What do you think?
Rate this book
In Defense of Animals: The Second Wave
Bringing together new essays by philosophers and activists, In Defense of Animals: The Second Wave highlights the new challenges facing the animal rights movement.
Table of Contents
Preface Peter Singer.
Part I: The Ideas.
1. Utilitarianism and Animals: Gaverick Matheny
2. The Scientific Basis for Assessing Suffering in Animals: Marian Stamp Dawkins
3. The Animal Debate: A Re-Examination: Paola Cavalieri
4. On the Question of Personhood Beyond Homo sapiens: David DeGrazia
5. Religion and Animals: Paul Waldau
Part II: The Problems.
6. Speciesism in the Laboratory: Richard Ryder
7. Brave New Farm?: Jim Mason and Mary Finelli
8. Outlawed in Europe: Clare Druce and Philip Lymbery
9. Against Zoos: Dale Jamieson
10. To Eat the Laughing Animal: Dale Peterson
Part III: Activists and Their Strategies.
11. How Austria Achieved a Historic Breakthrough for Animals: Martin Balluch
12. Butcher Knives into Pruning Hooks: Doing Civil Disobedience for Animals: Pelle Strindlund.
13. Opening Cages, Opening Eyes: An Investigation and Open Rescue at an Egg Factory Farm: Miyun Park
14. Living and Working in Defense of Animals: Matt Ball
15. Effective Advocacy: Stealing From the Corporate Playbook: Bruce Friedrich
16. Moving the Media: From Foe, or Indifferent Stranger, to Friend: Karen Dawn
17. The CEO as Animal Activist: John Mackey and Whole Foods: John Mackey, Karen Dawn and Lauren Ornelas
18. Ten Points for Activists: Henry Spira and Peter Singer.
A Final Word: Peter Singer.
Further Reading, Useful Organizations.
Index
Table of Contents
Preface Peter Singer.
Part I: The Ideas.
1. Utilitarianism and Animals: Gaverick Matheny
2. The Scientific Basis for Assessing Suffering in Animals: Marian Stamp Dawkins
3. The Animal Debate: A Re-Examination: Paola Cavalieri
4. On the Question of Personhood Beyond Homo sapiens: David DeGrazia
5. Religion and Animals: Paul Waldau
Part II: The Problems.
6. Speciesism in the Laboratory: Richard Ryder
7. Brave New Farm?: Jim Mason and Mary Finelli
8. Outlawed in Europe: Clare Druce and Philip Lymbery
9. Against Zoos: Dale Jamieson
10. To Eat the Laughing Animal: Dale Peterson
Part III: Activists and Their Strategies.
11. How Austria Achieved a Historic Breakthrough for Animals: Martin Balluch
12. Butcher Knives into Pruning Hooks: Doing Civil Disobedience for Animals: Pelle Strindlund.
13. Opening Cages, Opening Eyes: An Investigation and Open Rescue at an Egg Factory Farm: Miyun Park
14. Living and Working in Defense of Animals: Matt Ball
15. Effective Advocacy: Stealing From the Corporate Playbook: Bruce Friedrich
16. Moving the Media: From Foe, or Indifferent Stranger, to Friend: Karen Dawn
17. The CEO as Animal Activist: John Mackey and Whole Foods: John Mackey, Karen Dawn and Lauren Ornelas
18. Ten Points for Activists: Henry Spira and Peter Singer.
A Final Word: Peter Singer.
Further Reading, Useful Organizations.
Index
264 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1985
25 people are currently reading
2125 people want to read
About the author
Peter Singer
173 books10.1k 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 - 22 of 22 reviews
October 16, 2009
I read this book in an Ethics class in college. I don't really remember much of it, at the time I was a vegetarian, I'd flirted unsuccessfully with being a vegan for about a month and a half at the start of the school year before tiring of every meal I ate being an ethical war between me and one of my roommates. I was very well versed in animal rights, I knew why I wasn't eating meat, and I remember this book not really adding anything I hadn't already wrestled with in my head.
During that class the four or five philosophy majors were chosen by the professor to debate each other on the ethical question of vegetarianism, none of the other 25 or 30 students had to do this debate thing, it was just us handful of nerds getting to argue with each other for 20 minutes in front of a sleepy and bored class. I don't know if I choose it or was told by the professor or what but I ended up having to defend eating meat. I went at this like any good philosophy student, with the realization that anything in the world can be proved, you can argue in favor of anything. I just needed to get some facts that would play in my favor (this is a tip for anyone in school who doesn't want to do 'research' decide what you want your outcome to be and then find supporting evidence, it's there, for just about anything you want to prove you can find enough to support you, if not you pick and choose carefully from what you can find. This technique generally works quite well). I tried my hardest to find some slam dunk arguments for why eating meat was ethically good. Surprisingly, (or not), I couldn't find anything in my college library that made any kind of sense. Here are the arguments I came up with (and I took out all the books, copied the articles and brought them all to class, because I knew there was no way anyone was going to believe some of this shit).
