Rating: 
Summary: Responsibility of being human...
Review: Thank you, Mr. Singer, for your important work. It's true that of all the species, we have been given the most privledges but certainly not without the greatest responsibility. I was raised on a ranch where it was commonplace to kill animals for food, which is why I stopped eating meat. It was NOT a sacrafice to give it up. It was the right thing to do. I think most people who oppose animal rights are fearful for a variety of reasons, i.e., giving up traditional eating habits (even if it means a much healthier diet). And fear and ignorance are the basis of all cruelty. I'm glad there are writers like Mr. Singer who can help persaude people to take action and make the world a better (and a lot less violent) place for all creatures. Why wouldn't we want that for our children?
Rating:
Summary: An Essential Example of Contemporary Philosophy
Review: Singer's ANIMAL LIBERATION is one of the most persuasive pieces of writing on issues relating to "non-human animals" that I have ever read. Indeed, it's right up there with Neitzsche and Thoreau for brilliant, passionate, unimpeachable logic. The fact that Singer's work creates such polarized responses is evidence of its importance and urgency, it seems to me. Whether or not you agree, you owe it to yourself to be acquainted with this thinker, and this is a fine place to start. Meanwhile, I too will add that this book really did change the way I live. I'm not sure I will ever eat another hamburger.
Rating: 
Summary: One Can Reject Human/Animal Egalitarianism And Still Be kind
Review: Peter Singer is to be commended for informing us about the cruelty inflicted upon animals occurring in many testing labs and farms. The author sounds an alarm that should upset and prompt us to demand immediate reforms. This alone makes the book well worth reading. I am not a vegetarian and have absolutely no intention of ever opting for this lifestyle. Nevertheless, I want those creatures on the lower levels of the food chain treated as kindly as possible. This also goes for animals experimented upon for our benefit. Realistic criteria must indeed be devised to assure that any experiments on animals are truly necessary and painless as possible. Do animals have per se rights? This abstract debate can be avoided, and we are still morally compelled to address the issues of mistreatment.Singer, however, goes too far when advocating an absolute equality between humans and animals. Some of his followers attempt to present a false dichotomy between equal consideration and absolute equality between the world's diverse species. This seems to me quite disingenuous. We would essentially still end up placing the animal kingdom on equal footing with human beings. This cannot be tolerated for pragmatic reasons. I have no interest in merely referring to tracts of a theological faith dimension to justify my criticism. The atheistic evolutionary alternative writings based on pure reason are also pertinent to this discussion. It may, regrettably, in some respects be pointless to advance a well put together logical argument claiming that humans are superior to animals. One either may or may not embrace this premise. The bottom line, though, is that humans must ultimately, and arbitrarily, if necessary, assert their primacy in order to make any sense of their basic existential urge to find meaning in life. A human child, for instance, must be valued over an animal, or we diminish the importance of every living person. This line has to be drawn in the sand. We either reject Singer's animal egalitarianism, or the human race is doomed. A general consensus that human life is of the highest value is the only thing inhibiting our innate natural inclination to indulge in ruthless savagery. I am sure that Peter Singer is a well meaning man, but inadvertently he is the enemy of civilization. Good intentions do not always overcome a dangerous philosophy. The reader should take this overall book with a huge grain of salt. Singer, though, still deserves credit for at least forcing us to reevaluate our past abuse of animals. Singer is right to hold our feet to the fire until we do better.
Rating:
Summary: A powerful book.....
Review: I was made to read this book while studying political ethics at a British university. At the time, I was already a vegitarian (though for more aesthetic reasons than ideological ones...) This book is splendidly written and puts forward a pretty powerful case (though the case is made more out of repetition of shocking items rather than a full-blown ideolgical dialogue). It makes one think. It challenges readers to take a stand (toward animal rights) by showing how skewed our actions toward other beings have/had been (most universities, for instance, now would NEVER sanction most of the research mentioned in the chapters regarding it...) His case based toward the raising of animals in industrial conditions, though, is still fully relevant (nine chickens in a three-foot by three-foot box, with their beaks cut off, etc.) It's something for a philosophy book to change how a 'normal' person thinks (i.e. not an overly empathetic person....) but, I think, this one did to me.... and that is something that Nietzche, Kant, Mill, or no other philosopher could claim.... I highly recommend reading this book....
Rating:
Summary: essential contemporary philosophical text
Review: from a professor of ethics, one of the most heralded living american philsophers, this is the bible of animal rights. from cases studies of experimentation, animal testing, to the production and rearing for food, all the way to the philosophical aspects of animal rights. a must read for contemporary philosophers.
Rating:
Summary: Animal Liberation
Review: This was a great book with very well defended arguments. Singer doesn't take the "cute, cuddly animal lover" approach, but still defends his point passionately. This is a must-read for any animal rights activists.
Rating:
Summary: An important and eye-opening work
Review: This book was for me a triumph of reason. It's simple, lucid, easy-to-read, and reasoned arguments point out the inconsistencies in our current attitudes towards animals, which are obvious once they're spelled out, but which never occur to us. Never have I seen logical argument change people's views and behaviors like I have seen this book consistently do. It is a triumph of reason, and if you read the book, you are likely to change your entire outlook as well. Even if you are not convinced, you are certain to be exposed to new, challenging ideas that will make you rethink your attitudes and worldview. This is the fundamental work of animal rights, and is a must read. It is the best work of ethical philosophy I have ever read, and a book that is sure to influence you profoundly.
Rating:
Summary: American Law
Review: To each of you who argues that Singer's arguments have no basis because legal rights are only for those who can "claim" such rights, under current American law, you are quite mistaken. For instance, "viable" fetuses and children of all ages have some form of legal rights, although they are often not able to "claim" them for themselves. Moreover, incompetent adults have legal rights, again, even though they are often unable to "claim" them for themselves. I suggest you brush up on American law before you make such sweeping statements.
Rating: 
Summary: A reconsideration
Review: After more thought on this book -- and discovering more about Singer and his views -- I must revise my earlier three-star review down to one star. Although Singer did quite correctly bring to light the unconscionable treatment of animals in testing, this book is dishonest. Singer uses appeals to pity and appeals to emotion to ensnare people and bring them around to his views on animals, but he does not bother to say what his associated views are. First, he is a leftist, and like all leftists, hates people. Second, he is a Nature-worshipper and sees people as 'damaging' Nature (and animals are a part of Nature). There is nothing new in these views: they are very old. Third, he is in favor of euthanasia, infanticide and bestiality. He doesn't believe in killing animals, but does believe in killing humans, including newborns. More very, very old views. In many ancient, primitive cultures of the world it was these views that led to human sacrifice, to 'appease' the Nature gods. Which is what Singer is essentially calling for today. Singer's views are in some very minor ways are progressive, but in the most important ways they are regressive, primitive and brutal. Whenever I think of this book I see the Aztec priest-kings ripping out the living hearts of tens of thousands of victims -- and Nature-worshippers (even modern ones) nodding in approval. ...
Rating:
Summary: Equal Consideration--not equal rights or treatment
Review: I have only read "All Animals Are Equal" from this book, but Singer sums up the main point of his argument in this first essay. He isn't saying animals deserve equal rights, the same as humans. He says animals deserve equal consideration of interests, meaning we should respect their lives as much as we respect our own. He does make the point that equal consideration does not necessarily mean equal treatment or equal rights.
|
