Rating: 
Summary: A mind opener
Review: I know it sounds like a cliché, but Peter Singers "Animal Liberation" changed my life. I hadn`t even read half of the book when I understood that I had no other choice than becoming a vegan. Singers shocking information, his masterly writing and the power of his ideas made a powerfull impression on me. It`s one year since I read the book for the first time now, and I am doing all I can do to make Peter Singers ideas as widespread as possible!
Rating:
Summary: Absolutely superb
Review: This is the best book ever written on animal's rights (it should be written that way). I found this a compelling work, and it is for the most part well-written. I have a great deal of admiration for Singer. This book has changed a great many lives, including mine (unfortuantely, there are still too many people who have read this book but who were not sufficiently moved by it, like Katha Pollitt, who said in the Nation that although she read it, it did not even "convince me to give up steak". ) I can only hope that the reprinting of this book will continue to inspire younger people to take action against the cruelty against and exploitation of animals. A tremendous book.
Rating:
Summary: This book is worth reading.
Review: There are only a few books I recommend wholeheartedly, and this is one. Feel free to disagree with Singer's points, but at least hear him out.
Rating:
Summary: Possibly the most important book ever written
Review: This book will chage your life. Just read the first chapter..
Rating:
Summary: A VITAL PHILOSOPHICAL TREATISE
Review: While I have never been a strong proponent of the "utilitarian" defense of the rights of nonhuman animals, Peter Singer's book is nevertheless a valuable contribution to an otherwise important debate. The recognition of sophisticated cognitive abilities in higher animals (e.g., mammals) has all but shattered previous defenses of animal exploitation based upon behaviorist and reductionist thinking. Humans, compelled by a sense of moral evolution, are beginning to reexamine our historic relationships with other sentient beings. To paraphrase Charles Darwin, our differences are that of degree rather than kind. To this end, we must as a society grapple with unconscionably exploitative features of our relationship with the animal kingdom (e.g., inhumane farming practices, unnecessary and/or cruel lines of animal experimentation, animals cruelly exploited for the sake of entertainment or vanity). To further ignore the interconnectedness of our moral dealings with nonhuman animals, the environment, as well as with one another will most certainly doom our spiritual and perhaps literal survival as a species.
Rating: 
Summary: Confused and confusing; animals don't have rights
Review: Should we human beings take animal pain into account in our actions? Certainly decent people will do so, and Singer here presents a wide array of cases in which we could do more in this regard (which is why he gets two stars instead of just one).But: do animals have "rights"? No, they do not. _Rights_ belong only to beings capable of exercising virtue or engaging in ethical behavior. Human beings are the only creatures currently known to be capable of rational reflection on our own actions -- which is why Singer wrote his book specifically for human beings to read, and why, when the treatment of animals is at issue, it is human beings who must do all the hard work of decisionmaking. Singer's "utilitarian" approach obscures this fundamental point. Animals cannot be "liberated" for the simple reason that they cannot be "free" in the same sense as human beings. _At most_, we may say that because our actions can and do cause pain to animals, we should _take their pain into account_ in making our own decisions. In that sense we may say that, by our _own_ (human) ethical standards of benevolence and generosity, animals have a claim on our attention. What we may _not_ say is that "their" claim (which is really _our_ claim on their behalf) overrides human concerns, or should even count equally to those concerns. Call me "species-ist" if you must. I'll change my mind when I hear a reasoned objection from a nonhuman.
Rating:
Summary: A book that can change your life!
Review: Animal Liberation is an extremely well written account regarding laboratory testing on animals and cruelty involved with factory farming. Singer writes about cruelty inflicted on animals in laboratory testing through the eyes of researchers and scientists who have been awoken morally to the reality of what they are doing to our fellow animals. He also writes a detailed account of the cruelty on modern factory farms and how the meat produced from these 'sanctuaries of pain' is becoming more rotten. A very strong case is made for becoming a vegetarian not only for moral reasons, but for environmental and health reasons as well. Animal Liberation is the most important work in the field of animal rights and moral equality for the other animals with which we share the earth. This book is a must read for anyone with a conscience (which for the world's sake should be every human). This is an inspirational work with the power to change your life and the way you perceive the world around us. I was a sceptic before reading thiis book, and almost put it down after the first 20 pages, but I am glad I did not.
Rating:
Summary: This book changed my life.
Review: I am 46 years old and have read hundreds of books throughout the years. Only a few have had a major impact on my life. Animal Liberation is one of them. I read it when it first came out in 1975 and have read this second edition several times. Simply put, the book is ahead of its time. It gives a philosophical basis for dismantling humankind's perceived superiority over other species.History will view this epoch of humankind as being a dark period not so much for its treatment of its own kind, which is already acknowledged as being brutal, but for its treatment of non-human animals. Animal Liberation will be considered a brilliant treatise that helped lead humans out of the darkness.
Rating: 
Summary: Unconvincing, and at times just silly.
Review: I found none of this book convincing. The first section, which borrows from utilitarian philosophy to argue that animals' "interests" (never clearly defined by Singer) deserve equal consideration with human interests (which we might assume may be defined by each individual, since Singer again doesn't clearly say) leads to many practical problems that the author never addresses. Aren't we putting our own interests ahead of animals if we cut down trees and destroy other wildlife habitat to build houses, roads, shopping malls, movie theaters, and so on? Doesn't everyone (or nearly everyone) live in house and use roads and go to shopping malls and theaters built on land once used by wild animals and now essentially off limits to them? Don't some animals -- and perhaps many -- die because we have reduced their living space in this way? Singer does not grapple with the practical implications of his equal-consideration-for-animals thesis, perhaps because, on reflection, it cannot be put into practice to any significant degree without greatly diminishing human happiness and well-being. A second chapter on supposed widespread abuses of animals in biomedical research and psychological studies strains credulity. Are we to believe that medical researchers, who are also doctors, nurses, medical students, and others committed to improving and saving human lives, are conducting experiments that Singer compares to "the atrocities of the Roman gladiatorial arenas"? Similarly, a chapter on the raising of farm animals paints a picture of farmers as essentially sadists. Some of Singer's statements are simply silly. For example, "Once chickens were individuals. . . . If a bird became sick or was injured it could be attended to, or if necessary quickly killed." Are we to believe that a busy farmer 100 years ago, with dozens or hundreds of animals to feed and care for, would have taken the time to nurse a single bird with little economic value? Perhaps the major problem with the book is that it does not even try to even-handedly present the views of biomedical researchers, farmers, and others who use and depend on animals. Singer obviously disagrees with their use (or what he would call abuse) of animals, but he gives them no chance to explain in their own words why they conduct certain kinds of experiments or why they raise farm animals in particular ways. Despite my disagreement with Singer's arguments and allegations, this book is worth reading for those who want to better understand the animal rights debate. But interested individuals should also read books that present both sides of the issue fairly. They may not find Singer's book very convincing if they do so.
Rating:
Summary: Extremely convincing
Review: I believed strongly in animal rights before opening Animal Liberation, but now my beliefs have a rock-solid foundation. I don't know how anyone could read this book and continue to eat meat.
|