1) The economy. Lots of jobs would be lost by everyone going vegetarian. Think of all the people who raise, kill, and pack your meat. Never mind the butchers!!!
2) The bible. Yes this was cited. God forbade us from eating meat, he let us eat meat, and then he gave us permission again after the whole flood fiasco. Kind of like, we saved you now we get to eat your babies.
3) Humans are supposed to eat meat. Actually no, but I found some scholarly source saying this, so I used it in the argument.
4) It just tastes good. (I don't know how this is ethical, but except for number 1, it's the only argument that has any real sense to it).
and number 5) this is the kicker, my slam dunk, the one I opened up the book I found this argument in, and read it straight from the book, because there was no way in hell anyone would have believed me on this (you will have to take my word on this).... because if we stopped eating meat the countryside of England and other European countries would become overgrown and not as picturesque as it is now, because grazing animals keep everything so nice as it is.
My side lost the debate, and at one point I was yelled at by the guitar player in my band (who was on the other side) that I couldn't say that animals tasted good because I was a vegetarian, which I answered that no, I'm for eating meat in this debate, something that he seemed to have a hard time wrapping his head around. I don't know how he faired in his philosophy career, but anyway....
The point of this story is that I had a really hard time to come up with any ethical reason why eating animals is good, or permissible. Maybe I missed something, but at the time I think I tried pretty damn hard to find a good argument to use, and even now that I eat animals again, I only do it by not thinking about it, kind of like being in constant denial or blind to what it really is. This is shitty of me, and it's yet another reason why I suck as a human being and make the world just that little bit worse by my being here....
During that class the four or five philosophy majors were chosen by the professor to debate each other on the ethical question of vegetarianism, none of the other 25 or 30 students had to do this debate thing, it was just us handful of nerds getting to argue with each other for 20 minutes in front of a sleepy and bored class. I don't know if I choose it or was told by the professor or what but I ended up having to defend eating meat. I went at this like any good philosophy student, with the realization that anything in the world can be proved, you can argue in favor of anything. I just needed to get some facts that would play in my favor (this is a tip for anyone in school who doesn't want to do 'research' decide what you want your outcome to be and then find supporting evidence, it's there, for just about anything you want to prove you can find enough to support you, if not you pick and choose carefully from what you can find. This technique generally works quite well). I tried my hardest to find some slam dunk arguments for why eating meat was ethically good. Surprisingly, (or not), I couldn't find anything in my college library that made any kind of sense. Here are the arguments I came up with (and I took out all the books, copied the articles and brought them all to class, because I knew there was no way anyone was going to believe some of this shit).
1) The economy. Lots of jobs would be lost by everyone going vegetarian. Think of all the people who raise, kill, and pack your meat. Never mind the butchers!!!
2) The bible. Yes this was cited. God forbade us from eating meat, he let us eat meat, and then he gave us permission again after the whole flood fiasco. Kind of like, we saved you now we get to eat your babies.
3) Humans are supposed to eat meat. Actually no, but I found some scholarly source saying this, so I used it in the argument.
4) It just tastes good. (I don't know how this is ethical, but except for number 1, it's the only argument that has any real sense to it).
and number 5) this is the kicker, my slam dunk, the one I opened up the book I found this argument in, and read it straight from the book, because there was no way in hell anyone would have believed me on this (you will have to take my word on this).... because if we stopped eating meat the countryside of England and other European countries would become overgrown and not as picturesque as it is now, because grazing animals keep everything so nice as it is.
My side lost the debate, and at one point I was yelled at by the guitar player in my band (who was on the other side) that I couldn't say that animals tasted good because I was a vegetarian, which I answered that no, I'm for eating meat in this debate, something that he seemed to have a hard time wrapping his head around. I don't know how he faired in his philosophy career, but anyway....
The point of this story is that I had a really hard time to come up with any ethical reason why eating animals is good, or permissible. Maybe I missed something, but at the time I think I tried pretty damn hard to find a good argument to use, and even now that I eat animals again, I only do it by not thinking about it, kind of like being in constant denial or blind to what it really is. This is shitty of me, and it's yet another reason why I suck as a human being and make the world just that little bit worse by my being here....
July 1, 2019
This was a very difficult book to read because of the dozens of stories of factory farming and animal abuse. I have been vegetarian for thirty-seven years. This book makes me seriously consider veganism. Read it and become aware of how cruelly people treat fellow animals with feelings. My hope is that this book can and will change your own life for the better.
