35 pages • 1 hour read
Peter SingerAnimal Liberation: A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals
Nonfiction | Book | Adult | Published in 1977A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
Themes
Difference as the Foundation of Equality
Though Peter Singer focuses almost entirely on the concepts of “speciesism” and the Animal Liberation movement in the book, his arguments have an underlying ideology that surrounds the ideas of difference and equality. While these concepts may initially appear to be each other’s antithesis, Singer argues that this is not necessarily the case. Singer first connects egalitarianism with difference when he dismantles the concept of equality. In doing so, he strives to prove the scientific impossibility of identical sameness. Though humans might have differing traits like gender, race, or hair color, Singer asserts that the ethical and moral argument behind equality is based not on the literal uniformity of the human race, but rather on the fair and equal treatment that all humans deserve. This is most evident when Singer writes, “The principle of the equality of human beings is not a description of an alleged actual equality among humans: it is a prescription of how we should treat human beings” (27). Singer thus establishes that equality is not built upon uniformity, but in spite of difference.
Singer uses this connection between difference and equality to persuade readers that animals are just as deserving of rights as humans are. He does so by once again emphasizing the foundation of dissimilarity that he believes egalitarianism is built upon. Simply put, “[t]here are obviously important differences between humans and other animals, and these differences must give rise to some differences in the rights that each have” (23). Singer’s focus on this facet of equality allows him to include animals in the conservation while also pushing back against certain misconceptions about animal rights activists. His emphasis on the dissimilarities between animals and humans changes his argument slightly into one that emphasizes the moral obligation that mankind has to animals that may have a lower degree of sentience but that are not any less deserving of equal consideration. Singer writes, “If possessing a higher degree of intelligence does not entitle one human to use another for his or her own ends, how can it entitle humans to exploit nonhumans for the same purpose?” (27).
Singer highlights the importance of differentiation and discernment later in the book as well. When he discusses the sudden adoration for nature that manifests in the development of Christianity, Singer is critical of the undiscerning type of infatuation that proponents of that school of thought have:
If we love rocks, trees, plants, larks, and oxen equally, we may lose sight of the essential differences between them, most importantly, the differences in degree of sentience. We may then think that since we have to eat to survive, and since we cannot eat without killing something we love, it does not matter which we kill (193).
Once again Singer emphasizes the importance of a type of egalitarianism and treatment based on difference rather than any literal uniformity. As a result, Singer argues that, while caring about nature is a worthy pursuit, viewing animals as similar to non-sentient organisms ends with the ultimate destruction of nature rather than the protection of it.
Convenience as the Pathway of Cruelty
Singer proposes several reasons behind the perpetuation of “speciesism” among the human race. He believes that the media’s refusal to report on animal rights issues, the normalization of animal experimentation in laboratory research, the ignorance of the public, and the prioritization of convenience over ethics are the primary causes of “speciesism.” Singer writes, “We have long treated animals as things for our convenience, and for the last thirty years we have been applying our latest scientific techniques to make them serve our ends better” (157). Convenience thus becomes an easy pathway to cruelty, one that requires little thought and, in fact, mandates a certain amount of ignorance. Singer echoes this sentiment in his attempt to inform the public about the horrors of animal experimentation and “factory farming.” Outside of critiquing the current state of affairs in regards to the animal rights movement, Singer also highlights how convenience has historically played into the continuation of “speciesism.”
Descartes’s theory that animals have no souls or concept of pain is an example of “speciesism” born out of convenience. As a scientist, “Descartes himself dissected living animals in order to advance his knowledge of anatomy,” and Singer asserts that his theory was likely a convenient excuse and justification for the cruelty he was inflicting upon the animals (196). Singer also criticizes many sources written after the eighteenth century, where:
the author urges the wrongness of our treatment of other animals in such strong terms that one feels sure that here, at last, is someone who has free himself altogether from speciesist ideas–and hence, has freed himself too from the most widespread of all speciesist practices, the practice of eating other animals… Suddenly a qualification is made, or some new consideration introduced, and the author spares himself the qualms over his diet that his argument seemed sure to create (201).
The above passage speaks to the constant struggle between convenience and morality that occurs in regards to the Animal Liberation movement. Boycotting the meat industry and companies that continue to utilize animal experimentation takes constant effort and work; willful ignorance and convenience are pathways for cruelty. Singer himself admits that had it not been for his spouse, Renata Singer, he would have likely not become a vegetarian and would have joined the ranks of philosophers unable to act on their philosophies.
Wealth as a Corrupting Force
While “speciesism” is undoubtedly a large reason behind the many animal rights violations that have occurred throughout history, the prioritization of finances over animal welfare is yet another cause of the global exploitation of animals seen today. Singer speaks about this briefly in regards to animal experimentation and the implementation and practice of “factory farming”:
Once a pattern of animal experimentation becomes the accepted mode of research in a particular field, the process is self-reinforcing and difficult to break out of. Not only publications and promotions but also the awards and grants that finance research become geared to animal experiments. A proposal for a new experiment with animals is something that the administrators of research funds will be ready to support, if they have in the past supported other experiments on animals (83).
The animals in the care of such scientists thus exist only to serve and fund the scientists’ next research endeavor. While Singer does assert that there are cases in which animal experiments will absolutely have to be done for the greater good, the lack of discernment about the necessity and usefulness of certain experiments result in not only a waste of funds, but also ultimately a waste of animal life and suffering.
This focus on capital as opposed to animal rights can also be seen in the meat industry. Singer writes that reform is difficult in such industries, as the:
large companies [are] involved in the profitable businesses of breeding or trapping animals and selling them, or manufacturing and marketing the cages for them to live in, the food used to feed them, and the equipment used to experiment on them. These companies are prepared to spend huge amounts of money to oppose legislation that will deprive them of their profitable markets (102).
The profitable market that has sprung up around the exploitation of animals is in itself an example of how wealth is a corrupting force, pushing individuals and institutions alike to overlook the well-being of other creatures for financial gain. It is for this reason that the boycott of the meat industry and companies that continue to utilize animal testing is an effective method of protest. By depriving these companies of money, and thus the funds with which to fuel the industry and grants available, public opinion makes itself known. Desperate to gain back their market, companies will eventually change their practices. For example, new crops of beauty companies have now become “cruelty free,” just as egg companies have rebranded themselves as “cage-free.” The influence of money is just as much a potential solution to the problem as it is a cause.
Related Titles
By Peter Singer
