Rating: 
Summary: The premiere introduction to modern animal-welfare advocacy
Review: Peter Singer is possibly the most famous living philosopher in the world, and this book is an excellent reason to find out why. His arguments start from premises that almost everyone accepts, and they carefully and logically proceed to conclusions which are definately outside the mainstream of typical opinion (to put it mildly). This book is at once accessible and controversial, and evokes strong opinions -- you either love it or hate it, with very few people in the middle.The good: The book is comprehensive, attempting to answer both the "why" and the "how" of animal liberation. It provides a decent, although not thorough, overview of most of the shocking treatment of animals raised for human consumption and at times might be very difficult to read. Singer's arguments are not mere emotive appeals and are top-notch. The bad: Although understandable in a book that is aimed at a popular audience, Singer doesn't really go into the foundations of his ethics at all -- there's no answer to "why be ethical?" addressed in the book; instead it assumes that the reader already agrees that one should be ethical and procedes from there. The footnotes are decent but could be more comprehensive, and at times Singer gets a little wordy, which detracts from the impact of his arguments. However, these detractions are minor compared with the overall quality of the book. The ugly: Most people who read and disagree with Animal Liberation fall into one of two traps. First, they assume that Singer is arguing for animal rights, and trot out a bunch of arguments about moral agency and so forth. However, Singer specifically does not argue for rights, and his ethical system in general is not based on them (he's a utilitarian). (For a look at a rights-based animal welfare defense, please check out some books or articles by Tom Regan.) The second mistaken criticism people tend to make is essentially "Singer's conclusions are very different from mainstream thought! They're obviously ridiculous!" -- i.e., they don't address the quality of the arguments themselves. This is not to say that there aren't any good rebuttals to Singer's positions, merely that these ain't them. In conclusion, this book is required reading for anyone interested in the way humans treat and think about other species, or anyone interested in the genesis of the modern animal-welfare movement. Highly recommended!
Rating:
Summary: The bible of Animal Rights,and this from a former carnivore!
Review: No matter what anyone thinks of Mr. Singers other philosophical opinions it is hard to refute the arguments in this book regarding the way in which we treat animals. Singer is so convincing that, although Utilitarian himself, he usually relies on more general well accepted ethical principles to justify his arguments.
To all the people who have read the book and disagree I ask this: Is there nothing wrong with me slowly toturing a cat if that is how I get my jollies? Of course the answer is Yes. It would take a cold heart indeed to say that torturing a cat is no worse than breaking a inanimate rock into two. So torturing a cat (or dog, or cow etc.) for fun is wrong, we can agree. Now, let us say that I don't like torturing the cat but I do like a certain noise the cat makes when I torture it. I can only make the cat make this noise when I torture it. And I'll even grant that I REALLY like this noise, it gives me a great deal of pleasure. Is it now OK for me to torture the cat to retrieve my desired noise. NO. Of course not. In fact most people would rightly say that this is just as bad as torturing the cat just to torture it. Next let's imagine that I can't bear to torture cats on my own but, I still want that noise! So, I pay a guy to torture the cat for me and then tape record the noise and deliver it to me. And since I get sick after one listening, I have him do this over and over again. Is this wrong? Of course. Common sense (and any reputable moral theory)says that it's just as bad as tortuing the cat in the first place. If you have agreed with the argument so far you wont be hard to persuade when you read Singer's great book for as he tells us, this process is exactly what we do to animals in order to eat them! We pay people to torture them (given the macroeconomic scale in which they must be produced, extremely torturous enviroments are inevitable) and then deliver the "food" to us. It's just wrong. And to those people who say that "since they can't be moral themselves why should we treat them morally?" I ask, "would it be alright to torture babies or severly mentally retarded people?" Both these groups can not engage morally but both would be wrong to make suffer.
---These are the kind of revelations that occur page by page in Animal Liberation. If you are a devout carnivore, as I was, I promise that after reading this book you will realize that there are still more important things in the world then the momentarlily satisfactions of the palate. Read it!
Rating:
Summary: a most important read
Review: This book changed my life
Rating:
Summary: Truly eye-opening book
Review: I used to think that animal rights was so clearly wrong-headed that I didn't understand what its supporters could be thinking, but reading this book has totally changed my worldview, as it has to many others to whom I've recommended it. The case for animals rights is generally misunderstood, and this book is eye-opening. It is very easy to read, very lucid, and extremely informative. More than that, it's logic is so simple and compelling, it leaves you amazed that you never thought of this yourself, and wondering why you'd never heard it before. I recommend it as strongly as possible. It is nothing less than a triumph of reason, and a step forward for humanity.