June 27, 2017
"The tragedy of the blue whale is in the reflection of an even greater one, that of man himself. What is the nature of a species that knowingly and without good reason exterminates another? When will man learn that he is but one form of life among countless thousands, each of which is in some way related to and dependent on all others? How long will man persist in the belief that he is the master of the Earth rather than one of its guests?" -p.130
"...Some zoos have been considering proposals to 'recycle' excess animals: a euphemism for killing them and feeding their bodies to other zoo animals. Many people are surprised when they hear of zoos killing animals. They should not be. Zoos have limited capacities. They want to maintain diverse collections. This can be done only by careful management of their 'stock'." -p.115
"Domestication itself is an unnatural process, a method of enslaving animals and subjecting their life processes to our will. Animal liberation would return domestic animals to their wild origins, free to pursue their destinies without human interference." -p. 72
"Once we have accepted that we may utilize animals for so trivial a reason as our enjoyment of the taste of their flesh, it is easy to use them for any purpose which is equally frivolous, such as domesticating them as pets or confining them in zoos to amuse us, or for those which are more serious, such as using them in medical experiments that we believe will save human lives." -p.70
"Only 42 per cent of an animal's original weight becomes meat." -p.68
"Mahatma Gandhi expressed this very clearly in The Moral Basis of Vegetarianism, edited by R. P. Prabhu. He commented, 'I do feel that spiritual progress does demand at some stage that we should cease to kill our fellow creatures for the satisfaction of our bodily wants'." -p.67
"Whatever their level of awareness, it remains true that people eat meat because they are accustomed to its colour, shape, texture and flavour, and have been conditioned to regard it as highly desirable food. Their attitudes must be challenged, and changed. As Peter Singer has pointed out in Animal Liberation, 'Those who, by their purchases, require animals to be killed have no right to be shielded from this or any other aspect of the production of the meat they buy. If it is distasteful for humans to think about, what can it be like for the animals to experience it?'" -p.69
"...Some zoos have been considering proposals to 'recycle' excess animals: a euphemism for killing them and feeding their bodies to other zoo animals. Many people are surprised when they hear of zoos killing animals. They should not be. Zoos have limited capacities. They want to maintain diverse collections. This can be done only by careful management of their 'stock'." -p.115
"Domestication itself is an unnatural process, a method of enslaving animals and subjecting their life processes to our will. Animal liberation would return domestic animals to their wild origins, free to pursue their destinies without human interference." -p. 72
"Once we have accepted that we may utilize animals for so trivial a reason as our enjoyment of the taste of their flesh, it is easy to use them for any purpose which is equally frivolous, such as domesticating them as pets or confining them in zoos to amuse us, or for those which are more serious, such as using them in medical experiments that we believe will save human lives." -p.70
"Only 42 per cent of an animal's original weight becomes meat." -p.68
"Mahatma Gandhi expressed this very clearly in The Moral Basis of Vegetarianism, edited by R. P. Prabhu. He commented, 'I do feel that spiritual progress does demand at some stage that we should cease to kill our fellow creatures for the satisfaction of our bodily wants'." -p.67
"Whatever their level of awareness, it remains true that people eat meat because they are accustomed to its colour, shape, texture and flavour, and have been conditioned to regard it as highly desirable food. Their attitudes must be challenged, and changed. As Peter Singer has pointed out in Animal Liberation, 'Those who, by their purchases, require animals to be killed have no right to be shielded from this or any other aspect of the production of the meat they buy. If it is distasteful for humans to think about, what can it be like for the animals to experience it?'" -p.69
May 10, 2024
A VALUABLE COLLECTION OF ESSAYS ON MANY ISSUES OF ANIMAL RIGHTS
[NOTE: This book review pertains to the 1985 224-page first edition of this book.]
Peter Albert David Singer (born 1946) is an Australian moral philosopher and Bioethics professor at Princeton University.
