Reddit reviews Animal Liberation: The Definitive Classic of the Animal Movement (P.S.)
We found 27 Reddit comments about Animal Liberation: The Definitive Classic of the Animal Movement (P.S.). Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
Harper Perennial Modern Classics
Has he read Animal Liberation yet?
Peter Singer is amazing. I remember having a 2-week breakdown and existential crisis when I read Animal Liberation. I just didn't know how to handle and accept the mind-blowingly immense suffering happening every second; I couldn't figure out how to go about my life with that fact existing. How could I simply turn my back on that fact, and not fight it every second? How could I possibly forget those animals and go about my life as if it weren't true?
Ultimately I had to make the conscious choice to forget. I could only do what I could do - become vegan, evangelize, be an advocate, protest, boycott, take part in everyday activism. But beyond that, what can I do for the billions of animals suffering unimaginable horrors every second?
There are facts and images seared into my brain that I cannot and never will forget - pigs snouts being sliced off and salt rubbed in the wound, cats being boiled alive in cages, raccoon dogs skinned alive and thrown in a pile of agony, animals caught in unbearable suffering in steel traps, others anally/vaginally/orally electrocuted to death for their furs, pigs boiled alive, chickens trampled and pecked to death in too-small to move cages, cows beaten and prodded to walk on broken legs, the heartbroken wail of a pig or cow whose baby is stolen away, male chicks ground up alive... I have SEEN these things. And it is unbearable.
I think these things should be shown to everybody. How anybody could bite into the flesh of a chicken after that is beyond me.
Edit: for those who may be interested in learning more:
I can't remember the other videos I've watched, and frankly, I can't deal with finding them right now. But they're on Youtube, or at least they were a few years ago.
I would add to /u/AlwaysUnite list Peter Singer's Animal Liberation - https://smile.amazon.com/Animal-Liberation-Definitive-Classic-Movement/dp/0061711306
Know that the first version was written in 1975...
For anyone interested in learning more about this line of thinking, Singer's book Animal Liberation is fantastic.
The classic (and quite convincing) book on this topic is Peter Singer's Animal Liberation.
Since nobody's going to read a book someone suggests on reddit, here's a very short argument to think buying meat to eat is often unethical:
There are some additional ethical reasons for not eating much (or any) meat - you might think it's wrong not just to inflict pain and suffering on non-human animals but also to kill them if they're not sick (maybe it would be wrong to give the puppy a lethal injection, for instance), or that it's wrong to support the environmentally damaging meat industry, or it's wrong to use calories to raise non-humans animals for meat when humans are starving.
Peter Singer's Animal Liberation did for the animal rights movement what Rachel Carson's Silent Spring did for the environmental movement.
https://www.amazon.com/Animal-Liberation-Definitive-Classic-Movement/dp/0061711306
There are excellent logical, empirical, ethical reasons not to eat meat. It's not necessary in order to get adequate protein (in the 1st world, at least) - we have easy access to beans, eggs, cheese, milk, tofu, etc - and buying meat demonstrably causes unnecessary suffering for animals.
Especially considering that atheists tend to understand that there really is no difference between humans and animals (we're all cousins; it's just a matter of degree), you'd think we'd be more sympathetic.
Our campus atheist group is actually hosting a presentation about the Ethics of Vegetarianism next semester. I'd recommend checking out some of arguments made by atheist, ethics professor, and vegan Peter Singer in his book "Animal Liberation" before going along the lines of this argument.
http://www.amazon.com/Animal-Liberation-Definitive-Classic-Movement/dp/0061711306/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1319611589&sr=1-1
May I recommend an excellent book, Animal Liberation by Peter Singer which addresses all of your points in a way that is far more intellectually honest than is possible via a comment debate on reddit.
