Animal Liberation: The Definitive Classic of the Animal Movement by Peter Singer

Sep 06, 2007 Clear_enGlish rated it 2 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: politics-philos-ethics

I read the "bible" of the animal rights movement because I wanted to get some clue as to what is being thought. I should consider all views in order to change, consolidate or move on my own position.

On a very simple analysis, if you are guilty about existing and using the planets resources then this book will confirm your views and help you to rationalise your thoughts.

If you feel that you are part of nature and have every right to exist and survive (just like every other creature) then you can...more

like 11 likes · see review

view all 6 comments

John Colvin Using the argument that is natural for human to eat meat is very weak in my opinion.

Humanity is the only species known to have a choice about its food...more
Dec 15, 2008 12:17am

Robin I realise that your review was about 4,5 years ago. I just wanted to say this:
"Eating Soya (as urged in the book) as a protein source brings its own p...more
Dec 05, 2011 02:14pm

Jul 02, 2007 Beggs rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition Recommends it for: Everyone

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 hold...more 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.
(less)

like 2 likes · see review

Nov 04, 2011 Michael Bennett rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: australian, nonfiction, philosophy, 1999

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....more 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. [return]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/... 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.(less)

like 3 likes · see review

Jan 08, 2013 Christopher Rex rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

The book is good, not great. The message is a valid one, just not that well presented. It seems the book needs "refining" somehow, even if I couldn't put my finger on how/why.

Most people have never thought about "speciesism." In the same way that "racism" and "sexism" (among other baseless prejudices) were once very-little questioned and/or accepted as "normal," the idea of "speciesism" has pervaded our thinking for much, much longer. Singer essentially outlines this complete (and baseless) bias...more The book is good, not great. The message is a valid one, just not that well presented. It seems the book needs "refining" somehow, even if I couldn't put my finger on how/why.

Most people have never thought about "speciesism." In the same way that "racism" and "sexism" (among other baseless prejudices) were once very-little questioned and/or accepted as "normal," the idea of "speciesism" has pervaded our thinking for much, much longer. Singer essentially outlines this complete (and baseless) bias humans have toward animals. In that context, it is a good book. I just think he needs to "spice it up" a bit somehow. That is, the book needs to be more "readable" for the Common Person who isn't already an "animal activist" and/or vegetarian.

As a vegetarian and supporter of animal-rights, this book fell into my wheelhouse. However, I'm not the person Singer needs to connect with. The book needs to find a better way to appeal and reach the "speciesist" majority - unfortunately, I'm not sure what the answer is.

The reality is, the book has a message that EVERY person should at least consider and think about. If they chooose to write it off afterward, that would be their choice, but there are ethical and moral considerations that deserve our attention here.

The short-short is this: We treat animals like crap and we are complete moral hypocrites (even those who profess to "love animals"). Our relationship w/ animals is a strange one and clearly we do not value "animal life" or feel for "animal suffering" in any real, large-scale way. The question here is "why?" Singer answers this question with a basic overview of "speciesism" and links it directly to racial, ethnic and gender biases which have pervaded our race since its inception.

It's an interesting book, for sure. Some passages are brilliant. It just needs some "buffing up" or "reorganizing" to make it more accessible and/or readable. Even I got bogged down at times, so I'm not sure the "meat-eater" out there will really want to plow through his sometimes-inadequate prose to get to the heart of his message.

Worth reading and thinking about, though.

See "Earthlings" if you are interested in this genre. But, be prepared....it's pretty brutal.

I've said it once and I'll say it again: Humans are the worst animal on the planet.(less)

like · see review

Dec 31, 2012 Ross Blocher rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

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...more 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.(less)