He wrote in the Prologue to this 1985 book, “This book provides a platform for the new animal liberation movement. A diverse group of people share this platform: university philosophers, a zoologist, a lawyer, militant activists who are ready to break the law to further their cause, and respected political lobbyists who are entirely at home in parliamentary offices. Their common ground is that they are all, in their very different ways, taking part in the struggle for animal liberation. This struggle is a new phenomenon. It marks an expansion of our moral horizons beyond our own species and is thus a significant stage in the development of human ethics. The aim of this introduction is to show why the movement is so significant, first by contrasting it with earlier movements against cruelty for animals, and then by setting out the distinctive ethical stance which lies behind the new movement.” (Pg. 1)
After quoting Bentham’s famous statement, “The question is not, Can they [animals] REASON? Nor Can they TALK? but, Can they SUFFER?” he comments, “Bentham is clearly right. Whatever the test we propose as a means of separating human from non-human animals, it is plain that if all non-human animals are going to fail it, some humans will fail as well. Infants are neither rational nor autonomous. They do not use language and they do not possess a sense of justice. Are they therefore to be treated like non-human animals, to be fattened for the table, if we should fancy the taste of their flesh, or to be used to find out if some new shampoo will bluster human eyeballs?” (Pg. 5)
He clarifies, “The animal liberation movement… is NOT saying that all lives are of equal worth or that all interests of humans and other animals are to be given equal weight, no matter what those interests may be. It IS saying that where animals and humans have similar interests---we might take the interest in avoiding physical pain as an example, for it is an interest that humans clearly share with other animals---those interests are to be counted equally, with no automatic discount just because one of the beings if not human. A simple point, no doubt, but nevertheless part of a far-reaching ethical revolution.” (Pg. 9)
Tom Regan observes, “The fundamental wrong is the system that allows us to view animals as OUR RESOURCES, here for US---to be eaten, or surgically manipulated, or exploited for sport or money. Once we accept this view of animals---as our resources---the rest is as predictable as it is regrettable. Why worry about their loneliness, their pain, their death? Since animals exist for us, to benefit us in one way or another, what harms them doesn’t really matter---or matters only if it starts to bother us, make us feel a trifle uneasy when we eat our veal escalope, for example. So, yes, let us get veal calves out of solitary confinement, give them more space, a little straw, a few companions. But let us keep our veal escalope.” (Pg. 14)
Marian Stamp Dawkins suggests, “There are… ways of obtaining measures of how much an animal prefers or dislikes something. Here is the key to discovering the circumstances in which an animal finds things so unpleasant that we want to say that it is suffering. It will work hard to obtain or to escape from something---as hard as or harder than it will work to obtain food which most people would agree is an essential to health and welfare---then we can begin to compile a list of situations which cause suffering and, indeed, can arrive at a tentative further definition of suffering itself: animals suffer if kept in conditions in which they are without something that they will work hard to obtain, given the opportunity, or in conditions that they will work hard to get away from, also given the opportunity.” (Pg. 37-38)
Harriet Schleifer notes, “The ethical argument for vegetarianism becomes even more persuasive when one considers the reasons for it that are not related directly to farm animal welfare. (I will not discuss any of the health considerations that make the vegetarian diet an attractive option, since they do not have an essential moral basis.) Wildlife conservation is a popular concern for many people, though few know the extent to which domestic animals compete with wildlife for space and resources… Although the unfair distribution which characterizes international trade makes it an unlikely dream, it is also a fact that if everyone in the developed world became a vegetarian, it would be possible to give four tons of edible grain to every starving person.” (Pg. 67-68)
Richard D. Ryder contends, “The old argument has also raged about whether half a loaf of progress today is better than waiting for the full loaf at some uncertain time in the future. This argument has been complicated by doubt as to whether legislative half-measures should be regarded as pacing the way for more sweeping reforms or whether they merely take the wind out of the sails of the campaign and give Governments the excuse to do nothing for a few years… although legislative half-measures are probably better than nothing, this does not mean that they should be quietly accepted by reformers as the end of the road. Instead, campaigners should see them as stepping stones on the way and should maintain their pressure for further progress.” (Pg. 88)
Dale Jamieson observes that a “reason for having zoos is that they preserve species that would otherwise become extinct… There is some reason for questioning the commitment of zoos to preservation: it can be argued that they continue to remove more animals from the wild than they return. Still, zoo breeding programs have had some notable successes…[But] Is it really better to confine a few hapless Mountain Gorillas in a zoo than to permit the species to become extinct? To most environmentalists the answer is obvious: the species must be preserved at all costs. But this smacks of sacrificing the lower-case gorilla for the upper-case Gorilla. In doing this, aren’t we using animals as mere vehicles for their genes?” (Pg. 114-115)
Lewis Regenstein argues, “If we are to save the world’s wildlife, we must adopt an ethic that recognizes the right of all animals to exist, places equal value on the grotesque and the spectacular and shows as much concern for the crocodile as for the cheetah… We must realize that it is just as important to save a species of butterfly as the elephant, that the extinction of a species of mollusck is as great a tragedy as the loss of a bird of mammal. Even engendered plants should merit our concern, for not only do they have the right to live but also the well-being of a host of higher animals.” (Pg. 130)
Clive Hollands acknowledges, “There should be no misunderstanding about the enormous task facing the animal rights movement across the world as it tries first to chance in the public’s mind the concept of ‘kindness to animals’ to that of ‘animal rights’ and then to gain the support of the great silent majority for a cause which provides no apparent material advantage for the human species---indeed, a cause which may disadvantage humans financially as well as in other ways.” (Pg. 171)
Henry Spira (who was part of the ‘Coalition to Stop Draize Rabbit Blinding Tests’) wrote in the concluding essay, “There are several reasons why we succeeded where other animal groups before us failed. We chose our targets carefully. They were small enough, at first, for us to have a chance of success despite our very limited resources, but… could serve as symbolic victories which would lead on to bigger goals. We were meticulous in documenting the abuses against which we were protesting… We also tried to accentuate the positive. Many people perceive the movement against animal experiments as negative and anti-science. It would have been a mistake to ignore these perceptions… We avoided being personally hostile to our adversaries. Before we took any public stands, we always asked them to talk to us… We did not focus on people’s intentions or motives… if a large corporation reduces the number of animals it uses, it isn’t important whether it does this because it cares about animals of because it is seeking to avoid unfavorable publicity. The animals who are spared suffering will be better off either way.” (Pg. 206)
This collection will be of great interest to those studying Animal Rights.
