Animal Liberation

Rating:
Summary: My Thoughts
Review: After reading Animal Liberation by Peter Singer, I started to view the treatment of animals in a whole new different way. I had some ideas about how the animals were treated in these factory farms, but I never knew the extent of the cruelty that were put upon these animals. Singer was able to open the door to the world of factory farming and gave his audience a firsthand look on what REALLY goes on in these factories. He not only gave insight about factory farming, but he also showed the ruthlessness in animal testing. He pointed out how millions of animals are being injured or even killed during these testing experiments-experiments that are suppose to be advantageous to humans. Chapters 2 and 3 of the book were probably the most powerful chapters because of the fact that they actually described the harsh treatments of these animals.

However, the only drawback to this book is the last few chapters where Singer voiced his opinion. I especially did not appreciate reading Chapter 4 because Singer made it seem like becoming a vegetarian is the best thing for everyone, and those who fail to become one and goes on eating meat will not live a long time. For me, it felt like Singer was personally attacking my own way of living because I eat meat and was not planning to change it. He was a little too strong in his opinion about becoming a vegetarian, but I did understand why he was so forceful with it. Aside from this, the overall book was very informative and good for those who are interested in learning about animal rights.

Rating:
Summary: Great book for meat lovers
Review: This book really opened up my eyes and educated me about how today's so-called farms are like. At first I had no interest in animal rights simply because I never knew how horrible the factory farm conditions were. Singer did an exceptional job on illustrating the whole picture of it. After having read the first three chapters, I came to realize how ignorant I had been. It also made me think how little knowledge the public has about this issue.
Although Singer provided many great insights and shocking facts, I found the last two chapters a little too pushy. Did Singer go too far with his arguments? I personally think that in the last two chapters, Singer was trying too hard to convince his audience by providing too many of his opinions giving us the reason why we should convert to vegetarianism. I think that some of them were too extreme and he should have left some room for his audience to think about the issue rather than trying to stuff thoughts into their heads. Overall the book was great, but it could have ended better and more reasonable.

Rating:
Summary: Sentient Beings
Review: This is in response to David Thomson's review that Singers book calls for total equality between Humans and nonhumans. This is not a fair reading of Singer's work. Singer's argument is that most non-humans (excluding some, ie. shrimp ect.) are sentient beings which are capable of suffering. He claims that we can not defend the view that humans deserve the right not to suffer and animals don't based on a number of arguments that eventually reduce back down to the basic understanding that all sentient beings can suffer and that this suffering outweighs the benefit or utility that humans recieve from such practices as factory farming. Singer also understands that in some cases humans do take precedence over animals (not an egalitarism view) as animals are not rational and do not suffer from the knowledge of future events, such as death. For instance a cow does not know that it is going to be slaughtered before the actual event and therefore does not suffer from this knowledge as a human would. Singer is arguing not that we should discontinue our use of animals completely but is arguing against the practices we currently use on animals, such as family farming and experimentation. He is not calling for a complete egalitarianism view but for an understanding of animals that takes realizes the cruelty of such practices and does not support them through the purchase of products produced by such practices. Thus arrises his recommendation to become a vegitarian not as a result of animal equality but the basis that the suffering animals currently undergo as a result of human practices outweighs the utility we recieve from such practices.

Rating:
Summary: Excellent. . .
Review: Certainly the animals don't have rights, but neither we shouldn't have rights to do suffering them.

If you have pets, if you love the animals, if you are against of the cruelty, if you are a person whith principles, if you want to help to reduce the suffering and you are willing to change. . .you have the power. . .to do it. . .do you really want to do???. . .This book is a sad, very sad history, but you need to know. . .

Rating:
Summary: life changing
Review: I read this years ago and it changed my life. After recently reading and loving J Eric Miller's "Animal Rights and Pornography"--a good literate look at animal issues in the context of fiction--I decided to revisit Singer and am halfway through a re-read of "Animal Liberation". Of all the books on animal rights I've read, he makes the best case by far, one that is really hard if not impossible to refute. I recommend this book to anybody and everybody. If there was such a thing as mandatory reading, this book would be on my list of what should be included.

Rating:
Summary: A Worthwhile Book
Review: I predict this: one day our species will wonder why it took so long to adopt the view espoused by Singer today. The basis of morality is not rationality, as so many suppose. It is our ability to suffer, to have consciousness, or the loss of it (death). The basis of moral agency is rationality. This confusion has led people (including some of the reviewers here) to believe that only rational people have rights. As articulated so capably by Michael Berumen in Do No Evil: Ethics with Applications to Economic Theory and Business, it is the conjoining of our rational prohibitions (i.e., no one desires pain or death for their own sake...only for a reason) and impartiality (no bias in application) that enables us to extend our own egocentric prohibitions to others...including other animals, who most certainly suffer. I think Michael Berumen's book is even more compelling than Singer's, but the latter acknowledges his debt to Singer in understanding the nature of suffering.

Rating:
Summary: A must read
Review: Whether you agree or disagree with the idea of animal liberation, this is a must read for anyone who changes the motor oil in his car, waxes her kitchen floor with Clorox, wears make-up, or eats animal flesh. In other words, for a better informed society, we should ALL read this important work. It WILL change the way you look at our fellow animals.

Rating:
Summary: To be read by everyone
Review: To many, the animal rights movement seems flaky and its supporters are seen as bleeding hearts who love their pets. In "Animal Liberation", Peter Singer employs no sentiment, using rational philisophical arguments to defend animals. He uses a thoroughly convincing Utilitarian argument to explain his reasons. Singer is not an animal lover, as he has made clear, but he is in opposition to unnecessary suffering, the worst of which is being inflicted on animals today.
Don't worry if you've not read a book of philosophy before. This was my first when I initially read it, and it was written so clearly with such interesting arguments that I sailed through it. It's a must-read for anyone starting to think about animal rights, as well as for anyone who disagrees with the movement. It can't hurt anyone to learn the reasons for all this fuss.