like 2 likes · see review

Sep 02, 2012 Quinn rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Peter Singer’s main argument in Animal Liberation is that humans’ current perception and treatment of animals is morally indefensible. He defends this view from multiple angles, and concludes that animals deserve “equal consideration” (which differs considerably from equal treatment) based solely on the fact that they can feel pain, and causing unnecessary pain is immoral. The current abuse of a being based solely on their species (which Singer refers to as “speciesism”) stems from similar moral...more Peter Singer’s main argument in Animal Liberation is that humans’ current perception and treatment of animals is morally indefensible. He defends this view from multiple angles, and concludes that animals deserve “equal consideration” (which differs considerably from equal treatment) based solely on the fact that they can feel pain, and causing unnecessary pain is immoral. The current abuse of a being based solely on their species (which Singer refers to as “speciesism”) stems from similar moral inconsistencies that racists and sexists have used to justify their immoral actions throughout history. Singer continues by illustrating the most numerous abuses of animals in modern society (the factory farm industry and animal experimentation), and refuting the most common arguments against the equal consideration of animals. His aim in presenting this knowledge, beyond academic purposes, is to present individuals with their (mostly) subconscious hypocritical treatment of other species and give them feasible goals to reduce these hypocrisies. Such suggestions include a vegetarian diet, abstaining from purchasing products such as leather, suede and furs, supporting businesses that do not test their products on animals, and enlightening those around them about the current indefensible treatment of animals in modern society.

I found Singer’s arguments extremely convincing. I myself chose to become a vegetarian years ago by drawing many of the same conclusions he does throughout Animal Liberation (though Singer has worded his arguments far more eloquently). I also appreciated that Singer includes a section laying down recent history’s perception of animals, since it clarified why many practices toward animals continue to exist today. Though I’m sure I have heavy biases based on my own moral code, I cannot find serious fault with Singer’s main arguments or conclusions. There are, however, isolated inconsistencies with his viewpoints. One includes his mention of interfering with nature. In one instance he suggests that humans ought not to interfere with the actions of other species, since past manipulations in nature have led to unforeseen negative consequences. Then, several pages later, Singer goes on to suggest that in circumstances where a species threatens overpopulation, humans should reduce the fertility of the local animals. Granted, Singer may have only suggested this course of action as a better alternative to hunting, though this is unclear. This second stance seems more consistent with Singer’s support of taking action to reduce suffering, though it also fails to take into consideration a larger problem: cost and the allocation of resources. Spending money on reducing the fertility of animals seems extravagant when humans could use money to alleviate starvation and poverty. This use of resources seems more in line with Singer’s call-to-arms to end suffering. Additionally, though his suggestion to “neuter” certain species is consistent with his argument that one cannot harm a nonexistent being, it fails to take into consideration the harm it could have on the species (or ecosystem) as a whole.(less)

like 2 likes · see review

Jul 19, 2012 Eva rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

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 experimen...more

like 2 likes · see review

Jun 03, 2009 Ugh rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

This book is very well written, and very well argued, but unfortunately it's let down a little by the fact that it's now rather dated. The three stars are based on a judgement of how relevant and effective the book was as of the date I read it, not on how influential it has been in the past. The philosophy is sophisticated, considered and accessible, although some of the points are slightly laboured. The second chapter on the use of animals in science is the biggest casualty of progress, and in...more

like · see review

Oct 17, 2011 Sridhar rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: farming, nature-and-wildlife, philosophy, economics-and-development, read2011

Compelling and well-written, this is a classic that should be required reading for anyone concerned with the interests of animals. Without taking recourse to the issue of 'rights' of animals, Singer explains how moral and ethical positions we can take and understand become inadequate if restricted only to humans. Trying to separate humans as a species as somehow distinct and above beings of all other species ('speciesism'), if pursued logically and through all its implications, only leads to mor...more Compelling and well-written, this is a classic that should be required reading for anyone concerned with the interests of animals. Without taking recourse to the issue of 'rights' of animals, Singer explains how moral and ethical positions we can take and understand become inadequate if restricted only to humans. Trying to separate humans as a species as somehow distinct and above beings of all other species ('speciesism'), if pursued logically and through all its implications, only leads to moral, ethical, and philosophical positions that are clearly untenable.

A considerable portion of the book is devoted to detailed and balanced consideration of two major issues affecting the interests and welfare of animals: (a) the millions upon millions of animals used in research and vivisection, and (b) the billions and billions of animals 'reared' (=imprisoned) in factory farms and other facilities in cruel conditions and inefficiently (from social and ecological perspectives) only to be ultimately slaughtered, often painfully, for use as food for humans. This is not to overlook the (ab)use of animals for other reasons, such as for fur or other animal products such as leather, but just that the number of animals cruelly treated for research and for food is just so enormous. The greatest impact on the largest number of animals will result from immediate changes in these two areas: research (by avoiding or finding alternatives to animal testing and vivisection), and eating 'meat', or actually, flesh (by going vegetarian, vegan, or being far more circumspect and choosy about where the animal flesh or produce you eat comes from).

