Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals

“By ceasing to rear and kill animals for food, we can make so much extra food available for humans that, properly distributed, it would eliminate starvation and malnutrition from this planet. Animal Liberation is Human Liberation too.”

Singer offers numerous reasons to switch over to a vegetarian diet. He makes a case for it by offering statistics about the treatment of animals, the impact eating meat has on the environment, and information about the food waste that comes from rearing animals for slaughter. All of these statistics allow the reader to clearly see the true cost of eating meat.

“The basic principle of equality does not require equal or identical treatment; it requires equal consideration. Equal consideration for different beings may lead to different treatment and different rights.”

This is the primary foundation of Singer’s argument for “speciesism.” By proving that equality is not based on uniformity, he is able to then include animals in the dialogue of egalitarianism. It cannot be argued that animals are different from people, and instead of denying this, Singer chooses to focus on those differences. This fundamentally changes the argument, making it a moral one rather than a philosophical one.

“In short, if the demand for equality were based on the actual equality of all human beings, we would have to stop demanding equality.”

Singer repeats a similar argument throughout the book. He uses this to compare the animal rights movement to the civil rights and feminist movements. This is yet another example of Singer’s emphasis on dissimilarities as the primary focal point of equality.

“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.”

Singer breaks down the idea of equality among human beings. He highlights the difference between people and speaks to their innate worth rather than an imagined uniformity that grants humans the right to equality. Regardless of circumstances, every single human being is deserving of equal consideration and treatment from others.

“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?”

Here, Singer makes the argument that because humans are not able to gain domination and power simply on the basis of having higher intellects than other humans, humans should not be able to have dominion over animals for this reason. Again, Singer is saying that equal treatment is something both humans and animals should have, not in spite of natural differences but because of them.

“It is on this basis that the case against racism and the case against sexism must both ultimately rest; and it is in accordance with this principle that the attitude that we may call ‘speciesism,’ by analogy with racism, must also be condemned. Speciesism—the word is not an attractive one, but I can think of no better term—is a prejudice or attitude of bias in favor of the interests of members of one’s own species and against those of members of other species.”

Here, Singer defines “speciesism” and, to illustrate its meaning, compares in to the more familiar terms of racism and sexism. As those with racist or sexist views favor their own group above another that they feel is inferior, so do those with speciesist views. Humans tend to view animals as being “less than” them and their needs less important than those of humanity.

“The question is not, Can they reason? nor Can they talk? but Can they suffer?”

This simple question encourages readers to confront what they view as the key to sentience. If a creature is able to suffer, will readers do what they can to stop the suffering? Singer speaks directly to his audience and pulls them into his narrative to make his point.

“If a being suffers there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration.”

In this quote, Singer establishes his definition of a sentient being. Instead of focusing on the ability to vocalize pain or discomfort, Singer hinges sentience on the organism’s ability to suffer at all. 

“Just as most human beings are speciesists in their readiness to cause pain to animals when they would not cause a similar pain to humans for the same reason, so most human beings are speciesists in their readiness to kill other animals when they would not kill human beings.”

Singer’s argument for “speciesism” helps galvanize the Animal Liberation movement. Here, he once again advocates for equal treatment of humans and animals, not by assigning to them all the same rights, but by acknowledging that all are capable of suffering and, as such, all are deserving of treatment that reflects that.

“What we must do is bring nonhuman animals within our sphere of moral concern and cease to treat their lives as expendable for whatever trivial purposes we may have.”

This passage is directly connected to the proceeding quote. In this quote, however, Singer includes animals in his argument about difference and equality. It also speaks to the utilitarian view that most of the public holds about animals: They are convenient.

“To see the difference between the issues of inflicting pain and taking life, consider how we would choose within our own species. If we had to choose to save the life of a normal human being or an intellectually disabled human being, we would probably choose to save the life of a normal human being; but if we had to choose between preventing pain in the normal human being or the intellectually disabled one—imagine that both have received painful but superficial injuries, and we only have enough painkiller for one of them—it is not nearly so clear how we ought to choose.”

Here, Singer attempts to illustrate how inflicting pain and murder would be seen as different when placed in the context of humans, rather than animals. This analogy, it’s fair to say, has perhaps not aged well, especially with the push for greater understanding about accessibility and mental disabilities in the twenty-first century. 

“We have still not answered the question of when an experiment might be justifiable. It will not do to say ‘Never!” Putting morality in such black-and-white terms is appealing, because it eliminates the need to think about particular cases; but in extreme circumstances, such absolutist answers always break down. Torturing a human being is almost always wrong, but it is not absolutely wrong. If torture were the only way in which we could discover the location of a nuclear bomb hidden in a New York City basement and timed to go off within the hour, then torture would be justifiable.”

Singer uses extreme examples in order to illustrate his point that experimentation on animals cannot be pushed into two entirely disparate camps. It is clear that compromises can be made for the sake of scientific advancement and the good of humanity. Singer argues that he asks only for great discernment and higher regard for the animals’ lives. 

