Rating: 
Summary: Human/animal liberation
Review: I reread this again after a Times article on the issues and found this book as good as it ever was, clear to the point, and as such one of the most important books of the last generation, albeit with potential philosophic flaws. Since the author's argument has been entirely successful in its influence, he must be doing something right, and one might hesitate to critique its minor flaws. The basic issue Singer raises is so fundamental, as one surveys the maleficent beef culture that has swept the planet, and turned American culture into an orgy of Big Mac goons in the frivolous marketizaton of carnivore snacking. One can only shake one's head at the damage accelerating since the first appearance of this book, and the movement associated with it. What's wrong with people? Jain saddhus were vegetarian (supervegetarians) millennia ago, before even Gautama Buddha. Vegetarianism is an apsect of man's true evolutionary psychology, and no apology to Darwinists is required there. That raises one point I might reconsider(in my own use of this book, respecting the different perspectives here)in the thrust of Singer's thesis, his overreliance on Darwinism. The influence of Darwin in showing the natural continuity of man and animal is so greatly to be welcomed that one hesitates to point out that speciesism rebutted in the name of Darwin doesn't completely answer the question as to the nature of man, or his real evolution, as the example of the ancient Jains might make clear. Can't modern thought ever recover the 'real knowledge of man' now lost to winds?
In any case, this work is must reading. What to say of animals, liberate the man-animal, klutz and homo non-sapiens bigmacensis.
Rating:
Summary: A must read for all ethically aware people
Review: This is no work on political philosophy, it is a work on moral philosophy. The ethical reasoning of Singer throughout is very clear and illuminating. Let no reader feel intimidated by Singer's status in the academic world of philosophical studies; though has been a professor of ethics at Princeton, he knows just how important his work is both for all people and for all animals, and as a consequence he makes his arguments perspicuous for all levels of intellect. This may be its main drawback for a serious student of philosophy, that Singer oversimplifies on occasion, or even ignores some complex arguments, for the sake of making his message accessible to all readers. This really only becomes a problem (and rarely at that) when he treats various problems in the section on more modern research into the area of animal ethical issues. For instance, Singer claims that if we think we can justify the killing of animals for food because they lack human intelligence levels (presumably), then the killing of human infants for the same reason would also be justifiable. He says that some critics may point out that the potential inherent in human infants makes this a different case, and this Singer is willing to admit. Though he does not admit that he lacks arguments to answer his critics' claims, he says the complexities of the argument are too intricate for the aims of Animal Liberation, to reach the widest amount of readers without putting them off by pedantic arguments. Furthermore, he argues that anything that can suffer should not be forced against its will/interests to suffer, so there is no problem with killing plants. Furthermore, if one were deluded enough to think plants did suffer, the amount of total suffering in the world would still be dramatically decreased if all people went to a vegetarian diet, because the amounts of plants harvested to feed livestock bred for slaughter are much greater than the amounts that would be needed to feed human vegetarians.
Rating: 
Summary: A seminal but flawed book.
Review: First, there is no mistaking this book's importance as a work of political philosophy, as a work justifying animal rights, and as an anthem for vegitarians everywhere. As such, this book should not be missed by anyone interested in any of the above.However (and perhaps this could not have been avoided by Singer), this book is neither a book of political philosophy, nor is it a book about animal rights, nor is it a book about vegitarianism, per se. Instead, this book is an amalgam of all three, and as such, it necessarily must sacrifices depth for scope. Singer's treatment of the subject has the positive effect of serving as a good primer for anybody cursorily interested in animal rights or broaching the subject for the first time. I believe this was his main goal in writing the book. Unfortunately, however, this format leaves the interested reader unsatisfied and forced to look elsewhere to fill the holes left by Singer's treatment. For example, Singer justifies animal rights with the philosophical doctrine of Utilitarianism. Simply put, Singer argues that humans should not eat animals because the benefit (or utility) to humans is outweighed by the harm (or disutility) to the animals prior to humans consuming them. Many animal advocates will be surprised to read that Singer's theory allows for the eating of animals (so long as the animals are treated well prior to consuming them), but strangely does not justify stopping there. In other words, there is nothing in Singer's theory to prevent us from applying his philosophy to prevent our eating insects and plants (who also suffer for our benefit, and without which the human species would die out) or, conversely, preventing humans from engaging in cannibalism (so long as the cannibal painlessly consumed the cannibalee). Singer's book is important, and was especially important when it was first written, but it often leaves more questions unanswered than it answers. Recommended, but if you're not already familiar with Utilitarian doctrine, I'd supplement this work with John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism, as well as critiques on Utilitarianism, to understand more fully the strengths and weaknesses of relying on this doctrine to justify political right.