Besides bringing these issues forward and in-your-face for serious consideration, Singer's major contributions in this book are a lucid articulation of some central issues. First, the issue of what equality involves (not assuming that everyone is equal as there is undeniable variation, but the ethical imperative of equal treatment). Second, bringing consideration of the interests of animals to the forefront (without need to draw on or call for animal 'rights'). Separating issues related to preventing pain and suffering, from issues related to the actual killing of animals is another distinction that leads to nuances in treatment of animals and animal welfare.

The book is perhaps titled Animal Liberation to raise analogies with other liberation movements, for instance against slavery, racism, and sexism. In fact, many ethical and moral issues raised are consistent across these various movements. The way these are highlighted by the author and the analogies that he draws are very useful both to understand issues and to strengthen reasoned debate.

Worth reading, absolutely. One can ponder on the ideas Singer presents. One can grasp practical suggestions he gives for more ethical personal choices. And one can act.(less)

like · see review

Jan 23, 2010 Allthatshines rated it 2 of 5 stars · review of another edition

This is not a book about animal rights but an utilitarian philosophy that barely touches the issue of animal welfare. Peter Singer doesn't claim that animals have an inherent value, therefore if you believe that your cat or pig has an interest in life (fx their will and capability to feel pain and joy won't not turn off when there comes time to consume them), I would recommend to read something by Gary Francione.
Maybe "Animal Liberation" had some points compared to the times it was written but...more

like 1 like · see review

Jan 22, 2009 Sara rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: philosophy

Primarily a work of philosophy, Animal Liberation discusses human attitudes toward nonhumans (that is, animals) through examining our institutional and habitual treatment of them and uses to which we put them. This project obviously entails a discussion of animals as food and, more specifically, of our industrialized farming culture, though Peter Singer also chronicles the history of human attitudes toward nonhumans and the ways in which animals are used in medical, military and product testing....more Primarily a work of philosophy, Animal Liberation discusses human attitudes toward nonhumans (that is, animals) through examining our institutional and habitual treatment of them and uses to which we put them. This project obviously entails a discussion of animals as food and, more specifically, of our industrialized farming culture, though Peter Singer also chronicles the history of human attitudes toward nonhumans and the ways in which animals are used in medical, military and product testing. It explores environmental as well as ethical reasons for changing our attitudes and behaviors regarding nonhuman animals. It's a sober work, polemic and intelligent, but not sensationalized; Singer uses the words of the agribusiness and science industries to let them describe their own practices, usually quoting from scientific journals or agribusiness newsletters, etc.

Like any book about an emotionally-charged, often politicized topic, if you don't already have it in you to sincerely question the basis of your beliefs and behavior, Animal Liberation will not magically change your mind. Knowing I will also not magically change anyone's mind, I only really feel equipped to discuss what I personally took away from this book rather than entering into its polemic or regurgitating facts better delineated by Mr. Singer.

So, essentially, Animal Liberation encouraged me to ask myself questions that, as a longtime meat-eater (albeit with increasingly vegetarian leanings), I found had uncomfortable and unpleasant implications for my own behavior. Only moderate, if honest, self-reflection is required to realize that something is amiss in our attitudes toward nonhuman animals. Evidence of human rationalization of and separation from how we view and treat animals abounds. I found it worth simply considering the roots of the following, fairly schizophrenic ways we view and treat animals.

Most animal farming that occurs in the United States is industrialized, which means numerous animals crowded into small, usually indoor spaces, restricted in movement, divided from their offspring and from each other, talked about in the industry's literature as machines, not as living creatures. And yet in children's books and programs, they are encouraged to identify with animals, and the farm is still depicted as something Old MacDonald ran, featuring a variety of cheery animals, usually with their young, gamboling in the pasture or farmyard, and so forth. Why effectively lie to our children about how their food is raised? We also have different names for animals when they're alive and when they're our food. We don't eat pig, but pork, and not cow, but beef. What sort of cognitive dissonance does that separation by vocabulary serve? Probably the same one that would not think of eating a cat or dog, and punishes abuse of those animals, but which offers no protection for the other huge set of domesticated animals who undergo systematized cruelty every day, farm animals - pigs, cows, chickens. We love to pet and cuddle some animals, while others we manipulate freely with no thought to their wellbeing. But are these animals different from each other in any qualitative way that doesn't rely on human desire to eat one and not the other? Should a living being's suffering and very life be secondary to what amounts to my petty preference of taste?

