Rating: 
Summary: The "Bible" of all Animal Rights Books
Review: Peter Singer started the animal rights movement in the early 70's with this book, and it's influence can still be found today. Animal Liberation's arguments lie heavily on the assumption that the reader knows at least a little bit about ethics. Some unfamiliar with ethics may find this a challenging read. Singer introduces many examples of speciesism in experimentation, factory farming, etc. He also confronts speciesism, which is a prejudice against other species. My personal favorite animal rights book, I would recommend no other before it!
Rating: 
Summary: This book offers only examples, no comeling argument
Review: This is a book that points out a lot of cruel things that are being done to animals, but it offers little in the way of compeling argument. It basically covers the facts of the treatment of animals as perseived by Singer but has little in the effect of proving the whole basis of Animal lib, that animals do have rights. Rights can only be claimed when the being claiming rights demands them for themselves. This is not the case for animals, but if it ever becomes the case and a chiken stands up and protests the wrongs commited against its speicies, that would be the time to take this movment seriously.
Rating: 
Summary: A wonderful, informative book
Review: I found "Animal Liberation" a very informative book for those who wish to expand their philisophical viewpoints beyond the norm. Singer & Reich provide good arguments for the equality issues that animal rights bring up, as well as solutions to problems such as animal testing that plague conserned consumers daily. The reason I only rate this book an eight is that the authors provide a very one-sided argument, and don't go into the opposing viewpoint. I also found it very dense, and hard to stick with all the way through it's 320 information-packed pages.
Rating: 
Summary: Animals may be precious but they have no rights.
Review: Singer does not actually argue for animal rights but for animal liberation -- meaning, a world-wide policy of considering the well-being of animals on terms roughly equal to that of human beings (and even this is too simple). Singer is a utilitarian and wishes to count animals (that is, their pains and pleasures) in the effort to arrive at proper public policy. If utilitarianism is false, Singer's case collapses. And there is reason to think that utilitarianism is far from the best way to think about morality and politics. Indeed, a better option is virtue ethics and natural rights theory, as applied to ethics and politics, respecetively. Animals do feel pain and any decent human being will consider that as he or she deals with them. But clearly animals are not moral agents: Singer and others who champion their case admit this by not addressing animals, by not holding them responsible even for their own self-defense, let alone for their brutality (often even directed at members of their very own species -- e.g., lions devouring lion cubs). Since animals aren't moral agents, they have no rights -- rights are what Robert Nozick called side constraints that secure for moral agents their "moral space." And there is no need for moral space if one is not a moral agent, namely, a being for whom the question of how one ought to act naturally arises. The point that little children and invalids have rights but often lack significant moral agency is irrelevant; it's the kind of borderline case argument that misses the point: children will normally become moral agents and, indeed, very early exibit moral capacities and invalids are, as it were, deficient or borken moral agents, and the benefit of doubt thus goes in their favor (though not always, as with those who are brain dead or are unrecoverably comatose). But animals, even the most advance of them, aren't morally responsible for their deeds, cannot be blamed or praised for acting the wrong or right way, and thus lack basic rights that secure for persons the jurisidction to make moral decisions. Talking about animal rights or even liberation is a catagory mistake and reveals an impoverished moral framework in which political concepts are to be substitutes for complex but not yet well indentified moral ones. It is important to cultivate moral sensibilities toward animals but not by perpetrating the confusing idea that animals have rights or can be freed, liberated as, say, concentration camp inmates can be. Of course, Singer's book is a must reading for those interested in coming to terms with the issue of whether animals ought to be treated as if they were largely human and had rights and desreved liberation. (It is worth nothing that Singer is a radical altruist who believes no one really ought to care much for himself or herself until everyone else is made well off. This consigns us all to the status of involuntary servitude, serving others but neglecting ourselves, and robs us of any chance for happiness in life.)
Rating:
Summary: Review for Animal Liberation by Peter Singer
Review: This is a fairly old, but VERY informative book. Singer expertly explains the moral of animal rights, and why we should respect animals' rights. The only complaint I have is that in the back of the book there is a listing of animal right organizations' addresses and most of the addresses no longer exsist. (I tried writing to all of them.) Except for that, in my whole 10-year life, this is one of the best non-fiction books I've ever read, and I hope you'll give it, and animal rights, a chance.
Rating:
Summary: One of the most important philosophy books ever written
Review: Want to upset all the pre-conceptions of your life, and look at the world around you in a radically new way? Then read Peter Singer's book Animal Liberation. Written by an Australian philosophy professor in the 1970s, and revised in the early 1990s, Animal Liberation is the founding book of the modern animal rights movement. As such, Animal Liberation be one of the most influential books of the 20th century. When Singer's book first appeared, animal rights was on the fringe of the fringe. Animal rights advocates, to the extent that they could get any attention from the press at all, were treated as a bunch of nuts. CBS Evening News compared British animal rights advocates to Monty Python charachters.
But today, especially among young people, animal rights is a major part of political and social activism. So even if you think you're inflexibly opposed to animals having rights, Singer's book will help you understand the millions of people who disagree with you. Folks who believe that animals have no rights will often assert that because animals are animals, they should have no rights. As Singer points out, the argument is simply a tautology. To say that animals should have no rights because they are animals is no more logical than to say that women should not have rights because they are women, or that Blacks should have no rights because they are Blacks. To say that status as a woman must, in itself, imply that women have no rights is sexism; to say the same about Blacks is racism. And, Singer demonstrates, to say the same about animals is "specisim."
Interestingly, when reformers in the late 18th century began arguing that Blacks should not be enslaved merely because of of their race, pro-slavery advocates had an immediate reply: Arguments which questioned the subordination of Blacks could also be used to question the subordination of women, and the subordination of animals. The defenders of slavery had a point, notes Singer. Once you knock out one kind of subordination, it's harder to defend the subordination that remains.
