What do you think?
Rate this book
Neden Vegan? - Etik Beslenme
Modern çağın en büyük ahlak felsefecilerinden biri olan Peter Singer, hayatımızı nasıl yaşamamız gerektiğine dair cesur sorular soruyor.
İnsanın hayvanlar üzerindeki zulmünün, ırkçılık ve cinsiyetçilik gibi yanlış olduğunu savunan Singer, hayvan hakları hareketini tetiklemiş ve vegan beslenmenin yükselişine ivme kazandırmıştı. Hayvan özgürlüğü, insanlık adına diğer özgürlük hareketlerinden daha fazla fedakârlık gerektirecektir, çünkü hayvanlar bunu kendileri için talep edemez, oy, gösteri ya da bombalarla sömürülmeye karşı protesto düzenleyemezler. İnsan böyle içten bir fedakârlığa muktedir midir? Kim bilir?
Eğer bu kitap önemli bir etkide bulunabilirse, insanın içinde taşıdığını düşündüğü insafsızlık ve bencillikten daha fazla bir potansiyele sahip olduğuna inanan herkesin inancını aklayacaktır.
İnsanın hayvanlar üzerindeki zulmünün, ırkçılık ve cinsiyetçilik gibi yanlış olduğunu savunan Singer, hayvan hakları hareketini tetiklemiş ve vegan beslenmenin yükselişine ivme kazandırmıştı. Hayvan özgürlüğü, insanlık adına diğer özgürlük hareketlerinden daha fazla fedakârlık gerektirecektir, çünkü hayvanlar bunu kendileri için talep edemez, oy, gösteri ya da bombalarla sömürülmeye karşı protesto düzenleyemezler. İnsan böyle içten bir fedakârlığa muktedir midir? Kim bilir?
Eğer bu kitap önemli bir etkide bulunabilirse, insanın içinde taşıdığını düşündüğü insafsızlık ve bencillikten daha fazla bir potansiyele sahip olduğuna inanan herkesin inancını aklayacaktır.
96 pages, Paperback
First published October 20, 2020
86 people are currently reading
1032 people want to read
About the author
Peter Singer
186 books11k followersPeter Singer is sometimes called "the world’s most influential living philosopher" although he thinks that if that is true, it doesn't say much for all the other living philosophers around today. He has also been called the father (or grandfather?) of the modern animal rights movement, even though he doesn't base his philosophical views on rights, either for humans or for animals.
In 2005 Time magazine named Singer one of the 100 most influential people in the world, and the Gottlieb Duttweiler Institute ranked him 3rd among Global Thought Leaders for 2013. (He has since slipped to 36th.) He is known especially for his work on the ethics of our treatment of animals, for his controversial critique of the sanctity of life doctrine in bioethics, and for his writings on the obligations of the affluent to aid those living in extreme poverty.
Singer first became well-known internationally after the publication of Animal Liberation in 1975. In 2011 Time included Animal Liberation on its “All-TIME” list of the 100 best nonfiction books published in English since the magazine began, in 1923. Singer has written, co-authored, edited or co-edited more than 50 books, including Practical Ethics; The Expanding Circle; How Are We to Live?, Rethinking Life and Death, The Ethics of What We Eat (with Jim Mason), The Point of View of the Universe (with Katarzyna de Lazari-Radek), The Most Good You Can Do, Ethics in the Real World and Utilitarianism: A Very Short Introduction. His works have appeared in more than 30 languages.
Singer’s book The Life You Can Save, first published in 2009, led him to found a non-profit organization of the same name. In 2019, Singer got back the rights to the book and granted them to the organization, enabling it to make the eBook and audiobook versions available free from its website, www.thelifeyoucansave.org.
Peter Singer was born in Melbourne, Australia, in 1946, and educated at the University of Melbourne and the University of Oxford. After teaching in England, the United States and Australia, he has, since 1999, been Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics in the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University. He is married, with three daughters and four grandchildren. His recreations include hiking and surfing. In 2012 he was made a Companion of the Order of Australia, the nation’s highest civic honour.
In 2005 Time magazine named Singer one of the 100 most influential people in the world, and the Gottlieb Duttweiler Institute ranked him 3rd among Global Thought Leaders for 2013. (He has since slipped to 36th.) He is known especially for his work on the ethics of our treatment of animals, for his controversial critique of the sanctity of life doctrine in bioethics, and for his writings on the obligations of the affluent to aid those living in extreme poverty.
Singer first became well-known internationally after the publication of Animal Liberation in 1975. In 2011 Time included Animal Liberation on its “All-TIME” list of the 100 best nonfiction books published in English since the magazine began, in 1923. Singer has written, co-authored, edited or co-edited more than 50 books, including Practical Ethics; The Expanding Circle; How Are We to Live?, Rethinking Life and Death, The Ethics of What We Eat (with Jim Mason), The Point of View of the Universe (with Katarzyna de Lazari-Radek), The Most Good You Can Do, Ethics in the Real World and Utilitarianism: A Very Short Introduction. His works have appeared in more than 30 languages.
Singer’s book The Life You Can Save, first published in 2009, led him to found a non-profit organization of the same name. In 2019, Singer got back the rights to the book and granted them to the organization, enabling it to make the eBook and audiobook versions available free from its website, www.thelifeyoucansave.org.