And, those are a small sampling of the questions Animal Liberation provoked in me, so I thought I'd share them. I'll keep my answers to myself.
(less)

like 1 like · see review

Nov 18, 2009 Stefani rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

I, like most people, prefer to mentally block out graphic images of cows and chickens, dangling upside-down, assembly-line style, while eating meat. I do consider myself a hypocrite, however, for not knowing the origins of that nicely organized package of meat I just bought at the grocery store. While this book is more of a philosophical contemplation on the morality of eating "flesh", I was pleasantly surprised to see an entire chapter devoted to factory farming. Singer describes, in frightenin...more

like 1 like · see review

Dec 27, 2011 Brice B. rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

I really think you should read Animal Liberation and confront these issues yourself instead of wasting time with my review.

This book should be updated, but animal welfare hasn't changed so much that the issues presented are in any way irrelevant today. I don't agree with all his views on this subject and don't have to--the message is still as strong as ever, and it's an important enough work to make it the rare thing I really wish everyone would read... if they're at all interested in maintainin...more

like · see review

Jul 20, 2009 Sara Kearns rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: philosophy, vegetarianism-animal-rights-animal

the classic that launched the modern animal rights movement. some of it is very disturbing, but it's so well researched and so credible, especially now that the author has become so respected far outside just animal rights supporters, that it is (unfortunately still) one of the very best ways to become an informed consumer and citizen. if you want to avoid this book because of the disturbing and sad practices revealed, but you still eat veal, for example, perhaps your habits and ethics are disso...more

like · see review

Mar 04, 2012 Mike Rooney rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Great book. The reasons he cites for giving equal consideration to animals are well thought out and well put and he does an excellent job of dealing with objections to those views. Those parts of the book really helped me focus my thinking on the subject. When someone asks why I'm vegan, I sometimes don't know where to start since there are many different reasons. I think I will be able to express myself more concisely the next time I'm faced with that question. The only reason I don't give it f...more

like · see review

May 13, 2013 Konstantinos Chatzigeorgiou rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Peter Singer creates powerful images by showing the real nature of animal experimentation and extensive farming. His principle of equal consideration of interests is incredibly convincing and impenetrable. The more I thought about it, the more sense it made to me. Despite his obvious utilitarian perspective on the matter, ALL counter-arguments are incredibly weak.

I've found out from my own personal experience, that many people get defensive when talking about these issues. It's as if we know we...more

like · see review

Aug 02, 2010 Nathan rated it 1 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: animal-rights

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 strikin...more

like 1 like · see review

view all 6 comments

Konstantinos Chatzigeorgiou If you're not saying this, there's no need to disagree with Singer nor to find his argumentation superficial.
The welfare of animals is extremely impor...more
May 14, 2013 05:22am

Nathan I'm unclear how you are making the conclusion that something need be an intrinsic part of human nature in order to demand a more radical approach. I d...more
updated May 14, 2013 06:48pm

May 19, 2007 Lisa Vegan rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition Recommends it for: those who want to read a primer on animal rights

Shelves: animal-rights, reviewed, non-fiction

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.

like 1 like · see review

Sep 28, 2010 Maddie rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

I read this for an Animal Rights paper I wrote against animal testing in 2008. Singer goes through all aspects of what goes on for the desires/needs of humans. The majority of the book was hard to grasp and read but if, even as you are reading this book, animals are going through just that then we can at least hear of their story. I have heard people say that they just don't understand vegans. Just because an animal is being "killed" for their meat doesn't mean they are living, beautiful healthy...more

like 1 like · see review

Nov 20, 2010 Peacegal rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Animal Liberation, along with Save the Animals: 101 East Things You Can Do, were the first animal rights books I ever read. I ordered them from New York’s WARM Store back in 7th grade. (Old-school activists, remember that one?)

