What do you think?
Rate this book
Animal Liberation Now
The landmark book that opened the world's eyes to the suffering inflicted by humans on other animals, now fully rewritten and entirely updated to reflect the pressing problems of today.
'An extraordinary book which has had extraordinary effects ... It galvanised a generation into action' Independent on Sunday
*One of the 100 all-time best non-fiction books* ( TIME magazine)
WITH A FOREWORD BY YUVAL NOAH HARARI
____
Animal Liberation started a worldwide movement when it revealed the abuse of animals in factory farms and laboratories. It demonstrated that these and other practices were the cause of appalling and unnecessary suffering and therefore morally indefensible. In the fifty years since, science has further vindicated Peter Singer's arguments about animal sentience, vegetarianism has become widespread, and the book has helped change the minds of millions. But the situation for animals has in many ways grown worse.
Despite improvements in animal welfare in some regions - brought about in large part by this book - in many others the scale of their abuse has reached staggering new depths. This revised edition, of which about two-thirds is entirely new, documents these and other developments, such as the impact of meat consumption on climate and the spread of dangerous new viruses. It refines its arguments in light of new evidence, equips the reader with fresh tools and advice, and shows us all the road ahead. The result, Animal Liberation Now , is a book of galvanising power, relevance and importance.
____
'Raises ethical questions that every human being should take to heart' Yuval Noah Harari
'One the most important books of the last 100 years. It expands our moral horizons beyond our own species' Ecologist
'The indispensable foundational text for the movement, new and updated. Animal Liberation Now is written with the honesty and philosophical depth characteristic of all of Singer's work' J. M. Coetzee, Winner of the Nobel Prize in Literature, author of The Lives of Animals and Disgrace
'A reasoned plea for the humane treatment of animals that galvanised the animal-rights movement the way the Rachel Carson's Silent Spring drew activists to environmentalism' The New York Times
'If I have to pick the book that had the most impact on me, I would say Peter Singer's Animal Liberation , since I instantly became a vegetarian after reading it' Jane Goodall
'Probably the single most influential document in the history of ... animal welfare' Guardian
'An extraordinary book which has had extraordinary effects ... It galvanised a generation into action' Independent on Sunday
*One of the 100 all-time best non-fiction books* ( TIME magazine)
WITH A FOREWORD BY YUVAL NOAH HARARI
____
Animal Liberation started a worldwide movement when it revealed the abuse of animals in factory farms and laboratories. It demonstrated that these and other practices were the cause of appalling and unnecessary suffering and therefore morally indefensible. In the fifty years since, science has further vindicated Peter Singer's arguments about animal sentience, vegetarianism has become widespread, and the book has helped change the minds of millions. But the situation for animals has in many ways grown worse.
Despite improvements in animal welfare in some regions - brought about in large part by this book - in many others the scale of their abuse has reached staggering new depths. This revised edition, of which about two-thirds is entirely new, documents these and other developments, such as the impact of meat consumption on climate and the spread of dangerous new viruses. It refines its arguments in light of new evidence, equips the reader with fresh tools and advice, and shows us all the road ahead. The result, Animal Liberation Now , is a book of galvanising power, relevance and importance.
____
'Raises ethical questions that every human being should take to heart' Yuval Noah Harari
'One the most important books of the last 100 years. It expands our moral horizons beyond our own species' Ecologist
'The indispensable foundational text for the movement, new and updated. Animal Liberation Now is written with the honesty and philosophical depth characteristic of all of Singer's work' J. M. Coetzee, Winner of the Nobel Prize in Literature, author of The Lives of Animals and Disgrace
'A reasoned plea for the humane treatment of animals that galvanised the animal-rights movement the way the Rachel Carson's Silent Spring drew activists to environmentalism' The New York Times
'If I have to pick the book that had the most impact on me, I would say Peter Singer's Animal Liberation , since I instantly became a vegetarian after reading it' Jane Goodall
'Probably the single most influential document in the history of ... animal welfare' Guardian
363 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 2023
298 people are currently reading
4706 people want to read
About the author
Peter Singer
186 books10.9k followersPeter Singer is sometimes called "the world’s most influential living philosopher" although he thinks that if that is true, it doesn't say much for all the other living philosophers around today. He has also been called the father (or grandfather?) of the modern animal rights movement, even though he doesn't base his philosophical views on rights, either for humans or for animals.
In 2005 Time magazine named Singer one of the 100 most influential people in the world, and the Gottlieb Duttweiler Institute ranked him 3rd among Global Thought Leaders for 2013. (He has since slipped to 36th.) He is known especially for his work on the ethics of our treatment of animals, for his controversial critique of the sanctity of life doctrine in bioethics, and for his writings on the obligations of the affluent to aid those living in extreme poverty.
Singer first became well-known internationally after the publication of Animal Liberation in 1975. In 2011 Time included Animal Liberation on its “All-TIME” list of the 100 best nonfiction books published in English since the magazine began, in 1923. Singer has written, co-authored, edited or co-edited more than 50 books, including Practical Ethics; The Expanding Circle; How Are We to Live?, Rethinking Life and Death, The Ethics of What We Eat (with Jim Mason), The Point of View of the Universe (with Katarzyna de Lazari-Radek), The Most Good You Can Do, Ethics in the Real World and Utilitarianism: A Very Short Introduction. His works have appeared in more than 30 languages.
Singer’s book The Life You Can Save, first published in 2009, led him to found a non-profit organization of the same name. In 2019, Singer got back the rights to the book and granted them to the organization, enabling it to make the eBook and audiobook versions available free from its website, www.thelifeyoucansave.org.
Peter Singer was born in Melbourne, Australia, in 1946, and educated at the University of Melbourne and the University of Oxford. After teaching in England, the United States and Australia, he has, since 1999, been Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics in the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University. He is married, with three daughters and four grandchildren. His recreations include hiking and surfing. In 2012 he was made a Companion of the Order of Australia, the nation’s highest civic honour.
In 2005 Time magazine named Singer one of the 100 most influential people in the world, and the Gottlieb Duttweiler Institute ranked him 3rd among Global Thought Leaders for 2013. (He has since slipped to 36th.) He is known especially for his work on the ethics of our treatment of animals, for his controversial critique of the sanctity of life doctrine in bioethics, and for his writings on the obligations of the affluent to aid those living in extreme poverty.