Rating:
Summary: do you really want to know
Review: I read excerpts from this book flipping through it in a bookstore. I got so sick that I sat down in the floor and leaned up against the wall. I couldn't stand to read any more. Oh, what we do to animals in the name of...what reason is good enough?
Rating: 
Summary: Singer & Utilitarianism
Review: I'm not quite sure how anyone could exhibit a question-begging response from reading AL -- even if you disagree with his assumptions or moral relevance, the philosophical argument he explicates is quite clear and thorough. A reviewer stated that nothing in Singer's contention prevented us from extending his 'protective moral circle' to plants and insects -- EVERYTHING in his argument prevents us from their inclusion. Plants and insects would not be considered sentient beings and he would therefore disagree with your claim that "they suffer" at all, thus they are not afforded any type of moral consideration under his argument. Moreover, he would not promote cannibalism on the pure basis that the cannibalee was painlessly put to death. Rather, the aggregate sum of the pain incurred by the cannibalee (not just physical pain experienced by death, but likewise the denial of all future life prospects, goals, experiences, and potential pleasure) would need to be more than offset by the pleasure the occasion brought to the cannibal (eating him). Furthermore, his utilitarian claim, extended to children having their senile parents put to death, is purely subjective and case-based. The senile parent, depending on their exact condition, would most likely have a decreased sense in their capacity to experience pleasure (at least insofar as being able to call past pleasurable experiences), very restricted potential in realizing future goals and pursuing them, etc. In contrast the children could be gravely suffering -- pained by seeing their parent in such a condition day after day, personally burdened and affected by their constant needs, financially overwhelmed by medical expenses, and so on. I do not believe Singer is saying that senile parents OUGHT to be put to death, but through the application of utilitarianism (pain rendered to the parent vs. benefits accrued by children), a case can be made to justify such action. I am in no way claiming that Singer's employment of utilitarianism as a basis for animal rights or the killing of seniles is valid -- but his argumentation, which some are distorting and misperceiving, is quite methodical.
Rating:
Summary: Radical Animal Welfarism
Review: Though this book may have been dubbed "The Animal Rights Bible" - it is interesting to note that nowhere in Singer's argument does he make a case for "rights" for animals. Singer's system of ethics is comprised of a form of utilitarianism that takes into account the interests of nonhuman animals. Thus, Singer's book is not an argument for "rights" for animals - Instead it is work intended to make a case for expanding our circle of compassion by considering the immense amount of unecessary suffering inflicted upon the nonhuman animal world by human institutions. In order to understand Singer's perspective, the reader must be willing to open their mind to the idea that our society is capable of change, and that we indeed can strive to live in peace with the nonhuman creatures with whom we share the Earth. Thus, an open-minded reader may be able to share in a vision of a more peaceful world in which we view other animals as creatures who are worthy of experiencing their own life - rather than as simple automatons that exist to be exploited as objects for human consumption.
Rating:
Summary: talk like a human being, feel the way animals do.
Review: im a 17 year old girl and i have yet to read this book. but my opinion of the people who wrote these other online reviews on it dont know what they are talking about. first of all, they cant be reading this book if they arnt vegitarian or vegan. how could they possibly understand what a veganist feels if they havnt gone through the same emotions and feelings as an activist. it makes no sense to me how alot of these other 45 year old people can come on here and make up these reviews of these books that have gone through so much research and still be saying that they dont see alot of the points singer is making.
Rating:
Summary: Any Factory Farmed Edible is Bad News
Review: While Singer should be applauded for his views on animal experimentation, his understandable abhorrence to factory farming and the alternative of vegetarianism needs further examination and exploration. That examination and exploration is provided in such texts as Michael Pollan's 'Botany of Desire' and Richard Manning's 'Food Frontiers' where it is disclosed that factory farming in North America goes beyond animals, it also applies to most of the fruits and vegetables available in our supermarkets. So what's the answer? How should we proceed when it comes to our consumption of food? Singer touches on this briefly when he states that he can respect conscientious people who care to eat only meat that comes from free-range animals that are killed quickly. Such animals are invariably raised on small family owned farms whose existence depends upon the conscientious consumer, not a corporate dictate that puts profit before the welfare of people or animals. It follows that whether it be meat, eggs, fruit or vegetable, it is far better for our environment and ourselves if we develop supportive relationships with local food suppliers/farmers wherever possible. The occurence of BSE (mad cow disease) in the United Kingdom and more recently in North America speaks volumes about what is happening now, and what will happen in the future if we don't support the small guys.
Rating:
Summary: Must Read!
Review: The most important book I've ever read. I only wish I'd read it sooner.
|