Animal Liberation is most often described as a seminal work, and it certainly was for me. The author describes ideas and values I had been feeling but simply hadn’t the ability to put into words. In addition, this was the first place I learned about factory farming. While...more

like · see review

Jun 29, 2010 Courtney rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

As an animal rights activist, I heard a lot about this book and decided to pick it up.

I had to read this book twice to fully understand the big points in this book. I gave it three stars because sometimes I felt the Peter Singer was so wordy that you couldn't really tell whether he was right or not. I feel like his basic plan was to overwhelm the reader so that he looked like he made a good arguement when really he could be defending Jello for all I knew.

That being said, I did think Singer creat...more

like · see review

Jul 16, 2009 Emily rated it 2 of 5 stars · review of another edition

"Man is always something worse or something better than an animal; and a mere argument from animal perfection never touches him at all. Thus, in sex no animal is either chivalrous or obscene. And thus no animal invented anything so bad as drunkeness - or so good as drink."

-G.K. Chesterton

I love Peter Singer, but ethics and morality are about a human's relationship with another human. The instinct against cruelty to animals arises from the analogy between our species and certain other accessible...more

like · see review

Feb 22, 2013 Heather Browning rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: philosophy, uni-texts

This is probably *the* central text in the philosophical discussion on our treatment of animals. Although I found the book dragged at times when it moved from his philosophical views to details of the abuses currently being perpetrated against animals and the actions we should take, this may just be because I'm so familiar with the material. Singer's central argument, however, is extremely powerful, and one to which I am yet to find a decent rational reply; I suspect that no such reply even exis...more

like · see review

Feb 28, 2011 Edward Sullivan rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: philosophy, adult-nonfiction

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....more

like 1 like · see review

Dec 30, 2010 Joel Weinberger rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Animal Liberation asks, and attempts to answer, several extraordinarily important moral questions that we often take for granted. Namely, should we care about how animals are treated, and if so, to what extent. Singer ultimately believes that human civilization cannot justify suffering caused to animals, for eating, for research, nor any other purpose.

Singer starts with an argument that our worldview reinforces "speciesism," a prejudice akin to racism and sexism. His argument is strong enough, i...more Animal Liberation asks, and attempts to answer, several extraordinarily important moral questions that we often take for granted. Namely, should we care about how animals are treated, and if so, to what extent. Singer ultimately believes that human civilization cannot justify suffering caused to animals, for eating, for research, nor any other purpose.

Singer starts with an argument that our worldview reinforces "speciesism," a prejudice akin to racism and sexism. His argument is strong enough, if your moral framework does not explicitly define human relationships with the world. For example, his argument against "speciesism" falls flat against a Christian or Jewish ethical framework that explicitly defines humans as a separate category from animals, in a moral sense. Singer takes about this explicitly in a later chapter, pretty much admitting that his moral case for "specisism" conflicts with at least traditional Christian and Jewish morality. However, even in these cases, his general points about the suffering stands. Even if you don't believe that humans should be completely morally barred from causing animal suffering, his case stands strong that you should at least minimize it.

While the moral framework Singer provides may be the most radical part of his book, his expose of animal treatment on factory farms and in research are probably his most well known and important. Two very large sections of the book discuss how the industrialized and "civilized" Western world directly lead to inordinate amounts of animal suffering, specifically in research and factory farming. These sections really push home the point that our everyday consumption of food and products directly ties into the tremendous suffering of animals around the world.

In some sense, Peter Singer is ultimately a utilitarian. He believes that we should feel free to act as we please as long as the utility gained outweighs the utility cost. However, Singer counts the suffering on animals as a much greater utility cost that humanity traditionally has. Thus, while he believes an experiment on animals that causes suffering can, in fact, be justified, it would have to be one hell of a result, and should only be done if there wasn't an alternative that would have been pain free. Moreover, he believes that if you are willing to test on a monkey, for example, you should also be willing to test on a retarded, orphaned, infant, as he sees the potential suffering to that child equal to, if not less than, the monkey's suffering. Ultimately, the practical ramification of this outlook is that these types of evaluations are much to difficult, and we just should not cause suffering to animals of any sort.

