Animal Liberation (book)

Last updated

Animal Liberation
Animal Liberation, 1975 edition.jpg
Cover of the first edition
Author Peter Singer
CountryUnited States
LanguageEnglish
Subject Animal rights
Publisher HarperCollins
Publication date
  • 1975 (first edition)
  • 1990 (second edition)
  • 2002 (third edition)
  • 2009 (fourth edition)
  • 2015 (40th anniversary edition)
  • 2023 (revised edition)
Media typePrint (Hardcover and Paperback) and eBook
Pages311 (2009 edition)
ISBN 978-0-06-171130-5 (2009 edition)

Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals is a 1975 book by Australian philosopher Peter Singer. It is widely considered within the animal liberation movement to be the founding philosophical statement of its ideas. Singer himself rejected the use of the theoretical framework of rights when it comes to human and nonhuman animals. Following Jeremy Bentham, Singer argued that the interests of animals should be considered because of their ability to experience suffering and that the idea of rights was not necessary in order to consider them. He popularized the term "speciesism" in the book, which had been coined by Richard D. Ryder to describe the exploitative treatment of animals. [1]

Contents

A revised edition titled Animal Liberation Now was released on 23 May 2023. [2]

Summary

Singer allows that animal rights are not the same as human rights, writing in Animal Liberation that "there are obviously important differences between humans and other animals, and these differences must give rise to some differences in the rights that each have." [3]

In Animal Liberation, Singer argues against what he calls speciesism: discrimination on the grounds that a being belongs to a certain species. He holds the interests of all beings capable of suffering to be worthy of equal consideration and that giving lesser consideration to beings based on their species is no more justified than discrimination based on skin color. He argues that animals' rights should be based on their capacity to feel pain more than on their intelligence. In particular, he argues that while animals show lower intelligence than the average human, many severely intellectually challenged humans show equally diminished, if not lower, mental capacity and that some animals have displayed signs of intelligence (for example, primates learning elements of American sign language and other symbolic languages) sometimes on a par with that of human children. Therefore, intelligence does not provide a basis for giving nonhuman animals any less consideration than such intellectually challenged humans. [4] Singer concludes that the most practical solution is to adopt a vegetarian or vegan diet. He also condemns vivisection except where the benefit (in terms of improved medical treatment, etc.) outweighs the harm done to the animals used. [5]

Reception

Activist Ingrid Newkirk wrote of Animal Liberation, "It forever changed the conversation about our treatment of animals. It made people—myself included—change what we ate, what we wore, and how we perceived animals." [6] Other activists who claim that their attitudes to animals changed after reading the book include Peter Tatchell [7] and Matt Ball. [8]

Singer has expressed regret that the book did not have more impact. In September 1999, he was quoted by Michael Specter in The New Yorker on the book's impact:

It's had effects around the margins, of course, but they have mostly been minor. When I wrote it, I really thought the book would change the world. I know it sounds a little grand now, but at the time the sixties still existed for us. It looked as if real changes were possible, and I let myself believe that this would be one of them. All you have to do is walk around the corner to McDonald's to see how successful I have been. [9]

The book has also received a wide range of philosophical challenges to his formulation of animal rights. In a lengthy debate in Slate , published in 2001, Richard Posner wrote, among other things, that Singer failed to see the "radicalism of the ethical vision that powers [his] view on animals, an ethical vision that finds greater value in a healthy pig than in a profoundly intellectually challenged child, that commands inflicting a lesser pain on a human being to avert a greater pain to a dog, and that, provided only that a chimpanzee has 1 percent of the mental ability of a normal human being, would require the sacrifice of the human being to save 101 chimpanzees." Singer replied to and rejected this claim, engaging in a lengthy debate with Posner. [10]

In addition, Martha Nussbaum has argued that the capability approach provides a more adequate foundation of justice than Utilitarianism can supply. Utilitarianism, Nussbaum argues, ignores adaptive preferences, elides the separateness of distinct persons, misidentifies valuable human/non-human emotions such as grief, and calculates according to "sum-rankings" rather than inviolable protection of intrinsic entitlements. [11]

The moral philosopher Roger Scruton criticised Singer's works, including Animal Liberation, saying that they "contain little or no philosophical argument. They derive their radical moral conclusions from a vacuous utilitarianism that counts the pain and pleasure of all living things as equally significant and that ignores just about everything that has been said in our philosophical tradition about the real distinction between persons and animals." [12]

