Buy Used
CDN$ 0.04
+ CDN$ 6.49 shipping
Used: Good | Details
Condition: Used: Good
Comment: Moderate wear on cover and edges. Minimal highlighting and/or other markings can be present. May be ex-library copy and may not include CD, Accessories and/or Dust Cover. Good readable copy.
Have one to sell?
Flip to back Flip to front
Listen Playing... Paused   You're listening to a sample of the Audible audio edition.
Learn more
See all 2 images

Animal Liberation Paperback – Dec 6 2001

4.2 out of 5 stars 50 customer reviews

See all 11 formats and editions Hide other formats and editions
Amazon Price
New from Used from
Paperback, Dec 6 2001
CDN$ 28.74 CDN$ 0.04

There is a newer edition of this item:

Harry Potter and the Cursed Child
click to open popover

No Kindle device required. Download one of the Free Kindle apps to start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, and computer.
Getting the download link through email is temporarily not available. Please check back later.

  • Apple
  • Android
  • Windows Phone
  • Android

To get the free app, enter your mobile phone number.

Product Details

  • Paperback: 352 pages
  • Publisher: Ecco; Reprint edition (Dec 6 2001)
  • Language: English
  • ISBN-10: 0060011572
  • ISBN-13: 978-0060011574
  • Product Dimensions: 13.5 x 2.1 x 20.3 cm
  • Shipping Weight: 322 g
  • Average Customer Review: 4.2 out of 5 stars 50 customer reviews
  • Amazon Bestsellers Rank: #879,433 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
  •  Would you like to update product info, give feedback on images, or tell us about a lower price?

Product Description


"It galvanised a generation into action. Groups sprang up around the world, equipped with a new vocabulary, a new set of ethics and a new sense of mission...Singer's book is widely known as the bible of the animal liberation movement." Independent on Sunday "A reasoned plea for the humane treatment of animals that galvanised the animal-rights movement the way the Rachel Carson's Silent Spring drew activists to environmentalism." New York Times "Important and responsible...Everyone ought to read it." Richard Adams "Probably the single most influential document in the history of recent movements concerned with animal welfare" Guardian --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

About the Author

Peter Singer is the author of Animal Liberation, Practical Ethics, and Rethinking Life and Death, among many others. He is currently the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University's Center for Human Values.

What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?

Customer Reviews

Top Customer Reviews

By A Customer on July 15 2004
Format: Paperback
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.
7 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again.
Report abuse
Format: Paperback
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.
4 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again.
Report abuse
Format: Paperback
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!
Read more ›
One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again.
Report abuse
By A Customer on March 24 2004
Format: Paperback
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.Read more ›
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again.
Report abuse

Most recent customer reviews