So if simplistic speciesism is an insufficient basis for denying animals rights, what logical justification is there for current treatment of animals? It is true, of course, that animals can't do lots of things that humans can, such as write, build complex tools, or describe a religious belief system. But if you compare a profoundly retarded child with one of the higher primates, the primate may have much more advanced skills in the traits that we consider human (such as use of language or tools) than does the profoundly retarded child. If we acknowledge that the retarded child has rights, then what philosophically plausible claim can be made that the primate does not? The best test for rights, argues Singer, is a test first articulated by the 19th century philosopher Jeremy Bentham: "Can it suffer?" If you saw someone using an electric cattle prod to torture an adult human, you would say that the person's rights were being violated. If the severely retarded child were being tortured, you would likewise say that the child's rights were being violated. And because gorillas, dogs, and eagles also feel intense pain when being attacked with electric cattle prods, their rights are likewise violated when they are tortured. In contrast, trees and rocks do not feel pain, as far as we know, and therefore using a cattle prod on a rock is merely a waste of electricity, and not the violation of rights on the part of the rock. "How can you tell that animals feel pain?" is one rejoinder to the argument above. The theory that animals are mere automotons, and have no more feeling than does a clock, was first articulated by the French philosopher Rene Descartes.
In reply, Singer points out that: First of all, animals react in a manner which we would expect from a being in pain -- they scream, and they try to avoid the source of the pain. Second, all of the evidence we have regarding the nervous system of animals shows that their pain-sensing capacity is structurally similar to the pain-sensing portion of the nervous system in humans. Having set up a philosophical basis for animal rights, Singer then examines current treatment of animals by humans, to see if violations of rights are involved. Singer's approach has no sentimentalism about animals in it. He describes his disgust as meeting a woman who gushed "Don't you just love animals!" -- and then offered him a ham sandwich.
The book's discussion of factory farming of animals is particularly powerful. He describes how almost all of the chickens, pigs, and cattle that end up in a supermarket meat tray are subjected to squalid conditions of confinement that can be described as torture. Chickens are confined in cages too small even to lift a wing, and cages are stacked on top of each other so that the top chickens' feces fall on the ones below. To deal with the high death rates that result from these disgusting conditions, the animals are pumped full of high doses of antibiotics
Rating:
Summary: *The* classic book defending animals
Review: Animal Liberation is widely considered to be the book which launched the modern animal rights movement.For this reason alone, it is required reading for people both for and against animal rights. Contrary to popular belief, Singer does not advocate rights per se, but rather supports a utilitarian philosophy. I have some problems with this, as Singer's utilitarianism does not provide the absolute protection a rights philosophy would. However, Singer argues strongly against factory farming and vivisection--in many ways, his views lead to the same consequences as animal rights does. Singer's critique of speciesism is eloquent, and in my opinion, persuasive. He also provides extensive documentation of the abuses faced by animals in labs and on farms.
Rating:
Summary: The Reasons for Animal Liberation
Review: I remember passing by a banner at my college that said "Why does your love for animals stop at dogs and cats?" a couple of months ago. Ever since I saw that banner, I've had a different way of looking at non-human animals. I decided to pick up this book a few days later and I can honestly say that my lifestyle and thinking has dramatically changed because of it. Animal Liberation is a call to everyone to help stop, or at least drastically limit, the cruel mass-practices of animal testing and factory farming. Singer makes very persuasive arguements against both of the aforementioned practices and describes the punishment (many of it hard to even read about) animals have gone through simply to test our products (especially cosmetics) and fill our appetites. The book is aptly titled Animal Liberation because animals need to be freed from man's dominance over them. I completely agree with Singer's path to "animal liberation" which consist of a change in mindset and a change in diet. One of the strongest arguements in the book is how Singer compares animals' condition to former practices of human bondage. We as humans seem to deem animals as inferior, means to our ends, and usable, just as masters viewed their captives. But animals cannot rise up and march peacefully in numbers, speak for their freedom, and take action. It is our ethical duty to grant them their rights as sentient (able to feel pain, fear, and other emotions) beings. After reading Animal Liberation I was appalled. I really had no idea the situation was this bad. The book is an excellent read; it's arguements are clear, humane, and ultimately, right. I can gladly say that this book has changed my diet (vegetarian), lifestyle, and outlook on things nonhuman.
Rating:
Summary: Sad But True
Review: For whatever reason, if you've never heard of factory farms or the deplorable animal conditions in the U.S., Singer's book is an excellent introduction. His aim is to shock you into reality. This book has been said to be the "bible" of animal rights. Even after reading just the first chapter, it's easy to see why. Singer's moral reasoning is very basic. If a being can suffer, then it is the duty of humans to not cause suffering. Regardless of what abilities a being may possess, everyone's interests ought to receive equal consideration.
Though I am not a vegetarian, I want farm animals to have a "normal" life. This book is a great eye-opener to what humans are capable of.
Rating: 
Summary: Well written, but it won't change my views much.
Review: Peter Singer's book is a well written argument for the animal rights movement. He takes into consideration every aspect of human morals and applies them to the animal rights cause. Technically, there is not much of a problem with his claims and his evidence and logical thought. It's just that some people have strong beliefs otherwise. Although his ideas and moral views are definitely strong and convincing, there are some other views that sort of "negate" his other claims. That is, he has some rather extremist views and for someone who has always been raised on meat, they may get defensive. Although one may not disagree with his moral views of the subject, they might not necessarily care to change much because of other personal beliefs.
All in all, his book effectively defends the animal rights movement. His book is definitely not for everyone to read. Not so much because of the graphic descriptions, but because that you'll find it more of a waste of time.
|
