Customer Reviews

Animal Liberation

5 star:		(50)
4 star:		(7)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(7)

 

 

No matter what anyone thinks of Mr. Singers other philosophical opinions it is hard to refute the arguments in this book regarding the way in which we treat animals. Singer is so convincing that, although Utilitarian himself, he usually relies on more general well accepted ethical principles to justify his arguments.
To all the people who have read the book and disagree I ask this: Is there nothing wrong with me slowly toturing a cat if that is how I get my jollies? Of course the answer is Yes. It would take a cold heart indeed to say that torturing a cat is no worse than breaking a inanimate rock into two. So torturing a cat (or dog, or cow etc.) for fun is wrong, we can agree. Now, let us say that I don't like torturing the cat but I do like a certain noise the cat makes when I torture it. I can only make the cat make this noise when I torture it. And I'll even grant that I REALLY like this noise, it gives me a great deal of pleasure. Is it now OK for me to torture the cat to retrieve my desired noise. NO. Of course not. In fact most people would rightly say that this is just as bad as torturing the cat just to torture it. Next let's imagine that I can't bear to torture cats on my own but, I still want that noise! So, I pay a guy to torture the cat for me and then tape record the noise and deliver it to me. And since I get sick after one listening, I have him do this over and over again. Is this wrong? Of course. Common sense (and any reputable moral theory)says that it's just as bad as tortuing the cat in the first place. If you have agreed with the argument so far you wont be hard to persuade when you read Singer's great book for as he tells us, this process is exactly what we do to animals in order to eat them! We pay people to torture them (given the macroeconomic scale in which they must be produced, extremely torturous enviroments are inevitable) and then deliver the "food" to us. It's just wrong. And to those people who say that "since they can't be moral themselves why should we treat them morally?" I ask, "would it be alright to torture babies or severly mentally retarded people?" Both these groups can not engage morally but both would be wrong to make suffer.
---These are the kind of revelations that occur page by page in Animal Liberation. If you are a devout carnivore, as I was, I promise that after reading this book you will realize that there are still more important things in the world then the momentarlily satisfactions of the palate. Read it!

To many, the animal rights movement seems flaky and its supporters are seen as bleeding hearts who love their pets. In "Animal Liberation", Peter Singer employs no sentiment, using rational philisophical arguments to defend animals. He uses a thoroughly convincing Utilitarian argument to explain his reasons. Singer is not an animal lover, as he has made clear, but he is in opposition to unnecessary suffering, the worst of which is being inflicted on animals today.
Don't worry if you've not read a book of philosophy before. This was my first when I initially read it, and it was written so clearly with such interesting arguments that I sailed through it. It's a must-read for anyone starting to think about animal rights, as well as for anyone who disagrees with the movement. It can't hurt anyone to learn the reasons for all this fuss.

I remember passing by a banner at my college that said "Why does your love for animals stop at dogs and cats?" a couple of months ago. Ever since I saw that banner, I've had a different way of looking at non-human animals. I decided to pick up this book a few days later and I can honestly say that my lifestyle and thinking has dramatically changed because of it.

Animal Liberation is a call to everyone to help stop, or at least drastically limit, the cruel mass-practices of animal testing and factory farming. Singer makes very persuasive arguements against both of the aforementioned practices and describes the punishment (many of it hard to even read about) animals have gone through simply to test our products (especially cosmetics) and fill our appetites.

The book is aptly titled Animal Liberation because animals need to be freed from man's dominance over them. I completely agree with Singer's path to "animal liberation" which consist of a change in mindset and a change in diet. One of the strongest arguements in the book is how Singer compares animals' condition to former practices of human bondage. We as humans seem to deem animals as inferior, means to our ends, and usable, just as masters viewed their captives. But animals cannot rise up and march peacefully in numbers, speak for their freedom, and take action. It is our ethical duty to grant them their rights as sentient (able to feel pain, fear, and other emotions) beings.

After reading Animal Liberation I was appalled. I really had no idea the situation was this bad. The book is an excellent read; it's arguements are clear, humane, and ultimately, right. I can gladly say that this book has changed my diet (vegetarian), lifestyle, and outlook on things nonhuman.

This book changed my life

I read excerpts from this book flipping through it in a bookstore. I got so sick that I sat down in the floor and leaned up against the wall. I couldn't stand to read any more. Oh, what we do to animals in the name of...what reason is good enough?

I'm not quite sure how anyone could exhibit a question-begging response from reading AL -- even if you disagree with his assumptions or moral relevance, the philosophical argument he explicates is quite clear and thorough. A reviewer stated that nothing in Singer's contention prevented us from extending his 'protective moral circle' to plants and insects -- EVERYTHING in his argument prevents us from their inclusion. Plants and insects would not be considered sentient beings and he would therefore disagree with your claim that "they suffer" at all, thus they are not afforded any type of moral consideration under his argument. Moreover, he would not promote cannibalism on the pure basis that the cannibalee was painlessly put to death. Rather, the aggregate sum of the pain incurred by the cannibalee (not just physical pain experienced by death, but likewise the denial of all future life prospects, goals, experiences, and potential pleasure) would need to be more than offset by the pleasure the occasion brought to the cannibal (eating him). Furthermore, his utilitarian claim, extended to children having their senile parents put to death, is purely subjective and case-based. The senile parent, depending on their exact condition, would most likely have a decreased sense in their capacity to experience pleasure (at least insofar as being able to call past pleasurable experiences), very restricted potential in realizing future goals and pursuing them, etc. In contrast the children could be gravely suffering -- pained by seeing their parent in such a condition day after day, personally burdened and affected by their constant needs, financially overwhelmed by medical expenses, and so on. I do not believe Singer is saying that senile parents OUGHT to be put to death, but through the application of utilitarianism (pain rendered to the parent vs. benefits accrued by children), a case can be made to justify such action. I am in no way claiming that Singer's employment of utilitarianism as a basis for animal rights or the killing of seniles is valid -- but his argumentation, which some are distorting and misperceiving, is quite methodical.