Peter Singer was born in Melbourne, Australia, in 1946, and educated at the University of Melbourne and the University of Oxford. After teaching in England, the United States and Australia, he has, since 1999, been Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics in the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University. He is married, with three daughters and four grandchildren. His recreations include hiking and surfing. In 2012 he was made a Companion of the Order of Australia, the nation’s highest civic honour.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 127 reviews
Read
July 12, 2021never judge the degree by which another creature suffers
i cannot give it a fair rating so i won't give any, but i'll leave some lines from the book that should make you question your choices and your implication (whether passive or active) in the suffering of animals:
Granted, the chicken lying in the supermarket freezer today would have died even if i had never existed; but the fact that I take the chicken from the freezer, and ignore the tofu on a nearby shelf, has something to do with the number of chickens, or blocks of tofu, the supermarket will order next week and thus contributes, in a small way, to the future growth or decline of the chicken and tofu industries. That is what the laws of supply and demand are all about.
in conclusion: go vegan. stop being an ignorant asshole 🤠
i cannot give it a fair rating so i won't give any, but i'll leave some lines from the book that should make you question your choices and your implication (whether passive or active) in the suffering of animals:
Granted, the chicken lying in the supermarket freezer today would have died even if i had never existed; but the fact that I take the chicken from the freezer, and ignore the tofu on a nearby shelf, has something to do with the number of chickens, or blocks of tofu, the supermarket will order next week and thus contributes, in a small way, to the future growth or decline of the chicken and tofu industries. That is what the laws of supply and demand are all about.
in conclusion: go vegan. stop being an ignorant asshole 🤠
December 1, 2024
I read this in probably an hour total on and off of public transport picked up on a whim and it is phenomenally written. Singer puts forward a compelling case against eating animals, as a vegetarian admittedly I felt rather smug as well I can’t be as bad as those discussed in the section referring to Mcdonald’s, however it’s definitely caused a reflection of whether I could perhaps cut out more eggs and dairy. As well as this, it has convinced me that Animal Liberation should be towards the top of my want to read. I would recommend Why Vegan? to anyone, regardless of their stance on animal consumption.
Oh and it has a recipe in too for a lentil dal which is such a nice little touch to the book, more philosophy/ethics books should do that aha.
Oh and it has a recipe in too for a lentil dal which is such a nice little touch to the book, more philosophy/ethics books should do that aha.
September 18, 2021
หนังสือตบหน้าคนที่กินเนื้อสัตว์แบบไม่หยุดหย่อน แต่ผมจะบอกให้นะ วีธีนี้โครตน่าสมเพชเลยหวะและมันไม่มีทางเปลี่ยนวิธีการกินของคนได้หรอก
ก่อนอื่น... พวกเขาสร้างหลักจริยธรรมเชิงเหตุผลขึ้นมาชุดหนึ่ง นั้นคือ สัตว์มีความเจ็บปวด ทุกทรมาน และมีชีวิตจิตใจ เราต้องปฎิบัติกับพวกมันเยี่ยงสิ่งมีชีวิตที่มีความรู้สึก
แต่พวกเขาก็เบื่อมากกับการกินแต่ผัก ผัก ผัก พวกเขาศึกษาหอยสองฝาแล้วพบว่าพวกมันไม่มีระบบประสาทส่วนกลางและสมอง นั้นหมายความว่าเป็นไปไม่ได้เลยที่หอยพวกนี้จะมีความรู้สึก พวกเขาจึงกินหอยที่น่าสงสารเหล่านั้นอย่างสบายใจ...
ใจเย็น ๆ ผมไม่ได้ต่อต้านพวกมังสวิรัติหรอกนะ ชอบพวกเขาด้วยซ้ำ ผมเองก็เป็นคนหนึ่งที่อยากจะเป็นมังสวิรัติกับเขาบ้างเหมือนกัน เพราะหลังจากดูสารคดี Dominion จบ ภาพที่ผมได้เห็นไม่สามารถทำให้ผมกลับไปกินเนื้อสัตว์ด้วยความรู้สึกเดิมได้อีกต่อไป นับแต่นั้นมาผมก็ไม่ได้กินกะเพราหมูกรอบร้านโปรดอีกเลย (เกินครึ่งปีได้) ผมได้สร้างกฎชุดหนึ่งขึ้นมาเพื่อที่ผมจะไม่กินมัน ถ้าเลือกได้ผมจะไม่ซื้อหมูหรือวัวหรือสัตว์ใหญ่อื่นมากิน ผมร้องไห้จริง ๆ นะตอนเห็นหมูถูกฆ่า แต่ยังไงก็ตามผมก็ไม่ได้เลิกกินเนื้อสัตว์เสียทีเดียว ผมยังกินเนื้อไก่อยู่ ยังกินปลาและอาหารทะเลอื่น ๆ ผมยังกินโจ๊กหมูที่คนอื่นเอามาฝากอยู่ ยังกินต้มแซ่บกระดูกอ่อนที่เพื่อนร่วมงานชวนไปกินตอนเย็น...
ก็ผมไม่ได้เลือกเองนิ ผมไม่ได้เลือกเมนูที่มีหมูหรือเนื้อเลย ก็แค่กินเพราะเสียดาย (ผมมีเหตุผลที่ต้องกินนี่หว่า) ผมไม่ต่างอะไรกับพวกที่เลือกกินหอยสองฝา ถูกมะ!
จะว่าไป ความอิหลักอิเหลื่อทางศีลธรรมที่เป็นสากลที่สุดเรื่องหนึ่ง เห็นจะเป็นเรื่องการฆ่าสัตว์เพื่อการบริโภคนี่แหละ การที่คน ๆ หนึ่งจะกินหรือไม่กินเนื้อสัตว์ เขาต้องหาเหตุมาอธิบายตัวเองให้ได้
แน่นอนว่าไม่มีใครที่คิดว่าตัวเองเป็นคนไร้ศีลธรรม ดังนั้นคำถามทางศีลธรรมจึงต้องมองย้อนกลับไปยังคุณค่าตั้งต้นที่สังคมและปัจเจกยึดถือ
ทุกสังคม ทุกวัฒนธรรมเห็นตรงกันว่าการฆ่าเป็นสิ่งผิดศีลธรรมโดยตัวมันเอง เป็นกฎที่จะต้องไม่ฆ่า
แต่ก็ยังมีการฆ่าเกิดขึ้นในสังคมอุดมศีลธรรม นั้นเพราะมันมีเหตุผลในการฆ่า สำหรับสัตว์ เหตุผลง่ายมาก เพราะต้องกิน!