Singer first became well-known internationally after the publication of Animal Liberation in 1975. In 2011 Time included Animal Liberation on its “All-TIME” list of the 100 best nonfiction books published in English since the magazine began, in 1923. Singer has written, co-authored, edited or co-edited more than 50 books, including Practical Ethics; The Expanding Circle; How Are We to Live?, Rethinking Life and Death, The Ethics of What We Eat (with Jim Mason), The Point of View of the Universe (with Katarzyna de Lazari-Radek), The Most Good You Can Do, Ethics in the Real World and Utilitarianism: A Very Short Introduction. His works have appeared in more than 30 languages.
Singer’s book The Life You Can Save, first published in 2009, led him to found a non-profit organization of the same name. In 2019, Singer got back the rights to the book and granted them to the organization, enabling it to make the eBook and audiobook versions available free from its website, www.thelifeyoucansave.org.
Peter Singer was born in Melbourne, Australia, in 1946, and educated at the University of Melbourne and the University of Oxford. After teaching in England, the United States and Australia, he has, since 1999, been Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics in the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University. He is married, with three daughters and four grandchildren. His recreations include hiking and surfing. In 2012 he was made a Companion of the Order of Australia, the nation’s highest civic honour.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 218 reviews
July 21, 2023
Read it and pass it on to someone else to read. Ask them to pass it on to someone else too.
June 24, 2023
This book is very important to me. I have been an ethical vegetarian for over 20 years and much of the reason I have kept up this diet/lifestyle was the arguments in this book. Peter Singer is therefore a very significant writer and hero of mine.
The question then should be: If I have read Animal Liberation is it worthwhile to read the revised edition? Overall, yes. There are some segments that I remembered reading decades ago, mostly about factory farming and a bit on animal testing. However, there are plenty of sections that highlight how we have improved farming/ testing practices since the 90s (the book has an edition from the 70s and 90s, so I probably read the 90s edition).
Unfortunately, farming practices have changed very little from the writing of the book in the 70s, especially in the United States. As usual, the US is behind many developed nations when it comes to ethics and compassion in general. Due to a myriad of factors like corporate greed, lobbyists and undue influence in government, and general indifference, change has only come about through shaming corporations and the rare ballot initiatives in some states most significantly with Prop 2 in California. It was not all that surprising, but hard to read.
Why then did I give the book 4 instead of 5 stars? Firstly, I didn't fully grasp all of the ethical arguments in the book (granted I understand the main premise, which is why I'm vegetarian!). Also, the book is devoid of photo inserts (which the 90s edition had!) and the chapters are overly long and could be sectioned out (not really different from the 2nd edition). Overall though, this book is a VERY important book and one that everyone should consider reading if they care about animals. I am mostly vegetarian due to the ethical impact on animals, but the case for environmental ethics is just as powerful.
The question then should be: If I have read Animal Liberation is it worthwhile to read the revised edition? Overall, yes. There are some segments that I remembered reading decades ago, mostly about factory farming and a bit on animal testing. However, there are plenty of sections that highlight how we have improved farming/ testing practices since the 90s (the book has an edition from the 70s and 90s, so I probably read the 90s edition).
Unfortunately, farming practices have changed very little from the writing of the book in the 70s, especially in the United States. As usual, the US is behind many developed nations when it comes to ethics and compassion in general. Due to a myriad of factors like corporate greed, lobbyists and undue influence in government, and general indifference, change has only come about through shaming corporations and the rare ballot initiatives in some states most significantly with Prop 2 in California. It was not all that surprising, but hard to read.
Why then did I give the book 4 instead of 5 stars? Firstly, I didn't fully grasp all of the ethical arguments in the book (granted I understand the main premise, which is why I'm vegetarian!). Also, the book is devoid of photo inserts (which the 90s edition had!) and the chapters are overly long and could be sectioned out (not really different from the 2nd edition). Overall though, this book is a VERY important book and one that everyone should consider reading if they care about animals. I am mostly vegetarian due to the ethical impact on animals, but the case for environmental ethics is just as powerful.
July 14, 2023
A harrowing read which should be experienced by all. Still, Singer leaves us with some hope. The more we talk about animal liberation, the more hope in sight.
December 26, 2023
Like Peter Singer, I genuinely believe that it is impossible for an honest person with reasoning capabilities and regard for moral consistency to avoid concluding that consuming animal products is morally wrong. Nevertheless, I find myself consistently mocked for this view, even by those whom I consider friends. Why? Simply, disregard for non-human animals is ingrained deeply in the fabric of human society.
Animal Liberation does a brilliant job of deconstructing what could be termed "carnist" or "speciesist" worldviews, the worldviews shared by a depressing number of people, and the views I held myself until I began deconstructing them in this same way. Unfortunately, I was 17 when I became vegan, and I have only been free of eating murdered animals for less than two years of my life at the time I am writing this. Nonetheless I have only become more and more convinced over these past 15 months that the treatment of farmed animals is one of the most staggering injustices of our current age and regret almost nothing more than my participation in it throughout my childhood, the result of speciesist indoctrination from birth.
Singer's book starts out with a definition of the term "speciesism" as a prejudice in favor of one's own species on the basis of species membership alone. Then, he launches into an expose of the many manifestations of speciesism in our society, starting with the torture of animals in pointless lab experiments, and continuing on through animal product industries: meat, dairy, eggs, seafood, and clothing materials such as leather. Anyone with knowledge of modern intensive farming will be aware of most of the shocking industry practices he details, but still I learned some things I was previously unaware of.
One thing I didn't know is that broiler chickens, because of selective breeding that augments their growth so massively, would be unable to reproduce naturally if allowed to continue growing to their full sizes. Chickens who are killed for their meat at a young age don't face this problem, but chickens who are kept for breeding would not be able to be "useful" if they grew to their full size-- so they are starved instead, being fed only other day in order to keep them smaller and able to breed. Real evil shit.
The second half of Animal Liberation provides a philosophical justification for considering animals in the sphere of ethics. Singer briefly discusses effective altruism, and dispels myths about the impracticability or lack of health benefits of veganism (FOR THE LAST FUCKING TIME. VEGANISM IS NOT DANGEROUS OR UNHEALTHY AND IN FACT CONFERS SEVERAL HEALTH BENEFITS).
Then, he discusses the history of speciesist ideas specifically in the West by providing an overview of historical perspectives on ethics. I greatly appreciated that he cites Christianity as one of the primary speciesist influences that have shaped our current attitudes towards animals, because that happens to be one of the reasons I have such a personal dislike for the Christian religion. Thank you Peter Singer for calling out Augustine and Aquinas in this area.
The conclusion of the book takes a look at current-day speciesism, a great rebuttal to common arguments against vegans (which are so often poorly-disguised deflection) and Singer finishes with a call-to-action for the reader to cut speciesist practices out of their own life.
