Animal Liberation Peter Singer Summary
‘I feel pain therefore I must be.’ Be what? Alive? Important? Aware? Even human? Does lack of language or our lack of understanding of a language mean lack of Being? And therefore lack of suffering? This are only a few of the many questions philosopher Peter Singer poses in Animal Liberation, his review of Animals, Men, and Morals in which he argues that animals are no less human they we are and we will (or should) come to see animals just as we came to see (though are still struggling to) African Americans and women as equals to white men.
What readers may find curious is that Singer is not only arguing for a halt of animal mistreatment, but is arguing not only that we (humans) shouldn’t be torturing animals (nonhumans) for their flesh, fur, …show more content…
How many would say animals are our equal and mistreatment of them- including consumption- is wrong and that as a species more superior we should look after them as inferiors, but inferiorly. How many? To quote Singer: “Man may have always have killed other species for food, but he has never exploited them as ruthlessly as he does today. Farming has succumbed to business methods.” Readers, we no longer need the fur of a bear to warm our bones, we no longer need the fat from a beast to light our homes, instruments to dance to, we no longer need the flesh of another being to survive, so then why are still exploiting nonhumans for resources we already have? Why do we lock animals up in a place with no sunlight, and overstuff them to satisfy our hunger? Why do we harm innocent beings because we enjoy eating them? Why do some cultures treat or worship some animals, but consume others? There is of course, another argument: medical testing, but is the suffering and eventual deaths a year worth remedies? Replace animals with orphans ‘under six months old’, as Singer puts it, and it’s received entirely a differently. Why? A child younger than six months can’t speak- at least not in such a way where fellow humans can understand, in the name of science, we say, it could save
What readers may find curious is that Singer is not only arguing for a halt of animal mistreatment, but is arguing not only that we (humans) shouldn’t be torturing animals (nonhumans) for their flesh, fur, …show more content…
How many would say animals are our equal and mistreatment of them- including consumption- is wrong and that as a species more superior we should look after them as inferiors, but inferiorly. How many? To quote Singer: “Man may have always have killed other species for food, but he has never exploited them as ruthlessly as he does today. Farming has succumbed to business methods.” Readers, we no longer need the fur of a bear to warm our bones, we no longer need the fat from a beast to light our homes, instruments to dance to, we no longer need the flesh of another being to survive, so then why are still exploiting nonhumans for resources we already have? Why do we lock animals up in a place with no sunlight, and overstuff them to satisfy our hunger? Why do we harm innocent beings because we enjoy eating them? Why do some cultures treat or worship some animals, but consume others? There is of course, another argument: medical testing, but is the suffering and eventual deaths a year worth remedies? Replace animals with orphans ‘under six months old’, as Singer puts it, and it’s received entirely a differently. Why? A child younger than six months can’t speak- at least not in such a way where fellow humans can understand, in the name of science, we say, it could save