Three big ones that immediately come to mind:
Becoming Vegan: http://www.amazon.com/Becoming-Vegan-Complete-Adopting-Plant-Based/dp/1570671036
Vegan for Life: http://www.amazon.com/Vegan-Life-Everything-Healthy-Plant-Based/dp/0738214930/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1311656144&sr=1-1
Animal Liberation: http://www.amazon.com/Animal-Liberation-Definitive-Classic-Movement/dp/0061711306/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1311656159&sr=1-1
Terrorists or Freedom Fighters: http://www.amazon.com/Terrorists-Freedom-Fighters-Reflections-Liberation/dp/159056054X/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1311656159&sr=1-3
> I'm the kind of person that needs proof to believe something, or at the very least strong evidence.
And so am I :D Please read:
A lot of people don't have a a problem with eating meat specifically, but with the treatment of the animals. I would highly recommend Peter Singer's Animal Liberation to anyone interested in the subject.
Factory farming conditions are something you wouldn't wish on your worst enemy, let alone an innocent animal. I think of it in the way that I'm not opposed to wearing clothes, but not ones made in sweatshops.
PMs are always welcome, and I highly recommend that everyone read Peter Singer's classic, Animal Liberation.
Ah yep, I know someone who turned Vegan from Chaltavism, she was walking through a park here in Amsterdam and saw someone had "dog or pig, what's the difference?" along with a picture of them both cuddling. I wish she had snapped a picture, but she said that's what got her doing searches online, which inevitably made her Vegan.
I haven't read any literature on faunalytics but I still have to finish Animal Liberation by Peter Singer.
Can I ask what kind of background you have in philosophy? You're asking some fundamental questions about metaethics though I'm unclear where you stand on them and why. First you say that sentience is not a sufficient condition for moral consideration, appealing to a reductio ad absurdum about gnats and mosquitoes. You go on to downplay the range of experiences available to cows, saying:
>There doesn't seem to be much inherent value in a cow's existence, unlike the existence of a human or other more intelligent form of life.
Ok, how much inherent value is there to a cow? Are the capacities to enjoy the sunshine and prance out of happiness not enough to make you think she shouldn't get her throat slit for someone else's trivial pleasure? So that's my first question to you: do you value sentience or not, and why shouldn't sentience be a sufficient basis for giving an animal such basic considerations as "we shouldn't slit her throat unnecessarily"?
Secondly I would like to point out to you that someone can likewise apply your open question (but why is that enough to confer a being with moral worth?) to whatever you're putting forward, namely intelligence or certain higher-order thoughts or whatever. How are you going to convince another stubborn human, or an alien or a god, that humans have inherent value if they refuse to recognize anything which we possess as valuable? You might be unable to persuade them in the end. They might fail to accept what you're arguing even if you're ultimately correct.
So I can try to gesture towards some reasons for valuing sentience more highly than you do. I'm happy to refer you to some good academic resources as well. But I can't promise that you will be ultimately convinced despite your preconceptions.
-Valuing sentience is intuitive. We already do so in some contexts. If you come home to your child picking apart a leaf or blade of grass you would probably think that it's good to see him experimenting and acting on his curiosity. If instead your child was pulling the wings out of a butterfly, if you're like most people, you would scold him and teach him he ought not do that. If instead of a butterfly it were a bird, you would be deeply worried about your child's character (and it wouldn't matter if he took sanitary precautions like wearing gloves either, you would still freak). What's going on here is that we recognize that more mental activity is grounds for more consideration.
-Building on the previous point, I agree with you that we highly value humans' mental abilities. It means a lot to us to be able to reason, reflect on the meaning of life, create and appreciate art, etc. This is exactly why I think humans are more valuable than other animals, and why I would choose to save a human child over a calf any day. When it comes to a human being, what we consider morally relevant is that she can reason, reflect on the meaning of life, etc. but also that she can feel pleasure and pain, and happiness and sadness. Suppose that I'm in a position to prevent a man from harming a woman. Among the reasons I have to help her might be that she has a concept of bodily autonomy, or something, but certainly my primary motivation is to prevent her from being in pain because that is unpleasant and she does not desire it. But hold on, pigs and cows may lack the concept of bodily autonomy (maybe that's false but just roll with it) but they do have the capacity for pain and the desire to avoid it. How am I to maintain that pain, and the desire to avoid it, are mental states significantly shared by humans and cows, but it's only when they occur in the former that I should care? After all when a human is in pain I think it is worth alleviating for its own sake without recourse to her ability to reason. Humans and cows share capacities A and B (pleasure and pain), but only humans have capacity C (higher thought processes). Why are A and B morally insignificant for a cow, but A and B are significant when it comes to a human with C? After all, ABC are all mental capacities, and they are all treated as significant when it comes to humans.
