human behavior will not find Singer's arguments at all convincing. To the extent that most readers feel this way, Singer is preaching to the choir. The second section of the book describes some of the many ways that our society horribly mistreats animals. Singer explicitly tries to present the concrete facts without unduly appealing to the reader emotionally. He wants the reader to be persuaded on an intellectual level. However, the uninformed reader will surely find this section of the book disturbing, and may feel Singer has failed in his attempt to merely present the facts. I do have one criticism of Singer's presentation of the abuses of animals. Although I think Singer is right that most experiments on animals are not justified by the knowledge (if any) that is gained, I feel that Singer unfairly characterizes the goals of many experiments. For example, in the various experiments on how being separated from their mothers affects the emotional health of monkeys, Singer says the point is merely to determine whether the monkeys are adversely affected. He points out that this is obvious from historical observation. He totally ignores the controlled nature of the experiments and the specific conclusions that experimenters are able to draw from them. Similarly, Singer characterizes basic scientific terminology as euphemisms for animal abuse and tools for indoctrination of unsuspecting students. It is certainly fair to argue that the ends do not justify the means and that educators are disingenuous, but Singer ought to do so without resorting to straw men. In the next section Singer discusses some of the implications of his ideas for everyday behavior. These are not quite what you'd expect from a book that is sometimes described as the bible of the animals rights movement. Here Singer also acknowledges the limitations of his arguments and admits that some of his conclusions are hard to swallow. The next section of the book is a history of the ethics of animal treatment in Western civilization. It is a fascinating dissection of the fallacies and limitations of a variety of thinkers throughout history. Finally, Singer includes a little section detailing progress that has been made since first publication. He also discusses some of the questions and attacks that any animal rights advocate is sure to encounter on a daily basis. It is nice for a somewhat depressing book to end on an optimistic note and with sound practical advice. A Philosophy Book That's Light on Actual Philosophy As an animal rights advocate for about 8 years, I figured that it was finally time to read "Animal Liberation", hailed as the "Bible" of the modern animal rights movement. Altogether, the book was somewhat disappointing - it's a philosophy book without much philosophical discussion! Singer does an excellent job of detailing the evils and follies of animal experimentation and animal agriculture. Though the first edition was released before I was even born (in 1978), he does thoroughly update the information for the newest edition (however, it was revised way back in '91, so the information is once again out of date). That's really about all "Animal Liberation" is useful for, though - gathering evidence and formulating arguments against the two largest forms of animal exploitation. As a philosophy book, "Animal Liberation" fails miserably. I've learned about Singer's philosophy by reading works by other AR philosophers (most notably, Gary Francione), so I had some background before picking up "AL". Good thing, because Singer only devotes one chapter (out of six) to his animal liberation philosophy. He never really elaborates on or fully explains his principles, leaving the reader to fill in the gaps. After reading "AL", I knew little more about Singer's beliefs than I did before picking it up. Furthermore, while Singer does rely on commonsensical logic, he never makes use of more advanced logic (as most philosophers do). "AL" is a philosophy book, written by a philosopher, but you'd never know this just by reading it! "AL" is a decent introduction to factory farming and vivisection, but it flounders at its primary task - presenting a comprehensive AR philosophy. What's especially ironic is that, though he's hailed as the godfather of the AR movement, Singer doesn't even endorse animal rights per se - rather, he's a proponent of a more ethical approach to animals. Also of note is the fact that Singer is a defender of infanticide and bestiality - which (in my opinion) does not make him the best representative of the AR movement. On a positive note, though, "AL" is a very easy read, since there's no cumbersome philosophy to slow the reader down! I would recommend that all animal rights advocates read "AL", if only because it's one of the most popular and commonly cited animal rights philosophy books. However, I would also urge anyone who's interested in the humane and ethical treatment of animals to also read works by Gary Francione and Tom Regan. http://www.amazon.com/review/R39C6CFIHOB54H/ Normally I won’t review nonfiction, since most of the time I don’t even give them a star rating. However, there a few exceptions. First of all I may end up reviewing some memoirs since I consider a good memoir to be a blend of fiction and nonfiction (think James Frey here, but also less sinister examples). So my major exception will be this book. I feel okay with reviewing this book because I do have a philosophy degree, and also because this book had a major impact on me at a fairly young age. When I was a young whippersnapper of 20 I read a brief essay by the controversial Australian philosopher Peter Singer, in the Sunday New York Times magazine (this was a around the time of his protested appointment as Bioethics Professor at Princeton) about poverty and the choices we make in the West. The piece was simple, it was straightforward, and it was brilliant. He argued that we need to do more to help those who are starving and dying (not a revolutionary concept, but certainly one that has yet to catch on), but he did so by drawing specific analogies of behavior which we would consider grossly unethical (not stepping into mud to save a drowning child for fear of ruining a pair of 200$ pants) with behavior that we consider perfectly acceptable (buying 200$ pants when that same money could dig a well, or a send a child to school for a year, if spent elsewhere). The only difference between the two being distance. The only reason one is unacceptable is because we are face to face with it. But how does mere distance alter the ethical demands, he asks? It shouldn’t, of course, is the answer. This piece moved me in a direct way, and it helped to shape my decision to pursue a philosophy degree (a decision which my bank account laments, but my brain appreciates). But perhaps even more changing was the brief bio at the end of the piece which read something to the effect of: “Peter Singer is the author of the seminal 1975 work Animal Liberation which posits that non-human animals should be treated on the same ethical plain as humans”. As a young man on the Canadian prairies this idea was a bit new to me, but it also felt right. I often thought that I would one day stop eating meat (I enjoyed the taste, but something did seem not quite right) and so I took this book out of the library. A week later I ate my last piece of meat (thanksgiving dinner) and that was seven years ago. The book follows a similar plan to the brief piece I read in the New York Times (which was called simply “Rich and Poor” and was the same abridged version of “Famine, Affluence, and Morality" [http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1972----.htm]which also appeared in his book Practical Ethics). It uses simple analogies based on ethical norms that we already accept and he broadens them to include new norms that are currently rejected. In Animal Liberation one of the key arguments is that our sense of the ethical world needs to be broadened to include non-human animals and that we need to redraw the bounds based on sentience (roughly the ability to feel pain) rather than on perceived intelligence or rationality. I am restraining myself from trying to mention some of his arguments here, as they are powerful and to the point, but I would only get bogged down in the finer points and be overly concerned that I was giving Mr. Singer a fair representation, also I run the risk of looking like a moron if I miss, or misinterpret, something. So read the book if you want to hear the points, and I encourage you to do so. He writes with a clarity and simplicity that makes it an easy (though not light) read. This is an accessible book written for the masses and requires no philosophical background to comprehend. All it takes is an open inquiring mind. So give it a chance if you care at all about living an ethical life. It may seem like it is impossible to do everything good, and that there are so many terrible and tempting things in the world that it you can’t avoid them all, but that does not mean you shouldn’t do anything. Reading this book is a good place to start. |
Current DiscussionsNonePopular covers
Google Books — Loading... GenresMelvil Decimal System (DDC)179.3Philosophy and Psychology Ethics Other Ethical Topics Treatment of animalsLC ClassificationRatingAverage:
Is this you?Become a LibraryThing Author. |