Animal Liberation: Second Edition [Paperback]

The book explains why we must extend our moral principles to other animals, describes the cruelty occuring in laboratories and factory farms, tells how and why we should become vegetarians, gives a short history of our views of animals and where they came from, and refutes common arguments against animal "rights".

In the 1990 preface to this book, Singer writes of its arguments "I have lectured on them, given talks to conferences and philosophy department seminars, and discussed them at length, both verbally and in print; but I have come across no insurmountable objections, nothing that has led me to think that the simple ethical arguments on which the book is based are anything but sound. It has been encouraging to find that many of my most respected philosophical peers agree with this view - so many, in fact, that in reviewing the revised edition Colin McGinn, who holds a distinguished chair of philosophy at Rutgers University, described the ethical core of the book as, in theory if not in practice, 'a won argument'".

If you find that hard to believe, then read the book and see if you can refute its claims!

The fundamental insight I got from Singer's book is that the human tendency to elevate the interests of our species over those of other species is an entirely irrational prejudice, with no authority other than tradition. This is not to say that the interests of other species are always to be preferred to our own - that would also be illogical. But they must be taken into consideration, if our ethics are to have any rationality whatsoever.

As far as I'm concerned, this argument demolishes the objection often made to Singer's work by e.g. some religious people - that his concern for animals, coupled with his belief that abortion is sometimes morally justified, means that he "dehumanises" people, or "lowers them to the level of animals". The unspoken assumption here is that humans are self-evidently above animals to begin with. This argument fits much ancient theology but is not consistent with reason (or, it might be added, with science). It is nothing more than bigotry for religious authorities to claim that humans are in any way superior to other creatures.

So did it turn me into a vegetarian? No. I probably read too much Nietzsche when I was young. But I know now that the continued presence of meat in my diet is the result of nothing other than force and self-interest working in harmony. Humans eat meat because they can get away with it, and any other attempt to justify it is hypocrisy. One day, when I can't live any longer with the contradiction, I'll probably become a vegetarian, but in the meantime I have to find more ways of making mushrooms interesting.

Incidentally, Singer is also eloquent about the sheer wastefulness and incompetence of the meat industry. If we didn't eat so many hamburgers, it would be possible to do a lot more for the starving in the rest of the world. (If beef, pork, lamb and chicken were farmed less intensively and more in harmony with traditional methods, we would undoubtedly pay more for them, but they'd also start tasting better. But unsurprisingly, Singer doesn't make that particular point.)

This is undoubtedly one of the most challenging and rigorous works of philosophy of the last century. Insofar as it has a power of making us examine our own attitudes and behaviour, it's also one of the best.

Those books that claim you'll have given up smoking by the end? Pah! This is the animal equivalent. As a scientist I really appreciate the logical structure and the strength of some of the scientific arguments, but the book is a really easy read - on all levels but an emotional one, so it's one of those rare books that will appeal to anyone with an open mind.

If you think you can't be changed - take the challenge!

Julian