-How would you feel if you were a non-human animal? If you traded places with a cow you would still be sentient, still feel pleasure and pain, still have desires, etc. If you found yourself in a slaughterhouse you would be scared and terrified with or without higher cognitive faculties.
-Valuing sentience would make you a better person. It's intrinsically rewarding to care about others, to be empathetic and experience joy and suffering through others. So you should stop harming and killing sentient creatures so that you can cultivate your own virtue. It feels better to care about the lives of others no matter how intellectually superior you are.
This is getting long so I'm going to cut it off here rather than go line-by-line through your thoughtful comment. I have minor points of disagreement here and there but I think it's more important to tackle the big questions. If you're interested in reading into this further:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-animal/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness-animal/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cognition-animal/
http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/readings/norcross.pdf
http://www.columbia.edu/~col8/lobsterarticle.pdf
https://www.amazon.com/Animal-Liberation-Definitive-Classic-Movement/dp/0061711306
Here is an awesome book that helped me start making logical and ethical decisions.
Yes! Here's the Amazon link.
It's an incredible book, and really the classic when it comes to animal welfare ethics. I originally went veg for environmental reasons, but Singer's arguments made me realize that the ethical treatment of non-human animals is an equally important justification.
I also recommend reading the following page: How I became a Vegetarian
The above page ends with
> I am most grateful to Peter Singer. The influential book is Animal Liberation: The Definitive Classic of the Animal Movement
. Here is Author Page on Amazon: Peter Singer.
I have heard high praises for Ethics Into Action: Henry Spira and the Animal Rights Movement
particularly in activist circles.
> Should I go vegan?
Yes! Absolutely.
> Does going full vegan involve nutritional sacrifices?
Could be the same or better. It depends on what you eat. To answer specific questions a really good source is NutritionFacts.org (look up protein, calcium, B12, iron, etc). If you are looking to be really healthy do some research on whole foods plant-based diets. Otherwise, eat what you eat now but vegan versions and you'll be fine.
> Should I just jump in 100% or ease my way into it.
If I could go back in time I would go vegan sooner. But it's harder to see from the other perspective. Just learn everything you possibly can and your motivation will grow. Check out documentaries, blogs, speeches, books, etc.
> Lastly exactly wtf do I eat lol
Whatever you want to eat, just leave out or substitute the meat and dairy.
For some examples I can show you what I've eaten the last few days (I live in the US and shop primarily at Kroger-brand stores):
I hope they will include
http://www.amazon.com/Eating-Animals-Jonathan-Safran-Foer/dp/0316069884/ref=zg_bs_14454_1
and
http://www.amazon.com/Animal-Liberation-Definitive-Classic-Movement/dp/0061711306/ref=zg_bs_14454_9
or
http://www.amazon.com/Love-Dogs-Pigs-Wear-Cows/dp/1573245054/ref=zg_bs_14454_14
or
http://www.amazon.com/Terrorists-Freedom-Fighters-Reflections-Liberation/dp/159056054X but i guess not.