"เพราะต้องกิน" คือปัญหาใหญ่ของคนที่ไม่อยากกินเนื้อสัตว์ เพราะพวกเขาต้องพยายามอย่างมากในการหาเหตุผลมาหักล้างการกินแบบเดิม ๆ ของตัวเอง คือต้องมีสิ่งมาสะดุดใจก่อน ส่วนใหญ่ก็เหตุผลเรื่องสงสารบ้าง สัตว์ต้องทรมานบ้าง ผลกระทบจากอุตสาหกรรมสัตว์บ้าง บลา ๆ ๆ ซึ่งเหตุผลที่ดีจะทำให้เราคล้อยตาม
แต่ "เพราะต้องกิน" ก็เป็นเหตุผลที่ดีเหมือนกัน และนั้นแหละปัญหา!สำหรับคนส่วนใหญ่ โอ๊ยยยยย สงสารพวกมันโว้ยยยย
ก่อนอื่น... พวกเขาสร้างหลักจริยธรรมเชิงเหตุผลขึ้นมาชุดหนึ่ง นั้นคือ สัตว์มีความเจ็บปวด ทุกทรมาน และมีชีวิตจิตใจ เราต้องปฎิบัติกับพวกมันเยี่ยงสิ่งมีชีวิตที่มีความรู้สึก
แต่พวกเขาก็เบื่อมากกับการกินแต่ผัก ผัก ผัก พวกเขาศึกษาหอยสองฝาแล้วพบว่าพวกมันไม่มีระบบประสาทส่วนกลางและสมอง นั้นหมายความว่าเป็นไปไม่ได้เลยที่หอยพวกนี้จะมีความรู้สึก พวกเขาจึงกินหอยที่น่าสงสารเหล่านั้นอย่างสบายใจ...
ใจเย็น ๆ ผมไม่ได้ต่อต้านพวกมังสวิรัติหรอกนะ ชอบพวกเขาด้วยซ้ำ ผมเองก็เป็นคนหนึ่งที่อยากจะเป็นมังสวิรัติกับเขาบ้างเหมือนกัน เพราะหลังจากดูสารคดี Dominion จบ ภาพที่ผมได้เห็นไม่สามารถทำให้ผมกลับไปกินเนื้อสัตว์ด้วยความรู้สึกเดิมได้อีกต่อไป นับแต่นั้นมาผมก็ไม่ได้กินกะเพราหมูกรอบร้านโปรดอีกเลย (เกินครึ่งปีได้) ผมได้สร้างกฎชุดหนึ่งขึ้นมาเพื่อที่ผมจะไม่กินมัน ถ้าเลือกได้ผมจะไม่ซื้อหมูหรือวัวหรือสัตว์ใหญ่อื่นมากิน ผมร้องไห้จริง ๆ นะตอนเห็นหมูถูกฆ่า แต่ยังไงก็ตามผมก็ไม่ได้เลิกกินเนื้อสัตว์เสียทีเดียว ผมยังกินเนื้อไก่อยู่ ยังกินปลาและอาหารทะเลอื่น ๆ ผมยังกินโจ๊กหมูที่คนอื่นเอามาฝากอยู่ ยังกินต้มแซ่บกระดูกอ่อนที่เพื่อนร่วมงานชวนไปกินตอนเย็น...
ก็ผมไม่ได้เลือกเองนิ ผมไม่ได้เลือกเมนูที่มีหมูหรือเนื้อเลย ก็แค่กินเพราะเสียดาย (ผมมีเหตุผลที่ต้องกินนี่หว่า) ผมไม่ต่างอะไรกับพวกที่เลือกกินหอยสองฝา ถูกมะ!
จะว่าไป ความอิหลักอิเหลื่อทางศีลธรรมที่เป็นสากลที่สุดเรื่องหนึ่ง เห็นจะเป็นเรื่องการฆ่าสัตว์เพื่อการบริโภคนี่แหละ การที่คน ๆ หนึ่งจะกินหรือไม่กินเนื้อสัตว์ เขาต้องหาเหตุมาอธิบายตัวเองให้ได้
แน่นอนว่าไม่มีใครที่คิดว่าตัวเองเป็นคนไร้ศีลธรรม ดังนั้นคำถามทางศีลธรรมจึงต้องมองย้อนกลับไปยังคุณค่าตั้งต้นที่สังคมและปัจเจกยึดถือ
ทุกสังคม ทุกวัฒนธรรมเห็นตรงกันว่าการฆ่าเป็นสิ่งผิดศีลธรรมโดยตัวมันเอง เป็นกฎที่จะต้องไม่ฆ่า
แต่ก็ยังมีการฆ่าเกิดขึ้นในสังคมอุดมศีลธรรม นั้นเพราะมันมีเหตุผลในการฆ่า สำหรับสัตว์ เหตุผลง่ายมาก เพราะต้องกิน!
"เพราะต้องกิน" คือปัญหาใหญ่ของคนที่ไม่อยากกินเนื้อสัตว์ เพราะพวกเขาต้องพยายามอย่างมากในการหาเหตุผลมาหักล้างการกินแบบเดิม ๆ ของตัวเอง คือต้องมีสิ่งมาสะดุดใจก่อน ส่วนใหญ่ก็เหตุผลเรื่องสงสารบ้าง สัตว์ต้องทรมานบ้าง ผลกระทบจากอุตสาหกรรมสัตว์บ้าง บลา ๆ ๆ ซึ่งเหตุผลที่ดีจะทำให้เราคล้อยตาม
แต่ "เพราะต้องกิน" ก็เป็นเหตุผลที่ดีเหมือนกัน และนั้นแหละปัญหา!สำหรับคนส่วนใหญ่ โอ๊ยยยยย สงสารพวกมันโว้ยยยย
February 20, 2021
Singer argues that producing meat, fish, dairy and eggs is cruel and that hence we should go vegan.