Rating:
Summary: Among the Great Books of Importance for Society
Review: This book should be read by anyone who wants to be, or thinks they are, a member of a "non-discriminating" society. I first read this book seven years ago, and it changed my life forever-- and having been raised by a scientist, in addition to being stubborn to a fault, I do not concede to any argument unless it is razor-sharp and extremely thorough. Singer's are sharp, and will cut your heart out. Basing his arguments on scientific observation, the philosophy of ethics, and stern logic, this book seamlessly challenges the mainstream beliefs of our society. Warning: Don't read this book if you are a conformist or are afraid of change. However, if you EVER in your life plan to participate an argument for or against the case for animal rights or vegetarianism I would highly suggest you read this book first. Otherwise you will merely be uninformed and therefore annoying. Nuff said. READ THE BOOK.
Rating:
Summary: Schopenhauer?
Review: Well,folks,I Love This Book.In a moral way,Animals are better then Humans..I Will not say more,just read some Schopenhauer stuff and...Sorry for my english :)
Rating: 
Summary: Marred by Fallacious Reasoning
Review: Singer's position seems to be that since certain animals are mistreated, all legitimate experiments and uses of animals for food should be halted. That seems to me to be a grossly exaggerated position which smacks of fallacious reasoning. To put it another way, it is an example of what cognitive psychologists refer to as "All-or-Nothing Thinking". I don't doubt that the abuses that Singer describes have occurred in the past, but that is not a sufficient reason to cease all experiments, which have demonstrably improved the lot of mankind. We can work together to improve the conditions of animals used for research. Similarly, we can work to improve the lot of animals raised for food, without losing the benefits which they provide.
Rating:
Summary: Among the most important books of all time!!
Review: This book is to human development as the Bible is to the spiritual understanding of Christianity. It is the first place to start when one needs to find the answer to what we are really made of. Peter Singer has given the world a clear and easily understood insight into ourselves and the way we function. One cannot help but to come away from reading this book, with self-empowerment, as our consciousness is enlightened to knowing that we can make choices based on possibilities we never knew existed. This is a book for anyone who has ever looked for the answer to questions like, "Who are we?", and "What am I doing here?", and, "Why is there so much suffering?" It is a science book and it is a spiritual book and it is a political book, all bundled in a splendidly written and easily comprehended manual for human growth. It is classic. It is timeless. It is indispensible. It is a necessary edition to any home library.
Rating:
Summary: Understanding Nonhuman Rights
Review: Speciesism and nonhumans. Use nonhuman instead of animal because saying animal separates humans from nonhumans, making us more superior. We are animals, and we should learn this. Say this, because many humans think that Homo sapiens are more important than any other species on earth. This is known as speciesism. I learned of these words, and I'm giving Mr. Singer thanks and gratitude for writing his book. I already am a huge animal activist, but now that I read his book, I can now enlighten others to read the book, and about how animals are treated unfairly with proof from the book. Peter Singer writes about more in his book than what is above. I'm giving you examples of how intelligent he is, and how much he cares about nonhuman rights. If you read this book, I can assure you that you will learn of all the unnecessary testing and other horrible things that are done to nonhumans. Read this book so you can learn and help all those animals! I bet you didn't even know that you pay taxes for nonhuman experiments that are worthless! This is a great start for the new nonhuman activist, or a great addition to any nonhuman rights collection!
Rating:
Summary: EXTREMELY IMPORTANT WORK, MUST BE READ.
Review: IF YOU ARE TO READ ONLY ONE BOOK ABOUT ANIMAL LIBERATION, OR ONE BOOK PERIOD IN YOUR LIFETIME, THIS SHOULD BE THE ONE. JUST READ IT ONCE, THE AMOUNT AND TIME SPENT WILL BE MORE THAN WELL WORTH IT. SINGER'S ANIMAL LIBERATION IS VERY INTELLIGENT, PHILOSOPHICAL, THOUGHT PROVOKING, for beautiful souls sometimes painful, BUT BE OPEN.. JUST READ IT ONCE..OUT OF RESPECT FOR MOTHER EARTH, YOUR FELLOW EARTHLINGS, FOR BEAUTY AND ENRICHMENT TO YOUR MIND AND SOUL.
Rating:
Summary: A waste of ink
Review: Animal Liberation has some interesting points on the surface, but the more thought you put into the arguments, the less persuasive and more ridiculous Singer's arguments become. I first encountered Singer's writings in college, and was unpersuaded then. His further forays into "ethics" in regards to euthanasia, infanticide, and--recently--bestiality bear further witness to the intellectual and ethical bankruptcy of Singer's philosophy. His is an exercise in extendio ad absurdam from which few, it seems, have managed to divine the absurdity.
|