There are numerous holes in Singers presentation. For example, in his presentation of animal experiments, he constantly asserts that the results from the experiments he presents are useless. However, he provides virtually no evidence of this. Furthermore, he fails to show that generally the results from animal experiments are not useful or could be replicated in other ways. In some sense, this really isn't important to his argument; Singer says we basically shouldn't be doing these experiments even if there is a benefit to us. But then again, he is trying to make the utilitarian argument that our experiments are not worth the cost.

Perhaps most surprisingly, and most gratifyingly, is that Singer ultimately proposes a practical "do what you can" approach. He certainly calls for a vegetarian diet (it turns out to really be a vegan diet), but he also makes it clear that anything you can do to reduce animal suffering is certainly better than the status quo.

Overall, however, Singers book is a radical departure from our standard thought in the most positive sense. He makes us question our unflinching belief that we, as humans, have the "right" to cause animal suffering for our benefit and gratification. Singer's book is incredibly thought out and well researched. If you have ever doubted your consumption of meat or how our civilization treats animals, this is a must read. At the very least, if you can defend your meat consumption after reading this book, you are in very good shape. I certainly have begun to question my own habits deeply.(less)

like · see review

Mar 11, 2009 Joliene rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Peter when it comes to Animal Rights, but I am pretty damn sure I don't entirely agree with his perspective. That said, it's an animal rights classic and Singer does have a ton to offer, whether he proves to be a welfarist or not. If you are already interested in, or are interested in learning more, about the rights [or lack of rights:] of non-human animals, this is a must-read.

I must agree with the approach of philosopher, animal rights activist, English jurist, philosopher, & legal reform...more

like · see review

May 09, 2010 Jeff rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

though the language of "speciesism" is painful, singer's "equal consideration of interests" is a compelling ethical framework for his animal rights argument. it's hard to defend, after reading this book, that there are valid rational or logical grounds for meat-eating or for most animal experimentation. _animal liberation_ is too heavy on example -- the reader would likely concede the abysmal conditions in factory farms, for example, in fewer than 100 pages -- but it's also complete. in a partic...more

like · see review

Mar 21, 2013 Jack Ferreira rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

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...more 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.(less)

like 1 like · see review

Aug 07, 2012 Tom rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

It was only recently (earlier this year, in fact) that I became a vegetarian. I had always known, on some level, that all the arguments against vegetarianism were faulty, but I conveniently continued to eat meat and use animal products with little thought. Most of my own rationalizations are ones that Singer clearly points out, so I couldn't help feeling a little embarrassed for myself at times while reading this work. Anyway, as I continued to read and watch things that touched on issues relati...more It was only recently (earlier this year, in fact) that I became a vegetarian. I had always known, on some level, that all the arguments against vegetarianism were faulty, but I conveniently continued to eat meat and use animal products with little thought. Most of my own rationalizations are ones that Singer clearly points out, so I couldn't help feeling a little embarrassed for myself at times while reading this work. Anyway, as I continued to read and watch things that touched on issues relating to animal welfare, my feelings on the subject became more explicit and more difficult to ignore. Then, as I soon found out that many writers and thinkers who I greatly admire and respect were vegetarians (or at least sympathizers with the Animal Liberation movement), I realized that I could no longer continue living as I did and still maintain that I care about "ethics." So began my gradual elimination of meat and other animal products from my lifestyle.

As for the book here I'm reviewing, it's wonderful. Singer focuses most of his attention on the suffering caused by the food/meat industry and scientific research. He also discusses the history of speciesist thinking, provides practical advice for the budding vegetarian, and refutes common arguments against the Animal Liberation movement. And everything is emphasized with rational discussion, logical arguments, and no appeals to emotion. The edition I have was revised and updated, which is especially helpful considering the advances animal welfare has made since the first edition (regrettably, there are still hints of it being dated--which, when I think about it, is actually a good thing, since it implies progress).

Now, since animal welfare is such an enormous topic, with implications in many areas of our lives, Singer obviously cannot give a substantial discussion of them all, so one of the only limitations of this work is the limitation of the discussion itself to the most important of the issues. This is hardly a criticism. It's more the result of practicality. The only real criticism I have is that Singer is vague about what sorts of experiments on animals he would support when he discusses scientific research. Clearly the potential benefits would need to outweigh the suffering experienced by the animal, but it would have been helpful to be given some concrete examples.