October 22, 2020
His ANIMAL LIBERATION (and my boyfriend at the time) got me started as a vegetarian almost 42 years ago and his other writings are also of great interest. This small collection of essays,all of them previously published elsewhere, are of similar interest though I was unable to read the parts about the suffering of animals. It’s wonderful to read a philosopher’s thoughts, especially one who has ethics at its heart and this little book is no exception. A great gift for a vegan or for someone starting vegetarianism.
March 25, 2021
If you are already familiar with the ethical arguments in favor of veganism then you are not likely to learn anything new from this book. While I think overall the arguments were good, I am always annoyed when vegans try to compare racism with animal agriculture. Peter Singer brought that comparison up several times throughout the book and while I understood what he was trying to say I think many people would have been immediately turned off by that comparison. There are many good reasons to not eat meat. I think that bringing up racism/speciesism argument is unnecessary and counter productive.
November 26, 2022
It's an interesting read, although for such a short book, to hear the same example three (3) times is a little excessive.
Although the movement on veganism here is a bit fallacious as there seems to be an establishment of humans being a dominant species upon, say, the food market, however, the existence of products such as snail bait, bug spray and other chemicals designed to kill insects or rat traps are designed to kill animals for a sake of convenience and not even beneficial for food or clothes. I feel like the movement is too broad on the cute animals that we can posit ourselves onto rather than ALL species.
But yeah not bad
Although the movement on veganism here is a bit fallacious as there seems to be an establishment of humans being a dominant species upon, say, the food market, however, the existence of products such as snail bait, bug spray and other chemicals designed to kill insects or rat traps are designed to kill animals for a sake of convenience and not even beneficial for food or clothes. I feel like the movement is too broad on the cute animals that we can posit ourselves onto rather than ALL species.
But yeah not bad
February 9, 2022
Eigenlijk zou iedereen dit eens moeten lezen. Het geeft zoveel inzicht in de manier hoe men met andere dieren omgaat zonder sentimenteel gedoe.
Dus als je meer wilt weten over bijvoorbeeld de zuivelindustrie, of als je vaak dierlijke producten eet, is dit een echte must read!
Dus als je meer wilt weten over bijvoorbeeld de zuivelindustrie, of als je vaak dierlijke producten eet, is dit een echte must read!
Read
December 31, 2022vegan 2023 yaas
Read
July 23, 2025skuffet over det ikke var en sammenhængende tekst og de ret gennemgående gentagleser - særligt i så kort en bog. Gode pointer, som altid
August 2, 2024
Zelden zo weinig pagina’s gelezen die zoveel effect hebben. Je leest het op 2u, doen.
March 24, 2022
good recommendation sebby thanks for the plane read. Really am going to become vegetarian and not drink milk. Eggs and cheese present an issue that I just can’t circumnavigate at this present juncture. I don’t like his equivalency of racism and speciesism but I can’t seem to argue with his logic so… feel super bad about what animals go through and it made me feel quite riled up. Just had a fight with ellie about veganism and the future of our planet… the crusade continues but my blade falls upon uncaring carnivores.
November 24, 2024
My dislike for Singer’s tenuousness and moralism trumps my liking for antispeciesism and veganism.
March 1, 2024
The most influential moral philosopher since John Rawls. A small 80 page book, a collection of essays written over the past few decades beginning with Animal Liberation.
Aside from the stomach churning cruelty of industrial farming (Americans alone breed 10 BILLION farm animals for consumption a year) and the nightmare descriptions of animal testing, cattle contribute as much methane to the environment as fossil fuel automobiles! There is a very good discussion of lab grown meat, which is readily available in supermarkets and on more and more restaurant menus.
Regardless of your diet, this is a must read. If your sole contribution to climate change is bringing your own reusable bag to the supermaket, you are cooking your children.
P.S. Singer also originated the effective altruism movement. I would like to see him get the Nobel Peace Prize.
Aside from the stomach churning cruelty of industrial farming (Americans alone breed 10 BILLION farm animals for consumption a year) and the nightmare descriptions of animal testing, cattle contribute as much methane to the environment as fossil fuel automobiles! There is a very good discussion of lab grown meat, which is readily available in supermarkets and on more and more restaurant menus.
Regardless of your diet, this is a must read. If your sole contribution to climate change is bringing your own reusable bag to the supermaket, you are cooking your children.
P.S. Singer also originated the effective altruism movement. I would like to see him get the Nobel Peace Prize.
November 1, 2022
Libretto veloce e scorrevole sull'antispecismo, composto principlamente da diversi aritcoli scritti da Singer nel corso di 40 anni di carriera. Lacunoso teoricamente sotto alcuni aspetti, il libro assomiglia più a un manifesto politico vegano che a un proprio testo di filosofia; queste mancanze però sono scusate dalla natura del volumetto: per trattazioni più approfondite infatti l'autore rimanda più volte al suo "Animal Liberation". Se vi interessa una velocissima introduzione all'antispecismo e alcuni fatti sulle disastrose e misere condizioni dell'allevamento animale (Nota Bene: Singer non si astiene dall'uso di una forte narrazione shock value), questo breve testo fa al caso vostro.
August 7, 2022
“…we require now to extend the great principles of liberty, equality and fraternity over the lives of animals. Let animal slavery join human slavery in the graveyard of the past.”
- Patrick Corbett
Why Vegan? caught my curiosity because veganism was a subject which I hadn’t readily opened myself to before and, as a slender book of no more than 90 pages, I saw it as a great opportunity for a crash course.
Let me start by addressing how naïve I’ve been to the abnormality of certain practices we have come to accept in the farm industry. Practices which, to me, seem so unnatural that I now question why society continues to accept them.
Take for instance, the dairy sector. How I did not know this is beyond me, but:
“Like human females, [cows] do not give milk unless they have recently had a baby, and so dairy cows are made pregnant every year. The calf is [then] taken away from its mother just hours after birth [never to be returned], so that it will not drink the milk intended for humans.”