[NOTE: This book review pertains to the 1985 224-page first edition of this book.]
Peter Albert David Singer (born 1946) is an Australian moral philosopher and Bioethics professor at Princeton University.
He wrote in the Prologue to this 1985 book, “This book provides a platform for the new animal liberation movement. A diverse group of people share this platform: university philosophers, a zoologist, a lawyer, militant activists who are ready to break the law to further their cause, and respected political lobbyists who are entirely at home in parliamentary offices. Their common ground is that they are all, in their very different ways, taking part in the struggle for animal liberation. This struggle is a new phenomenon. It marks an expansion of our moral horizons beyond our own species and is thus a significant stage in the development of human ethics. The aim of this introduction is to show why the movement is so significant, first by contrasting it with earlier movements against cruelty for animals, and then by setting out the distinctive ethical stance which lies behind the new movement.” (Pg. 1)
After quoting Bentham’s famous statement, “The question is not, Can they [animals] REASON? Nor Can they TALK? but, Can they SUFFER?” he comments, “Bentham is clearly right. Whatever the test we propose as a means of separating human from non-human animals, it is plain that if all non-human animals are going to fail it, some humans will fail as well. Infants are neither rational nor autonomous. They do not use language and they do not possess a sense of justice. Are they therefore to be treated like non-human animals, to be fattened for the table, if we should fancy the taste of their flesh, or to be used to find out if some new shampoo will bluster human eyeballs?” (Pg. 5)
He clarifies, “The animal liberation movement… is NOT saying that all lives are of equal worth or that all interests of humans and other animals are to be given equal weight, no matter what those interests may be. It IS saying that where animals and humans have similar interests---we might take the interest in avoiding physical pain as an example, for it is an interest that humans clearly share with other animals---those interests are to be counted equally, with no automatic discount just because one of the beings if not human. A simple point, no doubt, but nevertheless part of a far-reaching ethical revolution.” (Pg. 9)
Tom Regan observes, “The fundamental wrong is the system that allows us to view animals as OUR RESOURCES, here for US---to be eaten, or surgically manipulated, or exploited for sport or money. Once we accept this view of animals---as our resources---the rest is as predictable as it is regrettable. Why worry about their loneliness, their pain, their death? Since animals exist for us, to benefit us in one way or another, what harms them doesn’t really matter---or matters only if it starts to bother us, make us feel a trifle uneasy when we eat our veal escalope, for example. So, yes, let us get veal calves out of solitary confinement, give them more space, a little straw, a few companions. But let us keep our veal escalope.” (Pg. 14)
Marian Stamp Dawkins suggests, “There are… ways of obtaining measures of how much an animal prefers or dislikes something. Here is the key to discovering the circumstances in which an animal finds things so unpleasant that we want to say that it is suffering. It will work hard to obtain or to escape from something---as hard as or harder than it will work to obtain food which most people would agree is an essential to health and welfare---then we can begin to compile a list of situations which cause suffering and, indeed, can arrive at a tentative further definition of suffering itself: animals suffer if kept in conditions in which they are without something that they will work hard to obtain, given the opportunity, or in conditions that they will work hard to get away from, also given the opportunity.” (Pg. 37-38)
Harriet Schleifer notes, “The ethical argument for vegetarianism becomes even more persuasive when one considers the reasons for it that are not related directly to farm animal welfare. (I will not discuss any of the health considerations that make the vegetarian diet an attractive option, since they do not have an essential moral basis.) Wildlife conservation is a popular concern for many people, though few know the extent to which domestic animals compete with wildlife for space and resources… Although the unfair distribution which characterizes international trade makes it an unlikely dream, it is also a fact that if everyone in the developed world became a vegetarian, it would be possible to give four tons of edible grain to every starving person.” (Pg. 67-68)
Richard D. Ryder contends, “The old argument has also raged about whether half a loaf of progress today is better than waiting for the full loaf at some uncertain time in the future. This argument has been complicated by doubt as to whether legislative half-measures should be regarded as pacing the way for more sweeping reforms or whether they merely take the wind out of the sails of the campaign and give Governments the excuse to do nothing for a few years… although legislative half-measures are probably better than nothing, this does not mean that they should be quietly accepted by reformers as the end of the road. Instead, campaigners should see them as stepping stones on the way and should maintain their pressure for further progress.” (Pg. 88)