My main criticism of Singer is that he gives too much credence to things like "conscientious omnivorism", which I think is complete laziness and just an excuse to keep eating meat. I also disagree with his statement that something like refusing to eat a cake offered to you at a party because it has eggs would be a useless action; I think that to eat a non-vegan cake at a party is a betrayal to the movement and indicates to others that animal lives are less important to you than social convenience and acceptance.
Overall, though, I would highly highly recommend this to everyone, even if you are already vegan, because it will serve to inspire you to continue fighting for the animals and even give you hope for the future. I spend so much time angry at the world and falling into deep depressions because of how callous everyone around me seems to be to the acute suffering of all of these beings, but books like this give me hope. This edition is an update to previous editions, the first edition of Animal Liberation was published in 1970 and even since then much progress has been made. It's still not enough though, and we need as many people as possible to wake up to the oppression of animals.
Animal Liberation does a brilliant job of deconstructing what could be termed "carnist" or "speciesist" worldviews, the worldviews shared by a depressing number of people, and the views I held myself until I began deconstructing them in this same way. Unfortunately, I was 17 when I became vegan, and I have only been free of eating murdered animals for less than two years of my life at the time I am writing this. Nonetheless I have only become more and more convinced over these past 15 months that the treatment of farmed animals is one of the most staggering injustices of our current age and regret almost nothing more than my participation in it throughout my childhood, the result of speciesist indoctrination from birth.
Singer's book starts out with a definition of the term "speciesism" as a prejudice in favor of one's own species on the basis of species membership alone. Then, he launches into an expose of the many manifestations of speciesism in our society, starting with the torture of animals in pointless lab experiments, and continuing on through animal product industries: meat, dairy, eggs, seafood, and clothing materials such as leather. Anyone with knowledge of modern intensive farming will be aware of most of the shocking industry practices he details, but still I learned some things I was previously unaware of.
One thing I didn't know is that broiler chickens, because of selective breeding that augments their growth so massively, would be unable to reproduce naturally if allowed to continue growing to their full sizes. Chickens who are killed for their meat at a young age don't face this problem, but chickens who are kept for breeding would not be able to be "useful" if they grew to their full size-- so they are starved instead, being fed only other day in order to keep them smaller and able to breed. Real evil shit.
The second half of Animal Liberation provides a philosophical justification for considering animals in the sphere of ethics. Singer briefly discusses effective altruism, and dispels myths about the impracticability or lack of health benefits of veganism (FOR THE LAST FUCKING TIME. VEGANISM IS NOT DANGEROUS OR UNHEALTHY AND IN FACT CONFERS SEVERAL HEALTH BENEFITS).
Then, he discusses the history of speciesist ideas specifically in the West by providing an overview of historical perspectives on ethics. I greatly appreciated that he cites Christianity as one of the primary speciesist influences that have shaped our current attitudes towards animals, because that happens to be one of the reasons I have such a personal dislike for the Christian religion. Thank you Peter Singer for calling out Augustine and Aquinas in this area.
The conclusion of the book takes a look at current-day speciesism, a great rebuttal to common arguments against vegans (which are so often poorly-disguised deflection) and Singer finishes with a call-to-action for the reader to cut speciesist practices out of their own life.
My main criticism of Singer is that he gives too much credence to things like "conscientious omnivorism", which I think is complete laziness and just an excuse to keep eating meat. I also disagree with his statement that something like refusing to eat a cake offered to you at a party because it has eggs would be a useless action; I think that to eat a non-vegan cake at a party is a betrayal to the movement and indicates to others that animal lives are less important to you than social convenience and acceptance.
Overall, though, I would highly highly recommend this to everyone, even if you are already vegan, because it will serve to inspire you to continue fighting for the animals and even give you hope for the future. I spend so much time angry at the world and falling into deep depressions because of how callous everyone around me seems to be to the acute suffering of all of these beings, but books like this give me hope. This edition is an update to previous editions, the first edition of Animal Liberation was published in 1970 and even since then much progress has been made. It's still not enough though, and we need as many people as possible to wake up to the oppression of animals.
October 20, 2024
Oh gosh I've been radicalised.
July 4, 2023
I read Animal Liberation 14 years ago. I was an absolute meat lover before I picked up the book, and by the time I was done reading it, I decided to become a vegetarian. I enjoyed the updated version of the book and I am now considering becoming vegan. Read this book and it might change your life- it did for me!
October 6, 2025
bon bon bon voilà les arguments ne mentent pas je devrais devenir végétarien
September 13, 2023
I had to skip the two middle chapters about animal cruelty. It was too much. And I know that that is half the book, but I just couldn’t do it.
I got the point pretty quickly, didn’t need to listen to 5 hours of torture and disgusting, revolting animal pain.
It really made me want to reduce my consumption of animal products, and look for more ethical sources of meat and animal products.
Disturbing but important.
I got the point pretty quickly, didn’t need to listen to 5 hours of torture and disgusting, revolting animal pain.
It really made me want to reduce my consumption of animal products, and look for more ethical sources of meat and animal products.
Disturbing but important.
August 26, 2024
I ran across a mention of Peter Singer recently in Strangers Drowning: Grappling with Impossible Idealism, Drastic Choices, and the Overpowering Urge to Help, and decided I should read something by this well-known utilitarian. I'd never read the original Animal Liberation so this book is where I landed.
Chapter 1 -- lays out a philosophical argument for equal moral consideration of all conscious beings. The famous line from Bentham is there: "The question is not Can they reason? nor Can they speak?' but, Can they suffer?" On this chapter I have no comment; I was persuaded. I was glad that Singer talks about degrees of consciousness and/or how much certainty we have that various organisms are conscious, because there are some real edge cases where the scientific community still isn't sure (insects, oysters, shrimp). Although I'm not confident that consciousness is the same thing as being able to suffer, or that being able to suffer is the same as being able to experience pleasure, this isn't a major criticism. In the animal world all these do seem to go together, and the animal world is the central focus of the book.
Chapters 2 and 3 are the nasty chapters, one on animal experimentation and one on factory farming. I considered skipping these because the scenes described were quite unpleasant and there wasn't a lot of new information for me; I've read The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals, Eating Animals, Just Another Meat-Eating Dirtbag: A Memoir, etc. However, I stuck with it, and was pleased to see my state repeatedly listed as one of the best in the US on many animal handling issues.
Next Singer goes over the history of speciesist ideas, specifically in the West, by providing an overview of historical perspectives on ethics. This part is actually pretty snappy and doesn't drag. I appreciated that he cites Christianity as one of the primary speciesist influences that have shaped our current attitudes towards animals, and actually hadn't known that Manichaeism offered a different perspective back in the days when it was a real competitor.
Surprisingly, given the title (Do Something Now!), the calls to action were the weakest parts of the book for me. Descriptions of the scale of the problem were bleak -- more meat is being produced through factory farming than was true in the 1970s. I was becoming more convinced that individually cutting out the last of my meat consumption -- I eat much less than I used to -- would probably be less effective than working on policies that would make these creatures' lives either better or less awful, but when I got to the relevant part of the book, there it was: the usual exhortation to go vegan. Singer is a utilitarian and there's no place for absolutes in that world; he suggests eating cake at a dear friend's party without worrying overmuch whether it contains eggs. Amusingly there are reviews on this site that disagree there, calling such an action a betrayal of the movement without regard for the possible spurning of your friend's celebration ritual. Purity culture is strong these days, that's all I will say about that.
The difficulty of holding to a vegetarian or vegan diet is minimized at almost every point where it comes up; like many such books, this seems to ignore the fact that if it were that easy for everyone, a lot more people would probably do it. Then, strangely, the author suggests that conscientious omnivorism probably is too difficult to really hew to, though that is largely a matter of finding and ordering from the right farm; and also doesn't strongly suggest that we work toward a world where conscientious omnivorism is the only kind, because well-enforced policy decrees it. (Yes, meat would get a whole lot more expensive. I think it ought to.)
There's also a cowardice in this book, in that Singer assumes we must retain the current standards that humans have for care of all homo sapiens. In several thought experiments he uses the example of a human being with severe brain damage, but rejects any notion that such a being might indeed warrant any fewer rights than a classically abled adult human being. I, for one, have no qualms about going there. I also want for humans some of the rights we give to animals, e.g. that of receiving euthanasia when future pain seems likely to overwhelm future pleasure.
A similar distinction shows up in the discussion of animals eating other animals; Singer argues that animals can do so without moral wrongdoing, but we cannot, because we're capable of moral reasoning -- a strangely deontological argument, from a utilitarian. But humans are animals too, and indeed we are a pest that has caused the extinction of megafauna around the world (Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind). Maybe we aren't better than other animals. Maybe there's a way forward in admitting it.
Lastly, I don't see a refutation of something I got from Michael Pollan -- an ecosystem consisting only of plants and homo sapiens makes no sense and would likely collapse. Plants and animals interact and need one another. So we are always going to have some animal life to cope with, and at least some animals that it might make sense to euthanize humanely and then eat.
Ultimately I'm left with less interest in a strictly vegan diet, and more interest in animal welfare advocacy.
Chapter 1 -- lays out a philosophical argument for equal moral consideration of all conscious beings. The famous line from Bentham is there: "The question is not Can they reason? nor Can they speak?' but, Can they suffer?" On this chapter I have no comment; I was persuaded. I was glad that Singer talks about degrees of consciousness and/or how much certainty we have that various organisms are conscious, because there are some real edge cases where the scientific community still isn't sure (insects, oysters, shrimp). Although I'm not confident that consciousness is the same thing as being able to suffer, or that being able to suffer is the same as being able to experience pleasure, this isn't a major criticism. In the animal world all these do seem to go together, and the animal world is the central focus of the book.
Chapters 2 and 3 are the nasty chapters, one on animal experimentation and one on factory farming. I considered skipping these because the scenes described were quite unpleasant and there wasn't a lot of new information for me; I've read The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals, Eating Animals, Just Another Meat-Eating Dirtbag: A Memoir, etc. However, I stuck with it, and was pleased to see my state repeatedly listed as one of the best in the US on many animal handling issues.
Next Singer goes over the history of speciesist ideas, specifically in the West, by providing an overview of historical perspectives on ethics. This part is actually pretty snappy and doesn't drag. I appreciated that he cites Christianity as one of the primary speciesist influences that have shaped our current attitudes towards animals, and actually hadn't known that Manichaeism offered a different perspective back in the days when it was a real competitor.
Surprisingly, given the title (Do Something Now!), the calls to action were the weakest parts of the book for me. Descriptions of the scale of the problem were bleak -- more meat is being produced through factory farming than was true in the 1970s. I was becoming more convinced that individually cutting out the last of my meat consumption -- I eat much less than I used to -- would probably be less effective than working on policies that would make these creatures' lives either better or less awful, but when I got to the relevant part of the book, there it was: the usual exhortation to go vegan. Singer is a utilitarian and there's no place for absolutes in that world; he suggests eating cake at a dear friend's party without worrying overmuch whether it contains eggs. Amusingly there are reviews on this site that disagree there, calling such an action a betrayal of the movement without regard for the possible spurning of your friend's celebration ritual. Purity culture is strong these days, that's all I will say about that.
The difficulty of holding to a vegetarian or vegan diet is minimized at almost every point where it comes up; like many such books, this seems to ignore the fact that if it were that easy for everyone, a lot more people would probably do it. Then, strangely, the author suggests that conscientious omnivorism probably is too difficult to really hew to, though that is largely a matter of finding and ordering from the right farm; and also doesn't strongly suggest that we work toward a world where conscientious omnivorism is the only kind, because well-enforced policy decrees it. (Yes, meat would get a whole lot more expensive. I think it ought to.)
There's also a cowardice in this book, in that Singer assumes we must retain the current standards that humans have for care of all homo sapiens. In several thought experiments he uses the example of a human being with severe brain damage, but rejects any notion that such a being might indeed warrant any fewer rights than a classically abled adult human being. I, for one, have no qualms about going there. I also want for humans some of the rights we give to animals, e.g. that of receiving euthanasia when future pain seems likely to overwhelm future pleasure.
A similar distinction shows up in the discussion of animals eating other animals; Singer argues that animals can do so without moral wrongdoing, but we cannot, because we're capable of moral reasoning -- a strangely deontological argument, from a utilitarian. But humans are animals too, and indeed we are a pest that has caused the extinction of megafauna around the world (Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind). Maybe we aren't better than other animals. Maybe there's a way forward in admitting it.
Lastly, I don't see a refutation of something I got from Michael Pollan -- an ecosystem consisting only of plants and homo sapiens makes no sense and would likely collapse. Plants and animals interact and need one another. So we are always going to have some animal life to cope with, and at least some animals that it might make sense to euthanize humanely and then eat.
Ultimately I'm left with less interest in a strictly vegan diet, and more interest in animal welfare advocacy.
May 30, 2023
coherent arguments about not buying meat, dairy, or eggs + other actions re: humanity. philosophy at its finest. read this and receive an honorary doctorate of philosophy in doing the bare minimum 🐷
September 27, 2023
Peter Singer has mostly rewritten his 1975 classic book that played a major rule in igniting the animal rights movement worldwide. The majority (~75%) of the content is new, updated to reflect modern trends and practices, and frequently reflects upon how the world has changed since the original book.
Chapter 1 lays the groundwork by establishing sentience as the basis for applying Singer’s “equal consideration of interests”. That is, as Bentham famously put it, “the question is not Can they reason?, nor Can they talk? But, Can they suffer?” Singer explores the scientific evidence establishing the existence of sentience—with varying degrees of certainty—among many non-human species, from fish to insects to farm animals. It is pretty clear nowadays, even to non-vegans, that humans are committing unimaginable atrocities to non-human animals in factory farms. In many ways, there has been tremendous progress since the original publishing of Animal Liberation—with increased awareness of humans’ dreadful treatment of animals, to more scientists working on studying animal consciousness, to vegan items on menus worldwide. In other ways, life for non-humans has never been worse, due to the economic development of countries like China who have drastically ramped up their consumption of animal products—that is, more animals than ever (83 billion a year) are being killed for food and other purposes. None of this is necessary for human flourishing, nor remotely justifiable ethically.
In Chapter 2, we learn that the USDA does not keep statistics on the number of rats, mice and birds used in animal experiments—only cats, dogs, and non-human primates—despite estimates that rats, mice and bird comprise about 99.3% of all animals used in top NIH-funded facilities (one estimate) and that rats and mice comprise 95% of all animals used (another estimate). The lower end estimate means about 15.6M animals are used in experiments per year in the US (compared to over 50M in China). Singer tees up these figures to ask us what proportion of animals used in experiments actually lead to the greater good (?), and to demonstrate institutionalized speciesism. This is basically a lengthy chapter documenting humans’ outrageous treatment of animals in factory farms—something that is not necessary for human flourishing—and in medical experiments, in which the payoff to scientific advancement has been minimal at best, and completely pointless/nothing-but suffering-producing at worst.
Later in the chapter, Singer asks us how sane, non-psychopathic people can partake in such treatment of animals. He posits that this ethical blindness is a result of the unexamined prejudice that precludes animals from moral consideration, which he calls speciesism. He recalls an anecdote from Steven Pinker, who, in his graduate student days, was instructed to torture a rat; as Pinker explains, “I carried out the procedure anyway, reassured by the ethically spurious but psychologically reassuring principle that it was standard practice.”
Chapter 3 is not pleasant reading, but it is required reading for anyone unfamiliar with the details of factory farming. One of the better methods used by Singer in this chapter is to only report on the facts using sources relied on by agribusiness itself, not sources from activists with a tendency to report things as worse than they actually are. I’ll leave the gruesome details out of this review. Suffice to say, even the rosiest, most industry-biased reporting of the facts is appalling and should lead any even-slightly compassionate person to refuse to purchase anything made in a factory farm, which brings us to Chapter 4: what can we do about this?
Well, “over 99.9 percent of chickens raised for meat are kept in factory farms, 99.8 percent of turkeys, 98.3 percent of pigs, 98.2 percent of egg-laying hens, and 70.4 percent of cows”, according to a Sentience Institute study that Singer cites (p. 158). One could try to be a “conscientious omnivore” and try to buy the small-to-minuscule fraction of animal products that aren’t produced in factory farms—which will cost you a handsome premium. Some people defend this view by arguing that these animals wouldn’t have existed otherwise, so we’re actually producing a net benefit to the animal, provided we treat them well while alive and kill then “humanely”. Singer thinks this reasoning is not obviously wrong, but I’ve always found this reasoning to be tortured (and indeed, Singer does cite some good sources that tackle the “asymmetry problem”, i.e., the asymmetry between harming a being that doesn’t exist vs not harming a being that exists). Though Singer admits he is “unable to provide any decisive refutation of the conscientious omnivore”, he still is uneasy about supporting this view given that it will be exceedingly hard in practice to find animals treated sufficiently well. Singer cites empirical evidence to support this view, i.e., that being a conscientious omnivore does not go far enough at all given the poor treatment of animals even outside of factory farms.
Moreover, he reasons that a free-market’s economic incentives will also produce a difficult trade-off between the profit motive and animal welfare, where greater welfare standards typically correlate with reduce profits—and such welfare standards are surely not scalable in a way that could meet current market demand. Animals are treated as means to our ends rather than sentient creatures who we should apply the principle of equal consideration of interest to. The more straightforward, justifiable conclusion is thus to simply refrain from consuming products for which sentient creatures were exploited to create. When you factor in the environmental benefits that abstaining from animal products has (e.g., for climate change, but also land use, water use, and food inputs), the case becomes even stronger, as Singer argues later in the chapter.
The penultimate chapter recounts the history of speciesism that’s rooted firmly in Judeo-Christian doctrine, with some desperate mental gymnastics by many famous philosophers to exclude non-human animals from the sphere of moral concern, e.g., Descartes, who regarded animals as automata—non-conscious entities—incapable of feeling pain despite appearing to writhe in agony when we carve them up. The final chapter responds to objections to “Animal Liberation” (the original), to the ways in which speciesism is promoted and maintained in the present, and the excuses used to defend animal exploitation. Singer concludes by recounting some of the progress made in curtailing practices that most cruelly make animals suffer, such as banning the sale of foie gras in the UK and California; the banning of cosmetic testing on animals in the EU; and banning barren battery cages for laying hens in the EU.
All in all, an updated, comprehensive look at humans’ treatment of animals and the moral issues surrounding them. Mandatory reading for vegans, omnivores and everyone in between.
Chapter 1 lays the groundwork by establishing sentience as the basis for applying Singer’s “equal consideration of interests”. That is, as Bentham famously put it, “the question is not Can they reason?, nor Can they talk? But, Can they suffer?” Singer explores the scientific evidence establishing the existence of sentience—with varying degrees of certainty—among many non-human species, from fish to insects to farm animals. It is pretty clear nowadays, even to non-vegans, that humans are committing unimaginable atrocities to non-human animals in factory farms. In many ways, there has been tremendous progress since the original publishing of Animal Liberation—with increased awareness of humans’ dreadful treatment of animals, to more scientists working on studying animal consciousness, to vegan items on menus worldwide. In other ways, life for non-humans has never been worse, due to the economic development of countries like China who have drastically ramped up their consumption of animal products—that is, more animals than ever (83 billion a year) are being killed for food and other purposes. None of this is necessary for human flourishing, nor remotely justifiable ethically.
In Chapter 2, we learn that the USDA does not keep statistics on the number of rats, mice and birds used in animal experiments—only cats, dogs, and non-human primates—despite estimates that rats, mice and bird comprise about 99.3% of all animals used in top NIH-funded facilities (one estimate) and that rats and mice comprise 95% of all animals used (another estimate). The lower end estimate means about 15.6M animals are used in experiments per year in the US (compared to over 50M in China). Singer tees up these figures to ask us what proportion of animals used in experiments actually lead to the greater good (?), and to demonstrate institutionalized speciesism. This is basically a lengthy chapter documenting humans’ outrageous treatment of animals in factory farms—something that is not necessary for human flourishing—and in medical experiments, in which the payoff to scientific advancement has been minimal at best, and completely pointless/nothing-but suffering-producing at worst.
Later in the chapter, Singer asks us how sane, non-psychopathic people can partake in such treatment of animals. He posits that this ethical blindness is a result of the unexamined prejudice that precludes animals from moral consideration, which he calls speciesism. He recalls an anecdote from Steven Pinker, who, in his graduate student days, was instructed to torture a rat; as Pinker explains, “I carried out the procedure anyway, reassured by the ethically spurious but psychologically reassuring principle that it was standard practice.”
Chapter 3 is not pleasant reading, but it is required reading for anyone unfamiliar with the details of factory farming. One of the better methods used by Singer in this chapter is to only report on the facts using sources relied on by agribusiness itself, not sources from activists with a tendency to report things as worse than they actually are. I’ll leave the gruesome details out of this review. Suffice to say, even the rosiest, most industry-biased reporting of the facts is appalling and should lead any even-slightly compassionate person to refuse to purchase anything made in a factory farm, which brings us to Chapter 4: what can we do about this?
Well, “over 99.9 percent of chickens raised for meat are kept in factory farms, 99.8 percent of turkeys, 98.3 percent of pigs, 98.2 percent of egg-laying hens, and 70.4 percent of cows”, according to a Sentience Institute study that Singer cites (p. 158). One could try to be a “conscientious omnivore” and try to buy the small-to-minuscule fraction of animal products that aren’t produced in factory farms—which will cost you a handsome premium. Some people defend this view by arguing that these animals wouldn’t have existed otherwise, so we’re actually producing a net benefit to the animal, provided we treat them well while alive and kill then “humanely”. Singer thinks this reasoning is not obviously wrong, but I’ve always found this reasoning to be tortured (and indeed, Singer does cite some good sources that tackle the “asymmetry problem”, i.e., the asymmetry between harming a being that doesn’t exist vs not harming a being that exists). Though Singer admits he is “unable to provide any decisive refutation of the conscientious omnivore”, he still is uneasy about supporting this view given that it will be exceedingly hard in practice to find animals treated sufficiently well. Singer cites empirical evidence to support this view, i.e., that being a conscientious omnivore does not go far enough at all given the poor treatment of animals even outside of factory farms.
Moreover, he reasons that a free-market’s economic incentives will also produce a difficult trade-off between the profit motive and animal welfare, where greater welfare standards typically correlate with reduce profits—and such welfare standards are surely not scalable in a way that could meet current market demand. Animals are treated as means to our ends rather than sentient creatures who we should apply the principle of equal consideration of interest to. The more straightforward, justifiable conclusion is thus to simply refrain from consuming products for which sentient creatures were exploited to create. When you factor in the environmental benefits that abstaining from animal products has (e.g., for climate change, but also land use, water use, and food inputs), the case becomes even stronger, as Singer argues later in the chapter.
The penultimate chapter recounts the history of speciesism that’s rooted firmly in Judeo-Christian doctrine, with some desperate mental gymnastics by many famous philosophers to exclude non-human animals from the sphere of moral concern, e.g., Descartes, who regarded animals as automata—non-conscious entities—incapable of feeling pain despite appearing to writhe in agony when we carve them up. The final chapter responds to objections to “Animal Liberation” (the original), to the ways in which speciesism is promoted and maintained in the present, and the excuses used to defend animal exploitation. Singer concludes by recounting some of the progress made in curtailing practices that most cruelly make animals suffer, such as banning the sale of foie gras in the UK and California; the banning of cosmetic testing on animals in the EU; and banning barren battery cages for laying hens in the EU.
All in all, an updated, comprehensive look at humans’ treatment of animals and the moral issues surrounding them. Mandatory reading for vegans, omnivores and everyone in between.
September 30, 2025
"We humans have the power to continue to oppress other species forever, or until we make ourselves extinct."
Aardig geschreven boek over de morele aanvaardbaar- dan wel verwerpelijkheid achter het laten lijden van dieren, met name in zogenoemde factory farms (intensieve veehouderij), zodat de mens hun producten/lichaamsdelen kan nuttigen of kennis kan vergaren middels wetenschappelijk onderzoek.
Singer somt op waarom mensen ervoor kiezen dit leed te laten voortduren en weerlegt hun argumenten op vrij overtuigende wijze. Zo is veel van het onderzoek, met name wanneer het de hersenen betreft, onbruikbaar omdat de dieren in kwestie vaak te veel afwijken van de mens of, zoals in het geval van PTSS of depressie, de oorzaken van een kwaal niet in een laboratorium na te bootsen zijn.
Hij toont mijns inziens aan dat het meeste dierenleed overbodig is en voortkomt uit de overtuiging dat de mens zichzelf meer waard vindt. Ook de redenen voor die overtuiging weet hij te weerleggen, met uitzondering van het feit dat een dier zich niet bewust is van de mogelijk waardevolle toekomst die het ontnomen wordt. Hij vraagt zich daarentegen (terecht?) af in hoeverre dat wel voor ieder mens geldt.
Het wordt helemaal netelig, maar niet minder interessant, wanneer hij baby's en (geestelijk) zieke mensen bij zijn gedachte-experimenten betrekt. Ook is het sympathiek dat hij het boek eindigt met wat recepten en is het een soort van opluchting dat het voor de dieren binnen de EU veelal wat minder verschrikkelijk is dan erbuiten. Daar staat wel tegenover dat het idee achter die miniscule hokjes voor kalveren waar ze gescheiden van moeder en zonder lichaamsbeweging (dan zou het vlees immers minder mals worden) 'leven,' een oerhollands idee is. Tot slot leert de lezer ook nog wat gezellige termen zoals een decapicone.
Aardig geschreven boek over de morele aanvaardbaar- dan wel verwerpelijkheid achter het laten lijden van dieren, met name in zogenoemde factory farms (intensieve veehouderij), zodat de mens hun producten/lichaamsdelen kan nuttigen of kennis kan vergaren middels wetenschappelijk onderzoek.
Singer somt op waarom mensen ervoor kiezen dit leed te laten voortduren en weerlegt hun argumenten op vrij overtuigende wijze. Zo is veel van het onderzoek, met name wanneer het de hersenen betreft, onbruikbaar omdat de dieren in kwestie vaak te veel afwijken van de mens of, zoals in het geval van PTSS of depressie, de oorzaken van een kwaal niet in een laboratorium na te bootsen zijn.
Hij toont mijns inziens aan dat het meeste dierenleed overbodig is en voortkomt uit de overtuiging dat de mens zichzelf meer waard vindt. Ook de redenen voor die overtuiging weet hij te weerleggen, met uitzondering van het feit dat een dier zich niet bewust is van de mogelijk waardevolle toekomst die het ontnomen wordt. Hij vraagt zich daarentegen (terecht?) af in hoeverre dat wel voor ieder mens geldt.
Het wordt helemaal netelig, maar niet minder interessant, wanneer hij baby's en (geestelijk) zieke mensen bij zijn gedachte-experimenten betrekt. Ook is het sympathiek dat hij het boek eindigt met wat recepten en is het een soort van opluchting dat het voor de dieren binnen de EU veelal wat minder verschrikkelijk is dan erbuiten. Daar staat wel tegenover dat het idee achter die miniscule hokjes voor kalveren waar ze gescheiden van moeder en zonder lichaamsbeweging (dan zou het vlees immers minder mals worden) 'leven,' een oerhollands idee is. Tot slot leert de lezer ook nog wat gezellige termen zoals een decapicone.
February 8, 2025
Facts on food, cosmetic and clothes markets. Review on history and religious/philosophical streams. Analytical and moral view on animal suffering. Convincing
June 23, 2024
Took a reading break but decided to reread this book that defined my plant base journey 20 years ago. I remember picking up the original book in middle school after feeling so conflicted on why society normalizes eating meat, and the arguments that are in this book are still what I use today when it comes to animal liberation and plant based life style. It also helped that all my favorite punk bands growing up used this book as basically their “bible” lmao. I definitely think it was worth the reread for sure.
July 20, 2023
Utterly Disturbing. Although no longer as ground breaking as I imagine the 1970s original was, motivated reasoning will continue to keep us blind to the potentially trillion of animals tortured for human taste or pleasure a year.
I appreciated the walkthrough of Greek and Christian thinking that lead us to accept almost unbounded dominion over animals.
Factory farming is an abomination.
A quote "sometimes attributed to Gandhi":
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
I appreciated the walkthrough of Greek and Christian thinking that lead us to accept almost unbounded dominion over animals.
Factory farming is an abomination.
A quote "sometimes attributed to Gandhi":
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
October 11, 2023
The descriptions of the lives of factory farm animals brought tears to my eyes
November 9, 2023
Nearly gave 4 stars cuz some of the more philosophical parts were lost on me. But at the end of the day this book deserves 5. Never touching meat again & would recommend this to anyone and everyone
November 3, 2024
An absolute life-changer. A must read for anyone who claims to care about animals. Be warned, you may end up finding it very hard not going vegan after.
November 8, 2024
The animal experimentation described here can make you cry.
December 1, 2025
“The question is not, Can [animals] reason? nor Can [animals] talk? but, Can [animals] suffer?”
There is no defensible position, for someone who considers principles of equality and morality important, to consume meat that is factory farmed.
“To discriminate against beings solely on account of their species is a form of prejudice, immoral and indefensible in the same way that discrimination on the basis of race or sex is immoral and indefensible.” Thus, without become vegetarian, “no basis remains from which [I] can, without hypocrisy, criticize racism or sexism.”
There is no defensible position, for someone who considers principles of equality and morality important, to consume meat that is factory farmed.
“To discriminate against beings solely on account of their species is a form of prejudice, immoral and indefensible in the same way that discrimination on the basis of race or sex is immoral and indefensible.” Thus, without become vegetarian, “no basis remains from which [I] can, without hypocrisy, criticize racism or sexism.”
November 25, 2024
A clear-eyed analysis of speciesism and the terrible impact on the animals we exploit. This updated edition sees Singer genuinely grapple with new research, while perhaps softening some of his rhetoric. His acute logic remains razor-sharp, however; while a chapter outlining the history of humans’ philosophies regarding the creatures we share this planet with is a tad rushed, he remains a fantastic communicator whose altruism and invective should be celebrated.
June 16, 2025
I am often asked why I am vegan. It may surprise you that I have never deeply contemplated my veganism (especially its moral and philosophical underpinnings). Singer’s arguments deepen and justify my choice to be vegan.
I am vegan because my sphere of moral consideration includes animals. Animals suffer immensely and unnecessarily in laboratories and factory farms across the US. It is wrong to patronize industries which have a profit motive to immiserate animals.
I am vegan because my sphere of moral consideration includes animals. Animals suffer immensely and unnecessarily in laboratories and factory farms across the US. It is wrong to patronize industries which have a profit motive to immiserate animals.
June 20, 2024
I hate utilitarians!
April 19, 2024
I learned a lot from Peter Singer’s first Animal Liberation book and loved this updated version. Animals are deserving of so much more respect and care. I hope this helps inspire new policies in the US to move away from factory farmed animal products, animal testing in cosmetics, and farmed fish!
July 5, 2023
Totally convincing. I have a few nitpicks which all together are not enough to parry the main thrust of the argument.
1) Some of the arguments against animal testing are a bit sloppy. The fact that some examples can be given in which animal, human responses to medicine are opposites doesn't mean that on average useful information is not obtained via this process. Perhaps there is no real benefit (now that we have computer simulations and cultured human cells) but the case the book makes isn't strong enough to get to that point.
That said the rest of the arguments in the section are strong enough to prove that at least 99% of animal tests are unnecessary. (Animals should also collectively be given a restraining order against psychologists.)
2) I would have liked more discussion about vegetarianism vs conscientious omnivorism. Though in fairness to Singer he claims that he doesn't really know how to argue the position. Being a conscientious omnivore is so expensive though that I imagine it's indistinguishable from vegetarianism 99% of the time. I also appreciate his pragmatism in reminding his vegetarian readers that these partial meat eaters should be viewed as allies.
3) The penultimate section on the history of speciesism feels really out of place. I can understand why a long philosophical overview is not how you want to start a book pragmatically written to convince the average person to give up meat. I'd probably have just cut that section as I don't think it really adds much.
4) The climate change argument, while topical is a lot weaker than the argument from animal welfare. Though I can't complain as it makes sense to include it and obfuscate this fact since his end goal is to get people to give up on meat and this line of argument has proved highly effective recently.
Anyway, great book. Probably should have read it (or an earlier version) a lot sooner.
1) Some of the arguments against animal testing are a bit sloppy. The fact that some examples can be given in which animal, human responses to medicine are opposites doesn't mean that on average useful information is not obtained via this process. Perhaps there is no real benefit (now that we have computer simulations and cultured human cells) but the case the book makes isn't strong enough to get to that point.
That said the rest of the arguments in the section are strong enough to prove that at least 99% of animal tests are unnecessary. (Animals should also collectively be given a restraining order against psychologists.)
2) I would have liked more discussion about vegetarianism vs conscientious omnivorism. Though in fairness to Singer he claims that he doesn't really know how to argue the position. Being a conscientious omnivore is so expensive though that I imagine it's indistinguishable from vegetarianism 99% of the time. I also appreciate his pragmatism in reminding his vegetarian readers that these partial meat eaters should be viewed as allies.
3) The penultimate section on the history of speciesism feels really out of place. I can understand why a long philosophical overview is not how you want to start a book pragmatically written to convince the average person to give up meat. I'd probably have just cut that section as I don't think it really adds much.
4) The climate change argument, while topical is a lot weaker than the argument from animal welfare. Though I can't complain as it makes sense to include it and obfuscate this fact since his end goal is to get people to give up on meat and this line of argument has proved highly effective recently.
Anyway, great book. Probably should have read it (or an earlier version) a lot sooner.
June 14, 2024
Peter Singer is someone whose ethics I generally vibe with (and he's probably on my list of 'pick five people you would get dinner with' or whatever), but this book felt weak on a variety of points. In particular, there's this line of argumentation that vegans tend to use that assumes the person they're talking to haven't taken their beliefs to their logical conclusion and thus are hypocrites, when there are actually people who have thought about this and agree with the logical conclusion that their beliefs arrive at.
For example, in the book, Singer says that people will often use intelligence as a proxy for who is valuable/worthy of human rights/whatever. Then he mentions a study that says that 66% of people would save a human over a chimpanzee even if told that the chimpanzee has more intelligence than the human, thus 66% of people are specist. The book doesn't address the 34% of people who held consistent. Shortly after this, he mentions that if you hold this belief (valuing intelligence, or at least saying you value intelligence, over other markers), then you must believe that e.g. babies should have fewer rights and like...yes? They do have fewer rights and rightfully so. But because this isn't a conversation and instead a book talking to the reader, if you do indeed take these beliefs to their logical conclusion and agree with them, it's unclear what argument remains. It's a weak attempt at trying to portray some people as hypocrites that falls flat on its face when you actually hold consistent.
It's also just not really providing anything new in this space, but I don't hold that against Singer. I'm sure it was revelatory when it came out almost 50 years ago, but if you've spoken to any vegan worth their salt, you've likely heard what's in this book before. It's probably a great read if you're new to the space, however.
For example, in the book, Singer says that people will often use intelligence as a proxy for who is valuable/worthy of human rights/whatever. Then he mentions a study that says that 66% of people would save a human over a chimpanzee even if told that the chimpanzee has more intelligence than the human, thus 66% of people are specist. The book doesn't address the 34% of people who held consistent. Shortly after this, he mentions that if you hold this belief (valuing intelligence, or at least saying you value intelligence, over other markers), then you must believe that e.g. babies should have fewer rights and like...yes? They do have fewer rights and rightfully so. But because this isn't a conversation and instead a book talking to the reader, if you do indeed take these beliefs to their logical conclusion and agree with them, it's unclear what argument remains. It's a weak attempt at trying to portray some people as hypocrites that falls flat on its face when you actually hold consistent.
It's also just not really providing anything new in this space, but I don't hold that against Singer. I'm sure it was revelatory when it came out almost 50 years ago, but if you've spoken to any vegan worth their salt, you've likely heard what's in this book before. It's probably a great read if you're new to the space, however.
June 19, 2024
This book was great, I’ve been eating a plant based diet for a decade and I felt like this book put a rational argument that’s defending a fondamental rational truth.
I deeply appreciate Peter Singer’s powerful philosophical argument.
Though I feel like the discussion around Henry Sidgwick support for a conscientious omnivorous diet is doubtful. It definitely made me want to dig into Sidgwick’s works again. I wish more of the book had the depth that a few pages have.
Nonetheless, the work is accessible and powerful.
The research is wonderful and I really loved that they put out a new update edition of this book.
I deeply appreciate Peter Singer’s powerful philosophical argument.
Though I feel like the discussion around Henry Sidgwick support for a conscientious omnivorous diet is doubtful. It definitely made me want to dig into Sidgwick’s works again. I wish more of the book had the depth that a few pages have.
Nonetheless, the work is accessible and powerful.
The research is wonderful and I really loved that they put out a new update edition of this book.
August 24, 2023
ya wow. this book helped me solidify my choice to go vegetarian and is driving me towards veganism. i am trying just to make better choices for animals and the environment in my daily life. this book i think should be a must read for everyone as i believe people mostly live blind to the gravity of what humans do to other animals and the planet - and if you’re going to keep doing what you’re doing you should not be shielded from those realities or consequences. solid 5/5 ✨ though this was difficult to read at times due to the horrors of slaughterhouses and labs that test on animals
September 27, 2023
One of the most important books ever written revisited nearly 50 years after its original release.
In some ways much have happened. But in the most important ways - including animals in our moral sphere and awarding them equal consideration of relevant interests - not much widespread progress has been made. With worldwide meat demand higher than ever Animal Liberation and the arguments presented therein half a century ago are as relevant as ever.
A must read for anyone who considers themselves a moral person. Especially those who are mostly unfamiliar with the concept of speciesism.
In some ways much have happened. But in the most important ways - including animals in our moral sphere and awarding them equal consideration of relevant interests - not much widespread progress has been made. With worldwide meat demand higher than ever Animal Liberation and the arguments presented therein half a century ago are as relevant as ever.
A must read for anyone who considers themselves a moral person. Especially those who are mostly unfamiliar with the concept of speciesism.
December 29, 2023
While this book can easily be cast into a category of “vegan talking points” that gloss over the eyes and ears of people not interested in hearing it— the text actively works to provide a deeper question of how we justify pain. Mainly focusing on the pain of animals, Singer provides compelling evidence and opinions about why we choose to mitigate pain in some animals and not others. Furthermore, the justification of suffering is easily applicable to how we, as a collective and individuals, work to justify the suffering of other people.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 218 reviews