You simply need to stop lying to yourself and understand how and to what degree this behavior is unjust. Once you do this, you will see fit to how you plan on modifying your diet to the degree you can live with yourself with.
https://www.amazon.com/Animal-Liberation-Definitive-Classic-Movement/dp/0061711306
Yep, makes sense. (Although if JS Mill isn't your kind of thing, I know Animal Liberation has compelled a lot of people on the animals front, and borrows a lot of ethical framing from social movements generally as opposed to just utilitarianism stuff)
In that case, as someone else has mentioned, I would go with SCI - its the highest ranked deworming org that GiveWell has, and after AMF will likely have the biggest funding gaps after expected contributions from other big donors.
You should really check out the stuff by Ashland Creek Press Lots of great fiction (and non-fiction) with an animal/eco perspective, I highly recommend the Tourist Trail. If you are looking for non-fiction I recommend Animal Liberation or Diet For A New America both older but highly influential books. Another great one that influenced my activism was Free The Aniamls
Defenses of vegtarianism are a different thing than defenses of morality in general. I think this book is considered the main classic, but I haven't read it, so I don't know what's in it. Your thread was kind of about two things, so if you want vegetarian information you might need to make a thread about just that.
https://www.amazon.com/Animal-Liberation-Definitive-Classic-Movement/dp/0061711306/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1485879654&sr=8-1&keywords=animal+liberation
I am trying to find a pdf
I don't feel superior. Arguing with you about this only brings me pain because I know it's only an exercise in futility; you have made your mind up already that vegetarians are smug idiots and nothing I can possibly say seems to be able to change that.
About your comment otherwise:
>Humans have eaten meat since they invented humans.
I don't understand what this means.
>It's a natural thing.
So the way the meat industry is run is a natural thing, with feed lots and genetically modfied livestock? And even if it was, how does it being "natural" justify anything? Don't we consider ourselves to be something more than just animals?
>You do realize that plants are also living things, right?
The difference is that plants, or at least most of them, are not complicated enough to feel pain, unlike many animals like pigs and cattle. Therefore it is different to eat plants than animals.
I have to go to bed now, it's very late. I wish you the best, if you are interested in knowing more about all this, I suggest you read this book: http://www.amazon.com/Animal-Liberation-Definitive-Classic-Movement/dp/0061711306
I don't know why you think that I'm out of line. We are literally responding to a post about how the meat industry emits an enormous amount of greenhouse gases, and a discussion of vegetarianism is not only relevant but called for in this context.
>literally the only reason chickens exist is to be devoured.
Sorry, the natural world does not exist simply so that you can exploit it for your own pleasure. The amount of consideration that we ought to give to other beings has nothing to do with intelligence, it has to do with their ability to suffer. Cows, chickens, pigs, turkeys, etc. all have nervous systems extremely similar to our own, and they are able to experience pain and stress just as we are. We cage these animals for their entire lives so they can't even turn around, we torture them (beak/tail cutting, branding, castration, separating young from their mothers, etc.), genetically modify them to hasten their growth at the expense of their health, and we slaughter them in extremely inhuman conditions. They may not be able to understand why they are made to suffer, but the fact is that they feel pain just like you and me. It truly blows my mind how you could simply shrug off the suffering of other sentient beings.
I do not think that all omnivores are bad people. That would be extremely hypocritical of me, because I ate meat for most of my life. However, I changed my diet when the reality of the meat industry was made clear to me. Once you are aware of the destruction caused by factory farming there is no excuse for continuing to financially support it.
All of this is aside from the well-researched impact of the meat industry on our climate, which is a humanitarian issue. The agricultural industry accounts for up to 30 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, so if you are financially supporting this industry can you really call yourself an environmentalist? I think not.
My arguments fall on deaf ears only because you are unwilling to listen to arguments that make you uncomfortable. I haven't posted images of slaughterhouses, all I've done is present the facts because they should be shocking enough (and clearly they struck a nerve).
You've called me a condescending prick, abrasive, and several other names yet you continue to insist that I am the one "yelling and acting morally superior." Projection at its finest.
I won't be responding any more, because you are wasting my time. If you ever feel the need to educate yourself about vegetarianism or factory farming, I suggest starting with the book Animal Liberation by Peter Singer.