Dale Jamieson observes that a “reason for having zoos is that they preserve species that would otherwise become extinct… There is some reason for questioning the commitment of zoos to preservation: it can be argued that they continue to remove more animals from the wild than they return. Still, zoo breeding programs have had some notable successes…[But] Is it really better to confine a few hapless Mountain Gorillas in a zoo than to permit the species to become extinct? To most environmentalists the answer is obvious: the species must be preserved at all costs. But this smacks of sacrificing the lower-case gorilla for the upper-case Gorilla. In doing this, aren’t we using animals as mere vehicles for their genes?” (Pg. 114-115)
Lewis Regenstein argues, “If we are to save the world’s wildlife, we must adopt an ethic that recognizes the right of all animals to exist, places equal value on the grotesque and the spectacular and shows as much concern for the crocodile as for the cheetah… We must realize that it is just as important to save a species of butterfly as the elephant, that the extinction of a species of mollusck is as great a tragedy as the loss of a bird of mammal. Even engendered plants should merit our concern, for not only do they have the right to live but also the well-being of a host of higher animals.” (Pg. 130)
Clive Hollands acknowledges, “There should be no misunderstanding about the enormous task facing the animal rights movement across the world as it tries first to chance in the public’s mind the concept of ‘kindness to animals’ to that of ‘animal rights’ and then to gain the support of the great silent majority for a cause which provides no apparent material advantage for the human species---indeed, a cause which may disadvantage humans financially as well as in other ways.” (Pg. 171)
Henry Spira (who was part of the ‘Coalition to Stop Draize Rabbit Blinding Tests’) wrote in the concluding essay, “There are several reasons why we succeeded where other animal groups before us failed. We chose our targets carefully. They were small enough, at first, for us to have a chance of success despite our very limited resources, but… could serve as symbolic victories which would lead on to bigger goals. We were meticulous in documenting the abuses against which we were protesting… We also tried to accentuate the positive. Many people perceive the movement against animal experiments as negative and anti-science. It would have been a mistake to ignore these perceptions… We avoided being personally hostile to our adversaries. Before we took any public stands, we always asked them to talk to us… We did not focus on people’s intentions or motives… if a large corporation reduces the number of animals it uses, it isn’t important whether it does this because it cares about animals of because it is seeking to avoid unfavorable publicity. The animals who are spared suffering will be better off either way.” (Pg. 206)
This collection will be of great interest to those studying Animal Rights.
September 14, 2008
Very deep and thought provoking book on the way we view and treat animals. Being a vegan myself I found this book fascinating and troubling at the same time. A very good read and good for the soul.
September 28, 2019
Wish I had read it earlier
April 26, 2024
Textbook for veganism
January 11, 2022
A constructive reminder for any ethical vegan.
Peter Singer chose his co-authors well in this collection. They all share his penchant for direct and coherent argumentation written plainly. The no-bullshit approach that seems effortless but must be anything but. It perhaps helps their argumentation that, or so I believe, what they are arguing for is so self-evidently correct if you give it just a bit of actual critical thought. Of course, the danger when you believe something is deeply wrong but obvious to see is that you become blinkered yourself, blinded by indignant fury. Such righteous fury is very human but not constructive. As is the case with most of Singer's work, my deep respect comes from his ability to remain logical and level-headed while still advocating for the moral good.
This ability is most present in the the third section of the book. A sobering and sorely needed reminder on what actual effective activism entails. This book is mostly for those already initiated into the cause and being part of a movement always brings the danger of slipping into an extremist view, or at the very least losing sight of what is most important. I came away from those last essays with a renewed sense, a feeling of being clear-eyed in what are the actual correct ways to act and think around the topic. For that, I am grateful.
Key takeaways
- The West has had a view of animal capability for suffering, of their worth, that has gone full circle from Pythagorean compassion to Christian slavery to Cartesian automata and back again to compassion.
- Factory farming is a horror show. Of course I already knew that but being given detailed descriptions always gives a renewed "appreciation" for the magnitude of the horror.
- Activism demands much of the activist. In order to be effective, you have to be pragmatic, consistent and systematic in your approach. Use cognitive empathy and meet people where they are. Being right is very rarely enough.