Our forced intrusion into this biological cycle for our own self-interest is rather gross. To repeatedly impregnate these animals. To so cruelly strip the mothers of their offspring. To then say that the milk is “intended for humans” doesn’t even begin to make sense - it was never our milk. It’s tyrannical self-entitlement.
When there are so many milk alternatives, you can’t help but think that all this could be easily avoided.
These four quotes I also came to appreciate:
“We have to speak up on behalf of those who cannot speak for themselves.”
“Habit. That is the final barrier that the Animal Liberation movement faces. Habits not only of diet but also of thought and language must be challenged and altered.”
“We commonly use the word 'animal' to mean animals other than human beings: This usage sets humans apart from other animals, implying that we are not ourselves animals - an implication that everyone who has had elementary lessons in biology knows to be false.
In the popular mind the term 'animal' lumps together beings as different as oysters and chimpanzees, while placing a gulf between chimpanzees and humans, although our relationship to those apes is much closer than the oyster's. Since there exists no other short term for the nonhuman animals, I have, in the title of this book and elsewhere in these pages, had to use 'animal' as if it did not include the human animal. This is a regrettable lapse from the standards of revolutionary purity but it seems necessary for effective communication.”
“Animal Liberation will require greater altruism on the part of mankind than any other liberation movement since animals are incapable of demanding it for themselves[.] Is man capable of such genuine altruism? Who knows? If this book does have a significant effect, however, it will be a vindication of all those who have believed that man has within himself the potential for more than cruelty and selfishness.”
However, some of the concepts Singer preaches are totally absurd, delusional, and irrational:
“What are we to do about genuine conflicts of interest like rats biting slum children? I am not sure of the answer, but the essential point is just that we do see this as a conflict of interests, that we recognise that rats have interests too.”
For all the valid points that he makes, to then produce such nonsense as this jeopardises the seriousness of his whole argument. Singer goes down massively in my estimations for genuinely considering this a legitimate moral problem???
Remember that Singer is keen to enforce the idea that we, as humans, are animals too. And at no point does he take issue with the natural laws of the animals kingdom e.g. survival of the fittest and the necessity of winners and losers. Of course, in the animal kingdom, a cat would overpower a rat. By the same token, a human would overpower a rat. Surely then, this “genuine” conflict of his is neatly settled by the above - if we, as the fitter and stronger animal, are antagonised and attacked by the rat, then we can be expected to defend ourselves in accordance with those natural laws: humans > rats.
This conclusion avoids all the biases of speciesism but still results in a settlement of the conflict.
And
“[Here are] a selection of experiments taken from recent scientific journals. I will quote two, not for the sake of indulging in gory details, but in order to give an idea of what normal researchers think they may legitimately do to other species. The point is not that the individual researchers are cruel men, but that they are behaving in a way that is allowed by our speciesist attitudes.”
For someone who is so quick to draw the comparison between slave owners and meat eaters, Singer's decision to acquit the scientists whom conduct experiments on live animals of any moral wrongdoing or 'cruelty’ is skewed and questionable. Were slave owners thus not cruel men, merely individuals behaving in a way that was allowed by society’s racist attitudes?
Extra food for thought:
“Vitamin B12 is the only essential nutrient not available from plant foods, and it is easy to take a supplement obtained from vegan sources.”
“There is no characteristic that human infants possess that adult mammals do not have to the same or a higher degree.”
The British government refused to implement the following proposal into the laws of animal welfare in factory farms on the grounds that it was too idealistic:
“Any animal should at least have room to turn around freely.”
“The heavy emphasis in affluent nations on
rearing animals for food wastes several times as much food as it produces. By ceasing to rear and kill animals for food, we can make so much extra food available for humans that, properly distributed, it would eliminate starvation and malnutrition from this planet. Animal Liberation is Human Liberation too.”
“[In 2018] the livestock industry [accounted] for about 15% of global greenhouse gas emissions, roughly the same as the emissions from the tailpipes of all the world's vehicles. But whereas vehicle emissions can be expected to decline as hybrids and electric vehicles proliferate, global meat consumption is forecast to be 76% greater in 2050.”
- Patrick Corbett
Why Vegan? caught my curiosity because veganism was a subject which I hadn’t readily opened myself to before and, as a slender book of no more than 90 pages, I saw it as a great opportunity for a crash course.
Let me start by addressing how naïve I’ve been to the abnormality of certain practices we have come to accept in the farm industry. Practices which, to me, seem so unnatural that I now question why society continues to accept them.
Take for instance, the dairy sector. How I did not know this is beyond me, but:
“Like human females, [cows] do not give milk unless they have recently had a baby, and so dairy cows are made pregnant every year. The calf is [then] taken away from its mother just hours after birth [never to be returned], so that it will not drink the milk intended for humans.”
Our forced intrusion into this biological cycle for our own self-interest is rather gross. To repeatedly impregnate these animals. To so cruelly strip the mothers of their offspring. To then say that the milk is “intended for humans” doesn’t even begin to make sense - it was never our milk. It’s tyrannical self-entitlement.
When there are so many milk alternatives, you can’t help but think that all this could be easily avoided.
These four quotes I also came to appreciate:
“We have to speak up on behalf of those who cannot speak for themselves.”
“Habit. That is the final barrier that the Animal Liberation movement faces. Habits not only of diet but also of thought and language must be challenged and altered.”
“We commonly use the word 'animal' to mean animals other than human beings: This usage sets humans apart from other animals, implying that we are not ourselves animals - an implication that everyone who has had elementary lessons in biology knows to be false.
In the popular mind the term 'animal' lumps together beings as different as oysters and chimpanzees, while placing a gulf between chimpanzees and humans, although our relationship to those apes is much closer than the oyster's. Since there exists no other short term for the nonhuman animals, I have, in the title of this book and elsewhere in these pages, had to use 'animal' as if it did not include the human animal. This is a regrettable lapse from the standards of revolutionary purity but it seems necessary for effective communication.”
“Animal Liberation will require greater altruism on the part of mankind than any other liberation movement since animals are incapable of demanding it for themselves[.] Is man capable of such genuine altruism? Who knows? If this book does have a significant effect, however, it will be a vindication of all those who have believed that man has within himself the potential for more than cruelty and selfishness.”
However, some of the concepts Singer preaches are totally absurd, delusional, and irrational:
“What are we to do about genuine conflicts of interest like rats biting slum children? I am not sure of the answer, but the essential point is just that we do see this as a conflict of interests, that we recognise that rats have interests too.”
For all the valid points that he makes, to then produce such nonsense as this jeopardises the seriousness of his whole argument. Singer goes down massively in my estimations for genuinely considering this a legitimate moral problem???
Remember that Singer is keen to enforce the idea that we, as humans, are animals too. And at no point does he take issue with the natural laws of the animals kingdom e.g. survival of the fittest and the necessity of winners and losers. Of course, in the animal kingdom, a cat would overpower a rat. By the same token, a human would overpower a rat. Surely then, this “genuine” conflict of his is neatly settled by the above - if we, as the fitter and stronger animal, are antagonised and attacked by the rat, then we can be expected to defend ourselves in accordance with those natural laws: humans > rats.
This conclusion avoids all the biases of speciesism but still results in a settlement of the conflict.
And
“[Here are] a selection of experiments taken from recent scientific journals. I will quote two, not for the sake of indulging in gory details, but in order to give an idea of what normal researchers think they may legitimately do to other species. The point is not that the individual researchers are cruel men, but that they are behaving in a way that is allowed by our speciesist attitudes.”
For someone who is so quick to draw the comparison between slave owners and meat eaters, Singer's decision to acquit the scientists whom conduct experiments on live animals of any moral wrongdoing or 'cruelty’ is skewed and questionable. Were slave owners thus not cruel men, merely individuals behaving in a way that was allowed by society’s racist attitudes?
Extra food for thought:
“Vitamin B12 is the only essential nutrient not available from plant foods, and it is easy to take a supplement obtained from vegan sources.”
“There is no characteristic that human infants possess that adult mammals do not have to the same or a higher degree.”
The British government refused to implement the following proposal into the laws of animal welfare in factory farms on the grounds that it was too idealistic:
“Any animal should at least have room to turn around freely.”
“The heavy emphasis in affluent nations on
rearing animals for food wastes several times as much food as it produces. By ceasing to rear and kill animals for food, we can make so much extra food available for humans that, properly distributed, it would eliminate starvation and malnutrition from this planet. Animal Liberation is Human Liberation too.”
“[In 2018] the livestock industry [accounted] for about 15% of global greenhouse gas emissions, roughly the same as the emissions from the tailpipes of all the world's vehicles. But whereas vehicle emissions can be expected to decline as hybrids and electric vehicles proliferate, global meat consumption is forecast to be 76% greater in 2050.”
November 9, 2020
If You’ve Already Read Animal Liberation...
I would say, don’t bother, if you’ve already read Animal Liberation by the same author, especially an updated copy. There isn’t much new in this extremely short book. To be honest, I kind of feel cheated.
I would say, don’t bother, if you’ve already read Animal Liberation by the same author, especially an updated copy. There isn’t much new in this extremely short book. To be honest, I kind of feel cheated.
January 11, 2021
I liked it but I’m already vegan so didn’t tell me much I didn’t know. The essay on the treatment of chickens made me cry a lot. If you eat animals please please read it.
August 23, 2023
"This book is about the tyranny of human over non-human animals. This tyranny has caused and today is still causing an amount of pain and suffering that can only be compared with that which resulted from the centuries of tyranny by white humans over black humans."
Sådan indleder den utilitaristiske australske moralfilosof Peter Singer forordet til sit 1975-værk Animal Liberation. Efter forordet må man antage, at der i originalværket følger en grundig moral-filosofisk analyse, der kan bakke det bombastiske udsagn op.
Det gør der ikke i Penguin-Pamfletten "Why Vegan?", hvor forordet gengives uden efterfølgende at blive bakket op af nogle substantiel bevisførelse. Bogen er en lille samling af adspredte og usammenhængende Peter Singer-tekster forfattet over de seneste 50 år. Teksterne introduceres ikke af noget samlende forord eller efterord, og endnu mere irritererende fremgår det ikke klart, hvor eller endnu mere vigtigt hvornår de enkelte tekster er publiceret. Hvilket igen betyder, at det er svært at regne ud, om fx de fakta, der præsenteres om slagtning af fjerkræ i USA, er aktuelle eller baseret på tal fra 1960'erne.
Jeg køber sådan set bogens grundpræmis: Den måde mennesker behandler dyr på i det industrielle landbrug er både fucked up og afstumpet - og ud fra mere eller mindre en hvilken som helst etisk tilgang til livet uforsvarlig.
Når Peter Singer skal levere den pointe er hans tilgang desværre ofte meget sort-hvid og savner (i hvert fald i den her tekstsamling) gode opbyggelige argumenter. Fra min stol er hans mange sammenligninger mellem slaveriet i Amerika og /eller holocaust og industrielt dyrehold i bedste fald strategisk fejltagelser, der vil få mange potentielle vegetarer til at smække bogen i, og i værste fald decideret usmagelige.
Og så er det bare en dårligt sammensat bog! Titlen Why Vegan synes at love et kohærent og kortfattet argument for veganisme. Det findes ikke her. I stedet virker teksterne vilkårligt udvalgte, og de sidste to tekster om smerte blandt fisk og COVID-19 pandemien virker som om, de er landet helt tilfældigt i bogen.
Måske ville bogen mere have virket som en sammenhængende tekstsamling, hvis tekststykket midt i bogen, om vegetarbevægelsen i slutredsernes Oxford havde været skrevet om til en indledning, hvor kredsen omkring Singer og dennes forhold til veganisme var blevet ordentligt introduceret som en historisk rammefortælling omkring bogens øvrige tekster. Hvem ved.