Personal background

In an essay entitled "Animal Liberation: A Personal View", Singer describes the personal background that led to his adoption of the views he sets out in Animal Liberation. He writes of how he arrived in Oxford in October 1969, and in 1970 had lunch with a fellow graduate student, Richard Keshen, who avoided meat. This led Singer to inquire as to why and then to read Ruth Harrison's book, Animal Machines, as well as a paper by Roslind Godlovitch (who would later co-edit Animals, Men and Morals ), which convinced him to become a vegetarian and to take animal suffering seriously as a philosophical issue. [13]

Animal Liberation Now

A revised edition, titled Animal Liberation Now: The Definitive Classic Renewed, was released on 23 May 2023. It features a new foreword by Yuval Noah Harari and two-thirds of the book consists of entirely new material and it also documents changes in animal welfare since the book's original publication, along with other developments, such as the impact of meat consumption on climate and on the risk of spreading dangerous new viruses. [2]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Peter Singer</span> Australian moral philosopher (born 1946)

Peter Albert David Singer is an Australian moral philosopher and the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University. He specialises in applied ethics, approaching the subject from a secular, utilitarian perspective. He wrote the book Animal Liberation (1975), in which he argues for vegetarianism, and the essay "Famine, Affluence, and Morality", which favours donating to help the global poor. For most of his career, he was a preference utilitarian, but he revealed in The Point of View of the Universe (2014), coauthored with Katarzyna de Lazari-Radek, that he had become a hedonistic utilitarian.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Speciesism</span> Discrimination against non-human creatures solely on the basis of their species membership

Speciesism is a term used in philosophy regarding the treatment of individuals of different species. The term has several different definitions within the relevant literature. Some sources specifically define speciesism as discrimination or unjustified treatment based on an individual's species membership, while other sources define it as differential treatment without regard to whether the treatment is justified or not. Richard Ryder, who coined the term, defined it as "a prejudice or attitude of bias in favour of the interests of members of one's own species and against those of members of other species." Speciesism results in the belief that humans have the right to use non-human animals, which scholars say is pervasive in the modern society. Studies from 2015 and 2019 suggest that people who support animal exploitation also tend to endorse racist, sexist, and other prejudicial views, which furthers the beliefs in human supremacy and group dominance to justify systems of inequality and oppression.

In ethical philosophy, utilitarianism is a family of normative ethical theories that prescribe actions that maximize happiness and well-being for all affected individuals.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Martha Nussbaum</span> American philosopher and academic (born 1947)

Martha Craven Nussbaum is an American philosopher and the current Ernst Freund Distinguished Service Professor of Law and Ethics at the University of Chicago, where she is jointly appointed in the law school and the philosophy department. She has a particular interest in ancient Greek and Roman philosophy, political philosophy, existentialism, feminism, and ethics, including animal rights. She also holds associate appointments in classics, divinity, and political science, is a member of the Committee on Southern Asian Studies, and a board member of the Human Rights Program. She previously taught at Harvard and Brown.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Richard D. Ryder</span> English animal rights advocate (born 1940)

Richard Hood Jack Dudley Ryder is an English writer, psychologist, and animal rights advocate.

David Sztybel is a Canadian philosopher specializing in animal ethics.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Animal rights</span> Belief that animals have interests that should be considered

Animal rights is the philosophy according to which many or all sentient animals have moral worth independent of their utility to humans, and that their most basic interests—such as avoiding suffering—should be afforded the same consideration as similar interests of human beings. Broadly speaking, and particularly in popular discourse, the term "animal rights" is often used synonymously with "animal protection" or "animal liberation". More narrowly, "animal rights" refers to the idea that many animals have fundamental rights to be treated with respect as individuals—rights to life, liberty, and freedom from torture that may not be overridden by considerations of aggregate welfare.

Animal ethics is a branch of ethics which examines human-animal relationships, the moral consideration of animals and how nonhuman animals ought to be treated. The subject matter includes animal rights, animal welfare, animal law, speciesism, animal cognition, wildlife conservation, wild animal suffering, the moral status of nonhuman animals, the concept of nonhuman personhood, human exceptionalism, the history of animal use, and theories of justice. Several different theoretical approaches have been proposed to examine this field, in accordance with the different theories currently defended in moral and political philosophy. There is no theory which is completely accepted due to the differing understandings of what is meant by the term ethics; however, there are theories that are more widely accepted by society such as animal rights and utilitarianism.

<i>The Case for Animal Rights</i> 1983 book by Tom Regan

The Case for Animal Rights is a 1983 book by the American philosopher Tom Regan, in which the author argues that at least some kinds of non-human animals have moral rights because they are the "subjects-of-a-life," and that these rights adhere to them whether or not they are recognized. The work is considered an important text within animal rights theory.

The concept of moral rights for animals is believed to date as far back as Ancient India, particularly early Jainist and Hindu history. What follows is mainly the history of animal rights in the Western world. There is a rich history of animal protection in the ancient texts, lives, and stories of Eastern, African, and Indigenous peoples.

Several individuals and groups have drawn direct comparisons between animal cruelty and the Holocaust. The analogies began soon after the end of World War II, when literary figures, many of them Holocaust survivors, Jewish or both, began to draw parallels between the treatment of animals by humans and the treatments of prisoners in Nazi death camps. The Letter Writer, a 1968 short story by Isaac Bashevis Singer, is a literary work often cited as the seminal use of the analogy. The comparison has been criticized by organizations that campaign against antisemitism, including the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, particularly since 2006, when PETA began to make heavy use of the analogy as part of campaigns for improved animal welfare.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">British philosophy</span> Philosophical tradition of the British people

British philosophy refers to the philosophical tradition of the British people. "The native characteristics of British philosophy are these: common sense, dislike of complication, a strong preference for the concrete over the abstract and a certain awkward honesty of method in which an occasional pearl of poetry is embedded".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Personism</span> Ethical philosophy of personhood

Personism is an ethical philosophy of personhood as typified by the thought of the utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer. It amounts to a branch of secular humanism with an emphasis on certain rights-criteria. Personists believe that rights are conferred to the extent that a creature is a person. Michael Tooley provides the relevant definition of a person, saying it is a creature that is "capable of desiring to continue as a subject of experience and other mental states". A worldview like secular humanism is personism when the empathy and values are extended to the extent that the creature is a person.

<i>Animals Rights</i> 1892 book by Henry Stephens Salt

Animals' Rights: Considered in Relation to Social Progress is an 1892 book by the English social reformer Henry Stephens Salt. It is widely considered to be the first explicit treatment of the concept of animal rights.

<i>An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory</i> 2010 textbook by Alasdair Cochrane

An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory is a 2010 textbook by the British political theorist Alasdair Cochrane. It is the first book in the publisher Palgrave Macmillan's Animal Ethics Series, edited by Andrew Linzey and Priscilla Cohn. Cochrane's book examines five schools of political theory—utilitarianism, liberalism, communitarianism, Marxism and feminism—and their respective relationships with questions concerning animal rights and the political status of (non-human) animals. Cochrane concludes that each tradition has something to offer to these issues, but ultimately presents his own account of interest-based animal rights as preferable to any. His account, though drawing from all examined traditions, builds primarily upon liberalism and utilitarianism.

<i>Animal Rights Without Liberation</i> 2012 book by British political theorist Alasdair Cochrane

Animal Rights Without Liberation: Applied Ethics and Human Obligations is a 2012 book by the British political theorist Alasdair Cochrane, in which it is argued that animal rights philosophy can be decoupled from animal liberation philosophy by the adoption of the interest-based rights approach. Cochrane, arguing that there is no reason that (nonhuman) animals should be excluded from justice, adopts Joseph Raz's account of interest rights and extends it to include animals. He argues that sentient animals possess a right not to be made to suffer and a right not to be killed, but not a right to freedom. The book's chapters apply Cochrane's account to a number of interactions between humans and animals; first animal experimentation, then animal agriculture, the genetic engineering of animals, the use of animals in entertainment and sport, the relationship of animals to environmental practices and the use of animals in cultural practices.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gary Varner</span> American philosopher (1957–2023)

