Rating: 
Summary: Consistently and sensibly argued.
Review: It's quite stunning to see how those who (be)rated this book negatively fail to notice the manifest purport of Singer's book, which is not to be an advocacy of animal "rights" -for arguing the existence of "rights", also with regard to humans, in a non-juridical sense seems in itself impossible- but of moral duties which we are obliged to regard towards non-humans. A crucial distinction, for if one reflects on the reason wherefore one holds it to be immoral to harm one's fellow humans, it is quite unlikely one would find that reason to be the "right" of his fellow humans not to be harmed, nor -as one reviewer here seemed to contend, and which I felt was quite ludicrous- the humanity per se of one's fellow humans. Much more probable is that one would find the reason to be this, that one knows that one's fellow humans don't take a liking towards physical or mental pain, and that therefore one abstains from inducing that pain into one's fellow humans. It hardly seems odd -as Singer does- to on that account consider the morality of acts in the light of their total effect on the well-being of humans or non-humans.By concentrating on the impossibility to argue for animal "rights", some reviewers here concluded that on account of their apparent absence (for animals are not "moral agents") there exist no duties towards animals, neglecting thereby the autonomous existence of moral duties, much in the sense as Singer proposed. Insofar such reviewers would argue that beings who cannot entertain moral reflections can themselves not be the object of our moral reflections, they miss the point that the animals' inability to cogitate morality has no bearing on their capability to suffer or experience joy: in that quality, where the morality of acts (as said) should be measured by their effect in sum on the "general" well-being, we are obliged to include them into our sphere of ethic norms. Abovementioned reviewers also fail to take note, by stating that humans DO have moral "rights", that it is equally unfeasible to logically substruct and found such "rights". At best one might say that, where the one has a duty (which CAN be adstrued) the other MUST have a "right". Yet the dependence of this "right" upon the duty is apparent. The independent non-juridical moral "right" cannot -be it of humans or not- be evidenced (at least has not: no source for such "rights", except corresponding duties, has been supplied), wherefore those who uphold the believe that, because animals have no moral "rights" they equally lack moral significance, those people should realise that such reasoning also entails the moral insignificance of humans. In conclusion then, Singer is, so it seems, on the right track in his book. His dissentors seem to, by and large, either misinterpret his intentions or, correctly interpreting them, nonetheless fail to undermine the validity of his statements and thus also misinterpret, not in that case the tenor of the statements, but their susceptibility to refutation... Singer then rightly said that his arguments have not yet been refuted, and indeed, I add, seem irrefutable.
Rating: 
Summary: A Philosophy Book That's Light on Actual Philsophy
Review: As an animal rights advocate for about 8 years, I figured that it was finally time to read "Animal Liberation", hailed as the "Bible" of the modern animal rights movement. Altogether, the book was somewhat disappointing - it's a philosophy book without much philosophical discussion! Singer does an excellent job of detailing the evils and follies of animal experimentation and animal agriculture. Though the first edition was released before I was even born (in 1978), he does thoroughly update the information for the newest edition (however, it was revised way back in '91, so the information is once again out of date). That's really about all "Animal Liberation" is useful for, though - gathering evidence and formulating arguments against the two largest forms of animal exploitation. As a philosophy book, "Animal Liberation" fails miserably. I've learned about Singer's philosophy by reading works by other AR philosophers (most notably, Gary Francione), so I had some background before picking up "AL". Good thing, because Singer only devotes one chapter (out of six) to his animal liberation philosophy. He never really elaborates on or fully explains his principles, leaving the reader to fill in the gaps. After reading "AL", I knew little more about Singer's beliefs than I did before picking it up. Furthermore, while Singer does rely on commonsensical logic, he never makes use of more advanced logic (as most philosophers do). "AL" is a philosophy book, written by a philosopher, but you'd never know this just by reading it! "AL" is a decent introduction to factory farming and vivisection, but it flounders at its primary task - presenting a comprehensive AR philosophy. What's especially ironic is that, though he's hailed as the godfather of the AR movement, Singer doesn't even endorse animal rights per se - rather, he's a proponent of a more ethical approach to animals. Also of note is the fact that Singer is a defender of infanticide and bestiality - which (in my opinion) does not make him the best representative of the AR movement. On a positive note, though, "AL" is a very easy read, since there's no cumbersome philosophy to slow the reader down! I would recommend that all animal rights advocates read "AL", if only because it's one of the most popular and commonly cited animal rights philosophy books. However, I would also urge anyone who's interested in the humane and ethical treatment of animals to also read works by Gary Francione and Tom Regan.
Rating: 
Summary: Flawed Book From a Flawed Thinker
Review: Peter Singer tries and, as usual, fails. His grasp of ethics is frighteningly shaky for a man whose field is ethics. Singer, for example, trumpets the importance of "animal liberation" at the same time he defends in other works the morality of infanticide and bestiality. Singer's entire philosophical anthropology is flawed, inherently contradictory, and, ultimately, leads to grotesqueries (such as his aforementioned support for infanticide and defense of bestiality). Skip this book and pick up _Dominion_ by Matthew Scully instead.
Rating: 
Summary: Great Book!
Review: wonderfully writen! very interesting and an important subject!