Synd at Penguin lægger navn til en så dårligt redigeret/kurateret udgivelse.
Sådan indleder den utilitaristiske australske moralfilosof Peter Singer forordet til sit 1975-værk Animal Liberation. Efter forordet må man antage, at der i originalværket følger en grundig moral-filosofisk analyse, der kan bakke det bombastiske udsagn op.
Det gør der ikke i Penguin-Pamfletten "Why Vegan?", hvor forordet gengives uden efterfølgende at blive bakket op af nogle substantiel bevisførelse. Bogen er en lille samling af adspredte og usammenhængende Peter Singer-tekster forfattet over de seneste 50 år. Teksterne introduceres ikke af noget samlende forord eller efterord, og endnu mere irritererende fremgår det ikke klart, hvor eller endnu mere vigtigt hvornår de enkelte tekster er publiceret. Hvilket igen betyder, at det er svært at regne ud, om fx de fakta, der præsenteres om slagtning af fjerkræ i USA, er aktuelle eller baseret på tal fra 1960'erne.
Jeg køber sådan set bogens grundpræmis: Den måde mennesker behandler dyr på i det industrielle landbrug er både fucked up og afstumpet - og ud fra mere eller mindre en hvilken som helst etisk tilgang til livet uforsvarlig.
Når Peter Singer skal levere den pointe er hans tilgang desværre ofte meget sort-hvid og savner (i hvert fald i den her tekstsamling) gode opbyggelige argumenter. Fra min stol er hans mange sammenligninger mellem slaveriet i Amerika og /eller holocaust og industrielt dyrehold i bedste fald strategisk fejltagelser, der vil få mange potentielle vegetarer til at smække bogen i, og i værste fald decideret usmagelige.
Og så er det bare en dårligt sammensat bog! Titlen Why Vegan synes at love et kohærent og kortfattet argument for veganisme. Det findes ikke her. I stedet virker teksterne vilkårligt udvalgte, og de sidste to tekster om smerte blandt fisk og COVID-19 pandemien virker som om, de er landet helt tilfældigt i bogen.
Måske ville bogen mere have virket som en sammenhængende tekstsamling, hvis tekststykket midt i bogen, om vegetarbevægelsen i slutredsernes Oxford havde været skrevet om til en indledning, hvor kredsen omkring Singer og dennes forhold til veganisme var blevet ordentligt introduceret som en historisk rammefortælling omkring bogens øvrige tekster. Hvem ved.
Synd at Penguin lægger navn til en så dårligt redigeret/kurateret udgivelse.
Read
May 28, 2022The literary equivalent of a video of cows being slaughtered. The amount of moral indignation Singer exudes (often comparing meat eating to racism and slavery) is so off-putting that I, a vegetarian, am now less inclined to become vegan. He provides widely accepted arguments for becoming vegan (factory farming is bad, global warming is also bad) while responding to only the weakest arguments given by meat eaters (animals aren't humans so it doesn't matter, the animal is already dead by the time I buy it). There is so much more depth to this conversation. I assume the arguments he gives in "Animal Liberation" are more nuanced than what can be fit in this < 100-page selection of essays, but why are THESE the arguments you chose for an intro to the subject?
I think almost all meat-eaters will be turned off by this book. Singer (implicitly) argues for a vegan binary (you are either vegan or you enjoy murdering animals), failing to acknowledge that there is a spectrum whereby meat-eaters can make very small changes to their diet rather than radically overhaul everything they know about food. In the book he includes a simple recipe for dal (onions, tomatoes, lentils, coconut milk and some spices). This is so insulting to anyone who enjoys food. Using this to sway meat-eaters is no better than online vegans claiming that it's SO EASY and CHEAP and ACTUALLY WAY MORE HEALTHY to be vegan! Just eat rice, beans, and salad for every meal!!!1!!
I think I became much less charitable after he claims testing medical products on animals produces results that are "frequently trivial and obvious" and then goes on to say:
"What, for instance, are we to do about genuine conflicts of interest like rats biting slum children? ... the essential point is just that we do see this as a conflict of interests, that we recognize that rats have interests too. Then we may begin to think about other ways of resolving the conflict - perhaps by leaving out rat baits that sterilize the rats instead of killing them."
This anti-science, anti-human rhetoric is so toxic to the discourse surrounding this important topic.
Eat chicken instead of beef for dinner tonight. Give alternatives a try (almond milk, dairy free ice cream, and imitation meats have gotten much tastier and cheaper over the years). But don't read this book.
I think almost all meat-eaters will be turned off by this book. Singer (implicitly) argues for a vegan binary (you are either vegan or you enjoy murdering animals), failing to acknowledge that there is a spectrum whereby meat-eaters can make very small changes to their diet rather than radically overhaul everything they know about food. In the book he includes a simple recipe for dal (onions, tomatoes, lentils, coconut milk and some spices). This is so insulting to anyone who enjoys food. Using this to sway meat-eaters is no better than online vegans claiming that it's SO EASY and CHEAP and ACTUALLY WAY MORE HEALTHY to be vegan! Just eat rice, beans, and salad for every meal!!!1!!
I think I became much less charitable after he claims testing medical products on animals produces results that are "frequently trivial and obvious" and then goes on to say:
"What, for instance, are we to do about genuine conflicts of interest like rats biting slum children? ... the essential point is just that we do see this as a conflict of interests, that we recognize that rats have interests too. Then we may begin to think about other ways of resolving the conflict - perhaps by leaving out rat baits that sterilize the rats instead of killing them."
This anti-science, anti-human rhetoric is so toxic to the discourse surrounding this important topic.
Eat chicken instead of beef for dinner tonight. Give alternatives a try (almond milk, dairy free ice cream, and imitation meats have gotten much tastier and cheaper over the years). But don't read this book.