Peter Singer chose his co-authors well in this collection. They all share his penchant for direct and coherent argumentation written plainly. The no-bullshit approach that seems effortless but must be anything but. It perhaps helps their argumentation that, or so I believe, what they are arguing for is so self-evidently correct if you give it just a bit of actual critical thought. Of course, the danger when you believe something is deeply wrong but obvious to see is that you become blinkered yourself, blinded by indignant fury. Such righteous fury is very human but not constructive. As is the case with most of Singer's work, my deep respect comes from his ability to remain logical and level-headed while still advocating for the moral good.
This ability is most present in the the third section of the book. A sobering and sorely needed reminder on what actual effective activism entails. This book is mostly for those already initiated into the cause and being part of a movement always brings the danger of slipping into an extremist view, or at the very least losing sight of what is most important. I came away from those last essays with a renewed sense, a feeling of being clear-eyed in what are the actual correct ways to act and think around the topic. For that, I am grateful.
Key takeaways
- The West has had a view of animal capability for suffering, of their worth, that has gone full circle from Pythagorean compassion to Christian slavery to Cartesian automata and back again to compassion.
- Factory farming is a horror show. Of course I already knew that but being given detailed descriptions always gives a renewed "appreciation" for the magnitude of the horror.
- Activism demands much of the activist. In order to be effective, you have to be pragmatic, consistent and systematic in your approach. Use cognitive empathy and meet people where they are. Being right is very rarely enough.
August 6, 2021
Thought-provoking and detailed. This book covers several areas of animal rights, from eating meat to zoos to testing on animals, and each is as heart-breaking as the next. It starts out with more philosophical and historical attitudes about animals, which I was less interested in, but then moved on to essays about the harmful impacts of various practices, like battery farming, then finally explores activism.
This book is fairly old now, so a lot of the information is outdated and potentially inaccurate (especially regarding laws around certain practices, as well as statistics) but the main sentiment is the same.
I was especially interested in the following chapters, although they were also the most graphic and shocking to read:
- Chapter 7: Brave new farm?
- Chapter 8: Outlawed in Europe
- Chapter 9: Against Zoos
- Chapter 11: How Austria achieved a historic breakthrough for animals
I also noted down this quote because it really summed up the chapter and the idea of the book:
'The minister felt that as a vegan I was not in a position to debate animal husbandry, to which I replied that only vegans can truly talk on behalf of animals, as they are the only ones without any personal interest in using animals.'
If you eat meat/eat eggs/visit zoos/wear fur/buy products which are tested on animals, this book will most likely make you reconsider some of your choices. And as it says in one of the chapters, we don't all have to be perfect in every way, so if becoming vegetarian seems impossible, even just trying to reduce your meat intake will be beneficial. After reading this book, I imagine most meat-eaters won't eat meat for a while.
This book is fairly old now, so a lot of the information is outdated and potentially inaccurate (especially regarding laws around certain practices, as well as statistics) but the main sentiment is the same.
I was especially interested in the following chapters, although they were also the most graphic and shocking to read:
- Chapter 7: Brave new farm?
- Chapter 8: Outlawed in Europe
- Chapter 9: Against Zoos
- Chapter 11: How Austria achieved a historic breakthrough for animals
I also noted down this quote because it really summed up the chapter and the idea of the book:
'The minister felt that as a vegan I was not in a position to debate animal husbandry, to which I replied that only vegans can truly talk on behalf of animals, as they are the only ones without any personal interest in using animals.'
If you eat meat/eat eggs/visit zoos/wear fur/buy products which are tested on animals, this book will most likely make you reconsider some of your choices. And as it says in one of the chapters, we don't all have to be perfect in every way, so if becoming vegetarian seems impossible, even just trying to reduce your meat intake will be beneficial. After reading this book, I imagine most meat-eaters won't eat meat for a while.
March 21, 2021
Some sections are out of date, but, overall, this is a great resource.
January 17, 2021
A brilliant collection of essays and constantly refreshing insight from a multitude of perspectives. The third section of this book - activists and their strategies - was surprisingly interesting and informative, containing useful insight into effective advocacy and opposition, whilst simultaneously reinforcing the ethical position (as established in section one - the ideas) and exemplifying standard practice (as outlined in section two - the problems).
Essays of particular interest include ones on utilitarianism, personhood and effective activism - all of which I have learned a great deal from and encourage anyone interested in animal ethics to do so aswell.
Essays of particular interest include ones on utilitarianism, personhood and effective activism - all of which I have learned a great deal from and encourage anyone interested in animal ethics to do so aswell.
June 4, 2017
In defense of animals is a collection of essays written by different authors, highlighting different aspects of compassion and animal defense. It is divided in three parts: The ideas (why animals should not be harmed), The problems (why laboratory testing, industrial farming, zoos and eating animals are wrong), and The activists and their strategies (how to achieve the goals of changing legislation in favor of animals, how to have prosperous businesses without hurting animals, and how to advocate in favor of animal rights).
