Animal Liberation: The Definitive Classic of the Animal Movement

Considered the Bible of the animal rights movement. Written by philosopher Peter Singer. Answers the question , is it morally correct to eat and experiment on animals. From a reasonable and science based view. A must read for animal activist or as a gift to friends and family that love animals but still eats them

Excellent

Frankly, I had to throw this book away. I ordered it after reading about it in a New Yorker article about the senseless killing of songbirds for fun and food. I expected the book to be a philosophical take on the issue of animal cruelty, which has been something of a big concern for me for many years (pretty much since I become fully cognizant of the fact that poultry and beef didn't grow on trees, and were not some abstract substances, but, at some point, none other than living, breathing, conscious creatures.) The book, however, offers very detailed and extremely disturbing descriptions of various forms of physical and emotional suffering that billions of animals are subjected to in the course of their very short and very miserable lives. The author depicts the practices of "personnel" (supposedly human) working in the food industry (its first link - the meat/dairy plants) and the scientific/laboratory research - which present the two most horrific forms of animal abuse. Speaking about the often used in a "cute" context term "guinea pigs," lab animals are put through unthinkable suffering varying from living through the process of harsh chemicals being instilled in their eyes (rabbits) while they are restrained by special equipment that doesn't allow for any type of movement, as the "scientist" diligently observes and records the damage the chemical does to the eye over the course of several days (the end result - destroyed pupil of the eye.) And let's just leave it at that, it's the mildest of the experiments sited by the author (and accomponied by several pictures of the above mentioned rabbit, its eyes and the equipment). I was only able to go a few pages into the chapter before I had to put this book aside due to the palpitations I felt in my chest. I stopped at the "humorous" description in a catalog of the laboratory animal equipment that left me grasping for words: it mentioned a restrictor for rats where "the only thing that will wiggle is the nose." Next thing I did was throw the book away, especially that it also came with several disturbing photographs: I simply did not want to have this kind of "material" sitting in my book case. That said, if someone has thicker skin or can skip through the chapters that deal with the "underbelly" of the food industry and scientific progress (although the author argues with the notion that experimenting on animals actually entails that much of a progress) and onto the chapters that deal with how each individual can contribute to reducing the amount of suffering, this book can be more than a useful read. It could also be a good eye opener for those who still think that animals feel no emotion and so "their suffering is pretty devoid of anything conscious," or that tender veal chops are too, well, tender to pass up on at a restaurant (hopefully their opinion will change after they find out what is done to baby calves before they become those tender delectables.) Animals do have the same pain receptors as humans, and they do feel fear and anxiety, and great psychological suffering.

Recently I finally put the time into reading this classic. The content of the book probably needs no summary, but in brief, Singer lays out a simple philosophical argument for taking into consideration the suffering of animals before extensively describing the industrial-scale torture of animals in lab experiments and in factory farms and providing arguments in favor of vegetarianism and veganism. Singer also gives a historical overview of humanity’s views towards other species and responds to objections to his arguments. It is a moving, powerful book. As a nearly life-long vegetarian, even I began to rethink my consumption of eggs and dairy after reading it. The book can be tedious at times. For instance, the chapter on animal experimentation slogs through 70 pages describing one after another experiment that involved the torture of animals for only marginal (at best) gains in scientific knowledge. But stick with it, it’s worth it. This edition has some additional features, the best of which is the updated annotated bibliography of further readings. The one downside to be aware of is that the core of the book could use updating. Although this edition was published in 2009, it appears that everything except the preface was last updated for the 1990 edition. I don’t know how much (if anything) has changed in the intervening years, so I’ll be sure to check out some of those readings Singer recommends in the annotated bibliography.

One of the twentieth century's eminent philosophers, bioethicist Peter Singer's magnum opus does not fail to impress (or disgust, depending on how you look at it). At once evocative and profound, 'Animal Liberation' is accessible to all, from the most robust analytic philosopher to the developing middle-school student. While it first appeared in 1975, the book remains no less prescient for the modern reader. The most important take-away for any reader of this work is the state of animal welfare within our world today -- there is a clear and present problem with the anthroparchic perspective (A term not used by Singer within the book, this is the position that all value is derived from, through, and for human value) our society-as-a-whole takes toward other animals, through ambivalence, ignorance, or willful practice; as well as the natural world in general. Unfortunately, Singer takes a leaf from his predecessors' book (i.e., John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham) vis-à-vis his attempt to ground his attack on 'speciesism' (the systematic oppression of other species, comparable to racism and sexism -- Singer admits to this being an ugly word) in an epistemically unfoundable principle, namely the principle of utility (Singer is more in-line with Benthamite hedonistic utilitarianism in this regard, rather than Millian aretaic utilitarianism -- it is aretaic insofar as he recognizes a distinction between higher and lower pleasures). Moreover, much of his work is rife with informal fallacies (i.e., question-begging epithets, etc. -- this is one of the most frequent examples), which is to say that the structure of his arguments, while questionably valid in themselves, fail to account for the content and soundness of said arguments. It must be recalled that Singer's book is of the popular sort, which entails his preference toward colorful and accessible language. This is laudable, and much needed; however, he does fall prey to his own tactic by setting up fallacious argumentation, both formal and informal. Nevertheless, 'Animal Liberation' stands as an influential and essential piece of the still growing literature surrounding the broad discipline of environmental ethics (e.g., animal ethics, land ethics, ecofeminism, etc.). This being the case, those facts which he has brought to light within the text are what ought to weigh heavily upon the mind. Much work is left to be done; indeed, it is ongoing. While Singer's philosophical position and argumentation fail to impress, it remains nonetheless imperative that our society seriously question our motives and actions toward the world and other animals around us. 'Animal Liberation', understood in the appropriate light, is an ideal primer for introducing the problem, if not adequate solutions. I highly recommend this text for any and all who discern the same problematic as yet still present within our society.

After watching "Earthlings" almost 2 years ago while I was browsing for videos on YouTube - it had changed my life completely, since that day. Those who read this book and would like to "see" more about factory farming and how we treat animals, should definitely check out "Earthlings" - it's free online. I enjoy this book greatly. I am not going to discuss about the book because I believe there had already been many reviewers on here who did an excellent job on writing about it. I am really glad, however, that a modern philosopher, like Singer, took great interests in ending animals suffering and believe it firmly to write such an excellent book. It is really difficult personally, for me to "persuade" others to re-consider the way they consume meat daily. I took me almost 2 years to persuade my husband to watch "Earthings" because he, like many other people that I know of, said: "I don't want to watch it....I like to eat meat and I like the freedom to choose whatever I want to eat...." I have heard this response many time from many people who will not change or reconsider the way they consume meat. The bottom line is, they only care about their individual "right"; to eat whatever they choose because they think they are entitled to. It is sad, but it also happens to the most dedicated, religious people whom I've known. My hope is for Singer and many other writers to continue to deliver this important message to the mass - ending animals suffering and to learn how to be a compassionate human being.

Peter Singer has written one of the most articulate and well thought out cases for animal liberation that I have found in the many books that I have read on this topic. He argues that most people would give no thought to keeping a fully-aware animal in terrible conditions on a factory farm only to be killed well before it lives out a small fraction of its normal life span, but we would never consider killing a profoundly retarded infant that is completely unaware of its surroundings as a source of food. Singer also argues that it would make much more sense to conduct research designed to benefit humans on profoundly retarded human subjects that are unaware of their surroundings and that have no hope for any kind of meaningful future rather than on fully cognizant animals that are capable of living out and enjoying a normal life span. Moreover, the results produced by animal research is often poorly transferable to humans so why not use profoundly retarded humans for the studies in the first place. This is tough stuff but the arguments are compelling and any disagreement with his propositions would have to be considered speciesism. If you are an animal rights advocate, please consider reading this book. You will read material that you won't find anywhere else.

Good: the information/data is detailed and precisely pertinent to the topics, the updated and supplemental information keeps the present-day reader connected to Peter Singer's legacy with the Animal Liberation movement Bad: the writing is at times difficult to fully comprehend on the first read, Peter Singer definitely authors on a university level that may prove to be intimidating for younger/ less experienced readers This book is a requisite read for anyone with interest in animal rights/ethics. I began reading this book when I became a vegan. I started reading the 2nd. edition (1990) that a vegan friend gave to me, and decided to finish reading with the most updated/ 4th. edition (2009). This book is a great reference for ethics/philosophy. It also seems like the closest thing to what most of us will have to being a student of Peter Singer.