“The plucked and dressed bodies of the chickens will then be sold to millions of families who will gnaw on their bones without pausing for an instant to think that they are eating the dead body of a once living creature, or to ask what was done to that creature in order to enable them to buy and eat its body.”

In the passage above, Singer discusses the disconnection that most Americans have with the meat that they consume. Because of the highly efficient system that aids in the mass production of meat, most people are not forced to kill and clean their meat; it is easier then to view meat as food, rather than another organism’s body.

“As for the cages themselves, an ordinary citizen who kept dogs in similar conditions for their entire lives would risk prosecution for cruelty. A pig producer who keeps an animal of comparable intelligence in this manner, however, is more likely to be rewarded with a tax concession or, in some countries, a direct government subsidy.”

Singer points out the hypocrisy of a majority of the public. While there are animal rights laws to protect animals that most people own or use as companions, animals that are traditionally seen as food are forced to endure conditions that most are unable to imagine.

“People may hope that the meat they buy came from an animal who died without pain, but they do not really want to know about it. Yet those who, by their purchases, require animals to be killed do not deserve to be shielded from this or any other aspect of the production of the meat they buy.”

Singer once again discusses the American public’s ignorance to the realities of the meat industry. While the lack of information is discouraging, Singer retains some hope that the education of the public will allow some portion of the population to make a change. He encourages parents to make their children aware of where their food comes from and asks vegetarians to share the reasons for their diets with others. Practices such as these have the potential to bolster public awareness of the issue.

“If we are prepared to take the life of another being merely in order to satisfy our taste for a particular type of food, then that being is no more than a means to our end.”

Singer forces the reader to contend with the animals they have individually consumed and the slaughter that they are contributing to. These frank terms force the reader to confront the reality of eating meat. 

“To protest about bullfighting in Spain, the eating of dogs in South Korea, or the slaughter of baby seals in Canada while continuing to eat eggs from hens who have spent their lives crammed into cages, or veal from calves who have been deprived of their mothers, their proper diet, and the freedom to lie down with their legs extended, is like denouncing apartheid in South Africa while asking your neighbors not to sell their houses to blacks.”

The above passage is one of the several instances wherein Singer addresses the Eurocentric view of his own arguments. In doing so, he not only speaks directly to the hypocrisy of the Western reader, but he also increases his credibility.

“It takes twenty-one pounds of protein fed to a calf to produce a single pound of animal protein for humans. We get back less than 5 percent of what we put in.”

This fact offers a simple and logical reason why eating meat is inefficient. This little-known fact also makes it clear that eating meat is an environmental and economic cost that humanity, especially in developing countries, simply cannot afford. 

“We are, quite literally, gambling with the future of our planet—for the sake of hamburgers.”

Singer makes several connections between vegetarianism and environmental benefits that further bolster his argument for boycotting meat. He cites the cost and detrimental environmental impact that breeding livestock for slaughter has and posits that if the United States were to reduce the amount of livestock raised by half, it would have the potential to produce even more food—food that could aid those who go hungry. 

“Ignorance, then, is the speciesist’s first line of defense.”

This quotation reflects a large part of Singer’s argument. It ties into Singer’s belief that the media’s lack of coverage of animal rights news allows the public to live in ignorance about the cruelties animals suffer in labs and farms across the United States. In 1973, the American people prove that they do care for animals when given the chance. The public is made aware that the United States Air Force has purchased two hundred beagle puppies for the purpose of running experiments, and there is a public outcry against it. After receiving an influx of complaints, the Department of Defense announces that they will postpone the tests indefinitely.

“I would not question the sincerity of vegetarians who take little interest in Animal Liberation because they give priority to other causes; but when nonvegetarians say that ‘human problems come first’ I cannot help wondering what exactly it is that they are doing for human beings that compels them to continue to support the wasteful, ruthless exploitation of farm animals.”

Singer offers a rebuttal to a common attempt at misdirection. There are not a limited number of causes that someone can champion. Further, there should be even less of a constraint on the number of societal problems that the public is concerned about. When more problems are identified and discussed, more issues can be solved.

“Now it is difficult to compare two sets of conditions as diverse as those in the wild and those on a factory farm (or those of free Africans and slaves on a plantation); but if the comparison has to be made surely the life of freedom is to be preferred. Factory farm animals cannot walk, run, stretch freely, or be part of a family or herd. True, many wild animals die from adverse conditions or are killed by predators; but animals kept in farms do not live for more than a fraction of their normal life span either.”

The passage above is another example of Singer’s use of racism as a tool to further a point about “speciesism.” He argues that both humans and animals deserve a life of freedom and that a system that claims to provide a better life for them but does not provide freedom is denying them basic rights.

“Philosophy ought to question the basic assumptions of the age. Thinking through, critically and carefully, what most of us take for granted is, I believe, the chief task of philosophy, and the task that makes philosophy a worthwhile activity.”

Singer’s analysis of philosophy explains his reasons for analyzing the history of “speciesism” in Western religion and culture. While philosophy is able to convince readers about the existence of “speciesism,” Singer’s use of facts, reports, ethos, and pathos forces the readers to see animals as beings who can experience suffering and who deserve treatment equal to that of humans.