I always enjoy these collections of essays from different authors, as they provide the reader with different perspectives and tools to address the challenges that those of us who care both about human and non-human animals face every day.
A recommended book, indeed!
I always enjoy these collections of essays from different authors, as they provide the reader with different perspectives and tools to address the challenges that those of us who care both about human and non-human animals face every day.
A recommended book, indeed!
April 3, 2017
The book Animal Defenses, is another great book in a great informational series, Wild Wild World. There may not be a story, but I still enjoyed it very much. If you are an animal person, this book is for you. The great description of the animals and their abilities got me lured in. There is lots of information, so you don’t feel like you’re reading a broken record.
Strangely, I could actually relate to some of the animals. The animal arsenal is unpredictable, and some animals are as introverted as me. I especially liked learning all the new information. The world of animals is always growing, and this gives me some incite on some of the most recent discoveries. It opens my mind to some inspiration, and maybe I can use some of the things I learned in life.
For those interested in our cousins in fur, feathers, and fins, this book is for you. Not only that, but some short stories written about animals are included in some parts of the book, for those who like stories. However, this book, like most things, are not perfect. I often lost my place, due to little side paragraphs, and pictures take up most of the pages, good thing these are big pages. Overall, the book Animal Defenses is a good informational book with interesting things to last for a long time, and I give it five starfish.
Strangely, I could actually relate to some of the animals. The animal arsenal is unpredictable, and some animals are as introverted as me. I especially liked learning all the new information. The world of animals is always growing, and this gives me some incite on some of the most recent discoveries. It opens my mind to some inspiration, and maybe I can use some of the things I learned in life.
For those interested in our cousins in fur, feathers, and fins, this book is for you. Not only that, but some short stories written about animals are included in some parts of the book, for those who like stories. However, this book, like most things, are not perfect. I often lost my place, due to little side paragraphs, and pictures take up most of the pages, good thing these are big pages. Overall, the book Animal Defenses is a good informational book with interesting things to last for a long time, and I give it five starfish.
April 11, 2013
This is the most comprehensive book I've read on human relations with non-human animals. I've read a few books on factory farming, but here Singer also collects essays discussing arguments for and against zoos and animal testing. This section discussing real life issues involving our relationships with other animals comes after philosophical essays on the moral implications of our treatment of animals. I learned about speciesism, how our views on animals are shaped by different religions, and why some people eat or don't eat other primates in the essay "To Eat The Laughing Animal". The third and last section of the book includes inspiring stories from activists around the world, and even advice on how you can also be a positive and effective force in animal protection. I'll definitely be reading this again.
September 3, 2020
W książce tej znajdziemy rozważania nad pojęciem utylitaryzmu w kontekście zwierząt, rozłożenie na czynniki pierwsze pojęcia bólu i cierpienia czy też aspekty religijne i odwoływanie się w nich do zwierząt, co osobiście ciekawi mnie najbardziej. Biorąc pod uwagę zmieniające się warunki, technologie, książka ta na nowo buduje morale oraz poszukuje rozwiązań do zastałych czasów. Zwierzęta cierpią cały czas i choć udało się wiele na przestrzeni lat poprawić, to nadal zmierzamy się z nowymi technologiami i rosnącą konsumpcją. Spokojnie mogę polecić jako jedna z lepszych książek o zwierzętach.
Pełna recenzja tu: https://hodowlaslow.pl/w-obronie-zwie...
Pełna recenzja tu: https://hodowlaslow.pl/w-obronie-zwie...
September 6, 2016
Great book on the animal rights movement; edited by Peter Singer. A collection of essays from influential people within the movement on topics like factory farming, the idea of 'self', animal intelligence, the relation between activists and the media, etc. Really good introductory book, as the topics are dealt with in short segments, by a wide range of authors. Makes you think.............
June 19, 2019
An interesting compilation of essays on a variety of topics related to animal ethics and animal activism. I think it is definitely worthwhile reading, despite the information not being quite up to date. In fact, because of when it was published it gives a nice insight into the animal activism scene in the early 1980s.
January 29, 2016
Informative book but not totally persuasive, I think he had flaws in the extension of some of his arguments.
May 22, 2016
Good introduction into the subjects and issues surrounding the way humans treat animals.
The books should be modernised (graphics, themes, content) if it is to appeal to a wider audience.
The books should be modernised (graphics, themes, content) if it is to appeal to a wider audience.
Read
July 14, 2016Never realized the extent of the animal movement till I read this.
August 24, 2016
Some interesting, thought-provoking essays on the animal rights movement and its tactics and flaws.
January 5, 2016
Very informative and interesting read. Very good points and plenty of helpful information.
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews