Animal Liberation by Peter Singer

¶ … Animal Liberation by Peter Singer

In Animal Liberation, Peter Singer presents a convincing argument against the continued exploitation of animals used for scientific research and for human consumption. My beliefs on the issues have always been very similar to Singer's.

The principal basis for Singer's suggestion that lack of concern for animal suffering is unethical and immoral is the overwhelming evidence that animals experience physical pain as acutely as humans. Specifically, the only significant difference between human suffering and animal suffering is that animals cannot communicate their responses to us through verbal language.

However, as Singer points out in his strongest arguments, neither can human infants, or for that matter, deaf mutes. Nevertheless, nobody refutes the idea that human beings experience pain regardless of whether or not they can communicate through language. As Singer explains, there is no doubt as to the substantial similarity between many elements of animal physiology and function and human physiology and function; in fact, that is precisely why animal experiments are relevant to human medical research.

Likewise, animals display nearly identical reactions to painful stimuli as humans in every other respect besides linguistic expression.

Singer also offers the findings of animal behaviorist studies, as well as anecdotal evidence of wildlife experts, documenting the extent to which so-called "higher animals" are apparently capable of suffering from non-physical pain that is considered emotional trauma in humans. One of Singer's most interesting arguments is that relating to speciesism, the concept that humans tend to view moral issues subjectively, in that concerns that are, in fact, virtually identical as between humans and animals are only taken seriously to the extent they pertain to humans. In that regard, Singer reminds us that the very same distinctions that supposedly justify certain conduct toward other animals is identical to various moral beliefs once used to justify human slavery, exploitation, and other aspects of racism, even within the human species.

Singer criticizes both the use of animals for medical experimentation and the manner in which the modern farming industry raises animals for human consumption, but does not adequately detail the fundamental moral basis for distinguishing morally justifiable forms of scientific experiments and farming from morally reprehensible forms of such uses. In particular, Singer could have explained that moral concern for animals does not necessarily require that humans become vegetarians.

On the other hand, there is a tremendous moral difference between raising animals for consumption in conditions that provide for their reasonable comfort and humane slaughter and doing so without any regard at all for their comfort in life or trauma during slaughter. In many instances, morally questionable practices, especially in the farming industry, could be resolved simply by valuing the goal of avoiding the unnecessary infliction of pain a little more and the maximization of profits a little less.