Rating:
Summary: A real eye opener
Review: This is an amazing book for anyone interested or curious about the treatment of animals. I was already aware of the treatment of animals but I was still shocked to read about how few rights animals do actually have. I'm a vegan, so the chapter on Vegetarianism was anything new to me, but it was still interesting. A lot of people don't think about the conditions of farm or lab animals... some may not want to know. I just hope that after reading this book people will do something.. whether it be going vegetarian, buying cruelty free products or even donating some time or money to help those who have no voices.
Rating:
Summary: The book that revolutionised the animal rights movement
Review: Animal Liberation discusses the deep, dark realities of the relentless suffering of animals for man's selfishly concocted needs. It's a philosophical discussion of mankinds discrimination that has existed for far too long and requires the effort of every human being to rectify. Singer's views may seem extreme and radical, but it i precisely that perception which prevents the structural reform necessary to see an end if not a progression towards the end, of the indoctrines and long taught mindsets of society and civilisation. Singer reminds us that we are essentially what we desire ourselves to be and our judgements do not belong to us but to the subliminal social oppession that has led us to think as such. I would encourage persons in woman's, anti-racist, religous and the animal movement, if not everyone else, to read this book at least once, whole or in part, in their lifetime.
Rating:
Summary: Great Book very thought provoking
Review: You may not agree with everything Singer says but you will respect him for his ability to use pure logic and facts to back up his beliefs. Someone made the comment that Singer says in his book that it is not okay to kill pigs but perfectly fine to kill the senile and mentally challenged. This is NOT what Singer is saying. Whoever said that clearly didn't read the book, merely skimmed its contents or is just not very intelligent. He makes the very compelling point that we cannot justify the torture (not killing, torture, there IS a difference) of another species simply because we view them as less intelligent. If we are to use intelligence as our logical guideline on our right to torture living creatures, then it would be perfectly logical to torture someone who is mentally handicapped or senile since they do not have the mental capacity of the average human. Of course, Singer does NOT advocate killing people. That would just be asinine! He makes an analogy which is something that eluded some reviewers who obviously didn't pass 8th grade English and don't know how to read an analogy. At any rate, this is only one of many points that Singer brings up in this compelling and thought provoking book. No one said you have to agree Singer, he doesn't insist in any way that you convert to vegetarianism. He is merely pointing out that the logic that we base our thought processes on are not the only point of view and are not entirely based in reality. He points out that there are different ways of looking at things than the normal, institutionalized view of our world. If you are a student of philosophy, you will enjoy thinking about this book and appreciate it for its ability to provoke new and interesting philosophical debates. If you are an animal advocate, you will enjoy this book for its eloquent and compelling points. If you are just a person seeking knowledge, you will enjoy learning about other points of view. The book is somewhat disturbing as is any book that shows the darker side of human nature but it is worth the read. Overall, it is a very strong case for granting rights to animals of all species, including the human species. I recommend this book if you are a perpetual student and seeker of knowledge. Even if you don't agree with Singer and his philosophies, it is a good read.
Rating: 
Summary: Moral imbecility:
Review: Singer illustrates the underlying moral imbecility of Utilitarianism, which identifies evil with suffering. This leads to absurdity; the current PETA campaign, comparing farming with the Holocaust, is one logical result -- Hitler believed Jews deserve no more consideration than pigs, and in our day People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals believe exactly the same thing. Singer has reasoned himself into the same position of moral imbecility, in which it's unethical to kill pigs but perfectly all right to kill newborn human infants, or the senile. The problem with Utilitarianism is, of course, that suffering of itself is merely a physical phenomenon. There's no inherent reason for it to have any _moral_ importance. The assumption that pain is "Bad", in the moral sense, as opposed to simply being unpleasant for those animals or humans who feel it, is purely arbitrary and has no logical basis. Only those who've been taken in by the foggy-minded confusion of empathy with ethics will be fooled. Human suffering has (some) moral significance, in some circumstances. Not because it is suffering, but because it is human, and only humans are moral agents. Animal suffering has no more moral significance than a rise or fall in the air temperature. Does this make me a speciesist? Of course. I'm also a wettist -- I believe water is wet.
Rating:
Summary: Great Work, Warped Writer
Review: First, let me say that I haven't read this whole book, just a little bit here and a little bit there. The reason being is that I won't spend money that would benefit someone I find disgusting. I have read many of his other writings which either exhibit warped logic (beastiality is OK because the animals are consenting) and warped values (parents of children with any handicap should get 6 months after birth to decide to kill them because they aren't "persons", and we should allow families to kill relatives with Alzheimer's disease or other disorders if they decide they are a burden- they aren't "persons either.") Just goes to show, a brilliant mind can find words to justify anything. I find it interesting that animal rights advocates put him on a pedestal while overlooking the less desirable ideas from this Princeton philosophy professor.
Rating:
Summary: Radically Logical
Review: This is hefty reading that shocked, nauseated, and challenged me. The title conjured up images of radical activists breaking into egg-farms and laboratories to free the animals. That however, is definitely not what this book is about. Instead, Singer provides an emotion-less, logical, argument that will force any thinker to make some serious lifestyle changes to stop or at least drastically reduce the use of non-human animals for food or science.
|