Nevertheless, this is a truly revolutionary book. Read it, then work to change how you live your life.(less)

like · see review

Mar 07, 2013 Zahwil rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

I’ve been avoiding reading this book for a long time, but I knew the day would come when I would have to face the facts and the arguments against eating meat.
And the facts and arguments laid out by Singer are plain and hard and compelling.
Animals have interests. At minimum they have an interest in avoiding pain.
Some say that having interests isn’t enough to be worthy of our moral consideration. To be granted moral status, beings must have the ability to reason.
In response, Singer points out th...more I’ve been avoiding reading this book for a long time, but I knew the day would come when I would have to face the facts and the arguments against eating meat.
And the facts and arguments laid out by Singer are plain and hard and compelling.
Animals have interests. At minimum they have an interest in avoiding pain.
Some say that having interests isn’t enough to be worthy of our moral consideration. To be granted moral status, beings must have the ability to reason.
In response, Singer points out that some humans, for example those with profound intellectual disabilities, lack this capacity. Does this give us the right to torture and subject them to unbearable pain and inhumane conditions?
Few meat eaters would endorse treating disabled humans in a like manner as our treatment of animals. I suspect it’s because we can imagine ourselves having been born with, or subsequently developing, a condition that impedes rational thought. Yet, we know that our capacity for reason and speech is independent of our capacity for suffering. We recoil at the thought that our moral worth is tied to something we may lack or lose, which would then render our suffering meaningless in the eyes of others.
We are much more comfortable locating our moral worth in our humanness. The problem, as Singer makes clear, is that our membership in the human species is no less arbitrary than our membership in a race - black or white -, or a gender - male or female. Thus, as Singer argues, the animal rights movement has much in common with the civil rights movement and the feminist movement.
When we can bring ourselves to sympathize with members of other groups, whether they are racial minorities, women, the disabled, or animals, we are compelled by reason to expand our sphere of moral consideration to include their interests. And while much progress has been made, socially and legislatively, in every category, animals are the largest group whose interests are trampled en masse by humans who desire to eat them.
Others meat-eaters may say that humans have always eaten meat or that it is natural to do so in the state of nature. To which Singer responds: is it natural to keep slaves? We certainly used to believe so. Should we take moral cues from the animals that we just explained have no capacity for reason?
In the end, we have a choice to eat meat or not, while other animals do not. For us, unlike nonhuman animals, the question is not survival; it is satisfying a trivial interest of ours on one side of the equation, with a lifetime of suffering and sacrifice by the animals on the other.
Even if you somehow escape all of Singer’s arguments about why we should care about the interests of nonhuman animals, you still have a reason to be vegetarian if you care about the welfare of other humans on the planet. That reason is that farmland, water, and other resources can be used far more efficiently to grow plants than to feed animals for meat. If we all ate only plants, it is unlikely any human would have to do without food.
Much of Singer’s book is devoted to chronicling the incredible abuses against animals in science laboratories and factory farms. While much has been done, largely in reaction to Singer and his followers, in the ensuring years to reduce the suffering of animals, there is no doubt that a considerable degree of suffering is inextricably linked to raising and slaughtering animals for meat.
As Singer leaves us with in the close of the book, each of us is faced with a choice….
(less)

like · see review

title link	preview: Animal Liberation: The Definitive Classic of the Animal Movement
avg rating	preview: Animal Liberation: The Definitive Classic of the Animal Movement Goodreads rating: 4.12 (2328 ratings)
small image	preview: click here [close]
med image	preview: click here [close]
BBCode	[url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4896787-animal-liberation?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book][img]http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1347513177l/4896787.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4896787-animal-liberation?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book]Animal Liberation: The Definitive Classic of the Animal Movement by Peter Singer[/url]

Animal Liberation: The Definitive Classic of the Animal Movement

Friend Reviews

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topic
Discuss This Book

combine
Other Editions (20)

Genres

Readers also enjoyed similar books

About Peter Singer

Books by Peter Singer

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website

Trivia About Animal Liberation...

Quotes from Animal Liberation: The...