April 14, 2023
Peter Singer and his collection of writings in this book make the discourse on animal rights and ethics more accessible than ever, all done in an hour's read.
They provide me with tremendous motivation to research and question my moral and ethical foundations. Most importantly to understand that it is vital to consider what I eat, how it originates and the direct and indirect consequences my choices have.
Singer's arguments are impeccably reasoned and based on dispassionate logic, so as to prove that questioning our exploitation of animals is inextricably related to the aspirational moral fabric of society and is not a silly appeal from hyperbolic animal lovers (as it is oft fashioned and dismissed as).
Humanity for the better part has always progressed when it has expanded the scope of moral consideration and kindness. We have fared much better and have been kinder when we decided that we must treat each other, and other beings equally not because of logical implications and physical facts of equality, but that of equal consideration purely because of our collective ability to feel and suffer.
This started from the equality of races and sexes and is now at the precipice of expanding beyond the scope of our human species.
What is most ironic is that even though Singer fashions himself and his arguments to be made purely out of cold reason and logic, I have found the greatest kindness, empathy and emotion in them.
The book provides a great introduction and cushion to approach Singer's most famous and seminal work 'Animal Liberation', a book that I definitely plan on reading in the future.
They provide me with tremendous motivation to research and question my moral and ethical foundations. Most importantly to understand that it is vital to consider what I eat, how it originates and the direct and indirect consequences my choices have.
Singer's arguments are impeccably reasoned and based on dispassionate logic, so as to prove that questioning our exploitation of animals is inextricably related to the aspirational moral fabric of society and is not a silly appeal from hyperbolic animal lovers (as it is oft fashioned and dismissed as).
Humanity for the better part has always progressed when it has expanded the scope of moral consideration and kindness. We have fared much better and have been kinder when we decided that we must treat each other, and other beings equally not because of logical implications and physical facts of equality, but that of equal consideration purely because of our collective ability to feel and suffer.
This started from the equality of races and sexes and is now at the precipice of expanding beyond the scope of our human species.
What is most ironic is that even though Singer fashions himself and his arguments to be made purely out of cold reason and logic, I have found the greatest kindness, empathy and emotion in them.
The book provides a great introduction and cushion to approach Singer's most famous and seminal work 'Animal Liberation', a book that I definitely plan on reading in the future.
June 1, 2021
I quick first, easy-to-comprehend insight into Singer's philosophy concerning animal welfare. It deals both with non-human animals being eaten and non-human animals being experimented on. On the one hand, I liked that it covers essays from different decades, dating back into the 1970s; on the other hand, that rendered a lot of the facts and data obsolete. My favorite parts include his discussion on animals and language: the way we talk about animals but also that animals can't use our language to communicate (their pain to us).
I'd like to point out that while I agree with a lot of what Singer writes in this book about the way we treat animals, he has highly ableist views about people with disabilities. They are not addressed in this book but it's something you might want to look into before you support him with your money. There's an excellent article on the NY Times by Harriet McBryde Johnson about her experience with him, you can read it here.
I'd like to point out that while I agree with a lot of what Singer writes in this book about the way we treat animals, he has highly ableist views about people with disabilities. They are not addressed in this book but it's something you might want to look into before you support him with your money. There's an excellent article on the NY Times by Harriet McBryde Johnson about her experience with him, you can read it here.
March 30, 2023
If we measure a book's impactfulness by how much it changes how we live our lives, then I suppose no book has impacted me more than Peter Singer's Animal Liberation. It has changed my cooking far more than any cookbook has. In this book, Singer continues to riff on the same themes, and it is largely thoughtful, clear and worthwhile. I am very much unsure of how much I buy into Singer's underlying utilitarian framework (which has led him to radical conclusions in other domains as well). Regardless of moral framework, it is hard to disagree with the basic premise that non-human animals do have genuine moral interests which we as a society are doing a very poor job of honoring as of now.
July 31, 2021
I really liked this short selection of P. Singer's works and feel like it would be great to use for students all over the World. You will find here inspiring fragments of "Animal Liberation". Along with a very interesting story of how Singer even started to think about our obligations towards animals. Ending with environmental arguments for veganism, and pandemic arguments for ending animal suffering. I feel like it's a simply written summary of key concepts that could start much need, and still too rare discussions about animals.
August 30, 2022
I think this book needs an edit as some of the passing phrases relating to ‘blacks’ and the references to ‘him’ or ‘he’ at all times, never ‘she’ or ‘them’ is a little bit old hat given how progressive some of the arguments outlined in this book are supposed to be.
Generally, I agree with the sentiments and think the book is laid out in a simple manner with facts substantiated with lots of good sources. I would challenge anyone to pick up this book and not make at least some changes to their consumption of animals.
Generally, I agree with the sentiments and think the book is laid out in a simple manner with facts substantiated with lots of good sources. I would challenge anyone to pick up this book and not make at least some changes to their consumption of animals.
March 19, 2025
I started it like he’s being a bit dramatic but by the end I was like honestly it’s so valid. Dissociation between animal lives and meat we eat is literally crazy. Probably won’t be vegan but going to commit a lot harder to being vegetarian. And I will have my almond milk. And will have vege meat at the BBQ on Friday (20°c let’s gooooo)
December 8, 2025
I have to be a vegan now
December 16, 2025
“A diet heavy in animal products, catered to by intensive animal production, is a disaster for animals, the environment, and the health of those who eat it.”
Read
January 24, 2025To echo others I think the comparison of speciesism to racism undermines the argument to go vegan and should have been retired, and unfortunately Singer doubles down on it. But aside from that the book has some good arguments and gives the reader things to consider on how to do less harm to animals and the planet.
December 13, 2024
I read this book a couple of months ago and I remember I was not impressed by it, and my goal was to achieve a better knowledge on being or becoming vegan, as Singer did. In the end, I have a feeling that becoming a vegan is much more like a personal choice, regardless of what brought you to it.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 127 reviews