Animal Liberation | Peter Singer | Radical Animal Welfarism

Animal Liberation | Peter Singer | do you really want to know

books:

Animal Liberation

	Animal Liberation Peter Singer Harper Perennial, 2001 - 352 pages average customer review:based on 98 reviews view larger image
	for more information click here

highly recommended

Radical Animal Welfarism

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.

for more information click here

do you really want to know

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?

Must Read!

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

Any Factory Farmed Edible is Bad News

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.

for more information click here

Singer & Utilitarianism

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.

for more information click here

reviews: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, page 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17

products you might be interested in

recommendations

So You Want to be a Wannabe College Radical Leftist type deal
Violence against Animals (Human-Animal Studies)
Essential Vegan Books
The Best Books Ever
Veganism