Though this book may have been dubbed "The Animal Rights Bible" - it is interesting to note that nowhere in Singer's argument does he make a case for "rights" for animals. Singer's system of ethics is comprised of a form of utilitarianism that takes into account the interests of nonhuman animals. Thus, Singer's book is not an argument for "rights" for animals - Instead it is work intended to make a case for expanding our circle of compassion by considering the immense amount of unecessary suffering inflicted upon the nonhuman animal world by human institutions. In order to understand Singer's perspective, the reader must be willing to open their mind to the idea that our society is capable of change, and that we indeed can strive to live in peace with the nonhuman creatures with whom we share the Earth. Thus, an open-minded reader may be able to share in a vision of a more peaceful world in which we view other animals as creatures who are worthy of experiencing their own life - rather than as simple automatons that exist to be exploited as objects for human consumption.

While Singer should be applauded for his views on animal experimentation, his understandable abhorrence to factory farming and the alternative of vegetarianism needs further examination and exploration. That examination and exploration is provided in such texts as Michael Pollan's 'Botany of Desire' and Richard Manning's 'Food Frontiers' where it is disclosed that factory farming in North America goes beyond animals, it also applies to most of the fruits and vegetables available in our supermarkets.

So what's the answer? How should we proceed when it comes to our consumption of food? Singer touches on this briefly when he states that he can respect conscientious people who care to eat only meat that comes from free-range animals that are killed quickly. Such animals are invariably raised on small family owned farms whose existence depends upon the conscientious consumer, not a corporate dictate that puts profit before the welfare of people or animals.

It follows that whether it be meat, eggs, fruit or vegetable, it is far better for our environment and ourselves if we develop supportive relationships with local food suppliers/farmers wherever possible. The occurence of BSE (mad cow disease) in the United Kingdom and more recently in North America speaks volumes about what is happening now, and what will happen in the future if we don't support the small guys.

The most important book I've ever read. I only wish I'd read it sooner.

It's quite stunning to see how those who (be)rated this book negatively fail to notice the manifest purport of Singer's book, which is not to be an advocacy of animal "rights" -for arguing the existence of "rights", also with regard to humans, in a non-juridical sense seems in itself impossible- but of moral duties which we are obliged to regard towards non-humans. A crucial distinction, for if one reflects on the reason wherefore one holds it to be immoral to harm one's fellow humans, it is quite unlikely one would find that reason to be the "right" of his fellow humans not to be harmed, nor -as one reviewer here seemed to contend, and which I felt was quite ludicrous- the humanity per se of one's fellow humans. Much more probable is that one would find the reason to be this, that one knows that one's fellow humans don't take a liking towards physical or mental pain, and that therefore one abstains from inducing that pain into one's fellow humans. It hardly seems odd -as Singer does- to on that account consider the morality of acts in the light of their total effect on the well-being of humans or non-humans.

By concentrating on the impossibility to argue for animal "rights", some reviewers here concluded that on account of their apparent absence (for animals are not "moral agents") there exist no duties towards animals, neglecting thereby the autonomous existence of moral duties, much in the sense as Singer proposed. Insofar such reviewers would argue that beings who cannot entertain moral reflections can themselves not be the object of our moral reflections, they miss the point that the animals' inability to cogitate morality has no bearing on their capability to suffer or experience joy: in that quality, where the morality of acts (as said) should be measured by their effect in sum on the "general" well-being, we are obliged to include them into our sphere of ethic norms.

Abovementioned reviewers also fail to take note, by stating that humans DO have moral "rights", that it is equally unfeasible to logically substruct and found such "rights". At best one might say that, where the one has a duty (which CAN be adstrued) the other MUST have a "right". Yet the dependence of this "right" upon the duty is apparent. The independent non-juridical moral "right" cannot -be it of humans or not- be evidenced (at least has not: no source for such "rights", except corresponding duties, has been supplied), wherefore those who uphold the believe that, because animals have no moral "rights" they equally lack moral significance, those people should realise that such reasoning also entails the moral insignificance of humans.

In conclusion then, Singer is, so it seems, on the right track in his book. His dissentors seem to, by and large, either misinterpret his intentions or, correctly interpreting them, nonetheless fail to undermine the validity of his statements and thus also misinterpret, not in that case the tenor of the statements, but their susceptibility to refutation... Singer then rightly said that his arguments have not yet been refuted, and indeed, I add, seem irrefutable.