Gary Edward Varner was an American philosopher specializing in environmental ethics, philosophical questions related to animal rights and animal welfare, and R. M. Hare's two-level utilitarianism. At the time of his death, he was an emeritus professor in the department of philosophy at Texas A&M University; he had been based at the university since 1990. He was educated at Arizona State University, the University of Georgia, and the University of Wisconsin–Madison; at Madison, where he was supervised by Jon Morline, he wrote one of the first doctoral theses on environmental ethics. Varner's first monograph was In Nature's Interests?, which was published by Oxford University Press in 1998. In the book, Varner defended a form of biocentric individualism, according to which all living entities have morally considerable interests.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Predation problem</span> Consideration of the harms experienced by animals due to predation as a moral problem

The predation problem or predation argument refers to the consideration of the harms experienced by animals due to predation as a moral problem, that humans may or may not have an obligation to work towards preventing. Discourse on this topic has, by and large, been held within the disciplines of animal and environmental ethics. The issue has particularly been discussed in relation to animal rights and wild animal suffering. Some critics have considered an obligation to prevent predation as untenable or absurd and have used the position as a reductio ad absurdum to reject the concept of animal rights altogether. Others have criticized any obligation implied by the animal rights position as environmentally harmful.

The replaceability argument, or the logic of the larder, is a philosophical argument that has been used to reject vegetarianism. It holds that consuming nonhuman animal products is good for animals because if they were not consumed, fewer animals would be brought into existence. The argument has particularly been engaged with within the context of utilitarianism.

References

  1. Peter Singer, "A Utilitarian Defense of Animal Liberation," in Environmental Ethics, ed. Louis Pojman (Stamford, CT: Wadsworth, 2001), 35."
  2. 1 2 "Animal Liberation Now". HarperCollins. Retrieved 17 May 2023.
  3. Op. cit., p. 2.
  4. Singer, Peter. "On Humans and Animals". IAI TV. Retrieved 11 December 2013.
  5. Gareth Walsh, "Father of animal activism backs monkey testing", The Sunday Times , November 26, 2006.
  6. "What Is Animal Liberation? Philosopher Peter Singer's Groundbreaking Work Turns 40 | A Message From PETA's President | All About PETA | About". PETA. 14 April 2015. Retrieved 26 July 2015.
  7. Tatchell, Peter (29 January 2009). "The book that changed my life - Animal Liberation". The New Statesman. UK. Archived from the original on 26 August 2017. Retrieved 23 December 2016.
  8. Back cover of the October 2015 Vintage edition of Animal Liberation. “Few books can honestly be said to have launched a major social movement. Animal Liberation is one. Peter Singer’s work has changed millions and millions of lives, including mine. Much more importantly, though, Professor Singer’s book helped define and build the movement that is fundamentally shifting the way humans relate to our fellow animals and that will eventually end the barbaric treatment of billions of sentient individuals.” —Matt Ball, author of The Accidental Activist and senior adviser for VegFund.
  9. Michael Specter, "The Dangerous Philosopher", The New Yorker , 6 September 1999
  10. "Animal Rights: Debate between Peter Singer and Richard Posner (collection of letters)". Utilitarian. June 2001. Archived from the original on 9 May 2015. Links to individual letters of the debate on the Slate website: First letter; Singer to Posner, June 12, 2001: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2001/06/animal-rights-2.html; second letter, Posner to Singer, June 12, 2001: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2001/06/animal-rights-3.html; third letter, Singer to Posner, June 13, 2001: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2001/06/animal-rights-4.html; fourth letter, Posner to Singer, June 13, 2001: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2001/06/animal-rights-5.htm; fifth letter, Singer to Posner, June 13, 2001: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2001/06/animal-rights-6.html; sixth letter, Posner to Singer, June 14, 2001: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2001/06/animal-rights-7.html; seventh letter, Singer to Posner June 14, 2001: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2001/06/animal-rights-8.html; eighth letter, Posner to Singer, June 14, 2001: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2001/06/animal-rights-9.html
  11. Nussbaum, Martha and Cass Sunstein, eds. Animal Rights. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. pp. 299–320.
  12. Scruton, Roger. "Animal Rights" Archived 3 March 2016 at the Wayback Machine , City Journal, summer 2000.
    • Scruton (1998).
  13. Singer, Peter (2001). "Animal Liberation: A Personal View". Writings on an ethical life. London: Fourth Estate. pp. 293–302. ISBN   1841155500.