From: young@sasquatch.serum.kodak.com (Rich Young (x37176))
Newsgroups: rec.food.veg
Subject: Re: Vegetarianism and war
Date: 7 Apr 92 22:08:48 GMT
Article-I.D.: ssd.1992Apr7.220848.23480
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company

491miley@gw.wmich.edu (Tim Miley) writes:

>young@sasquatch.serum.kodak.com (Rich Young (x37176)) writes:
>
>>>491miley@gw.wmich.edu writes:
>>>
>>>Try putting yourself in our shoes.  We animal liberators live in a barbaric
>>>society where animals are tortured for vanity, subjected to hellish lives,
>>>eaten, and abused for amusement or to satisfy an urge to kill, as well as
>>>having to put up with the same inept national leadership (or lack thereof)
>>>which has turned our school to war zones, killed our children, etc, that the
>>>rest of America tolerate.  Can you blame us when we see eating animals as just
>>>more violence that adds to society's depravity?
>> 
>>    There are no shades of grey in your world, are there?  Only black and
>>    white; you're on my side or you're not.  Can I blame you for feeling
>>    shock and helplessness at the violence which surrounds us?  No.  Can I
>>    blame you for drawing simplistic conclusions and proposing simplistic
>>    solutions which alienate the very segments of society from which you need
>>    cooperation to become an effective force?  Yes.
>
>I do recognize shades of grey.  Let me show some examples.

[...]

I have no desire to get into another interminable discussion of why the 
morality of some is thought by the holders of that morality to be superior
to that of others, but a book review taken from t.p.a may be illuminating
regarding extremism in this area.  Also, I do understand that this is not
the Singer quoted in Mr. Miley's post.

-Rich (young@serum.kodak.com)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These are MY opinions, don't blame them on my employer.

Don't get angry, get accurate information.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: mhollowa@csws16.ic.sunysb.edu (Michael Holloway)
Subject: Problems with "Animal Liberation", a review
Organization: State University of New York at Stony Brook
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 03:22:02 GMT

I'm copying this book review without permission.  I'm posting it primarily
for the benefit of the innocent that haven't been carted off chanting
slogans yet.  The people that insist on taking the "moderate" view of
EVERYTHING can look at it as "another point of view" and the terrorists and
their apologists will, no doubt, distort it as they filter it through their
brains.

Animal Liberation, Peter Singer
(1990) Second Edition, New York Review
(author's names withheld to protect them)

  	Animal Liberation is mostly a work of evangelism.  Singer, a
  philosopher, denounces humankind's sin against nonhuman animals and issues a
  call to new life in which human beings leave other animals alone and become
  vegetarians.
        According to Singer, our sin is "speciesism," or racism applied to
  other species.  He thinks speciesism begets a "tyranny of human over
  nonhuman animal [comparable to] that which resulted from the tyranny of
  white humans over black humans."
	The book reads well.  Singer's style shows polish and economy, and his
  argument is straightforward.  Nevertheless, the narrative lacks balance as
  Singer glibly dismisses or simply ignores most views which oppose his own.
  In the end, he claims that his "case is logically cogent and cannot be
  refuted."  Some readers may disagree.
	 Singer focuses heavily on animal experimentation in this book, as he
  did in the firtst edition (1975).  In the Preface, he applauds the
  "courageous, caring, and thoughtful people" who stepped beyond the law to
  stop animal experimentation, and he devotes the longest of the book's six
  chapters to this subject.  He warns the faithful against harming anyone in
  their pursuit of animal liberation, but the zeal with which he promotes
  this cause in the rest of the book makes the warning seem largely
  obligatory.
         In Chapter 1, Singer states his belief that because nonhuman animal
  can feel pain and suffer, they deserve the same moral consideration that we
  grant (or should grant) to fellow human beings.  Unfortunately, he dismisses
  the argument that certain differences between us and other animals, such as
  free will and reciprocity of action, might justify a refusal to grant
  entirely equal consideration.  Instead, he asks if we are propared to do to
  infants and retarded people what we do to other animals in the name of
  medical research.  This point seems absurd and simplistic.  After all,
  struggles against racism and slavery are based at least partly on the notion
  that we should treat others as we would have them treat us.  By equating
  these evils with speciesism, Singer demeans the human victims of racism and
  slavery.
	 In Chapters 2 and 3, Singer cites graphic examples of what he views as
  speciesism at its worst: animal experimentation and factory farming.
  I am not qualified to judge how well his examples of factory farming
  represent the norm in that industry.  However, as a scientist, I can judge
  his appraisal of animal experimentation.  His naive assertions and
  accusations about animal experiments (he calls them "trivial," "redundant,"
  "meaningless," and "mindless") reveal how little he understands of
  scientific investigation and drug development, and of what motivates
  scientists.
	 Perhaps the most revealing illustration of Singer's fundamental
  ignorance of drug development and testing appears in Chapter 2, when he
  blames the thalidomide disaster on animal testing.  He implies that animal
  testing of the drug was in vain because its teratogenic potential went
  undetected.  The sad truth, however, is simply that those who tested
  thalidomide never gave it to pregnant animals before giving it to pregnant
  women.
	 Moreover, Singer failed to mention the ironic fact that animal testing
  actually kept this disaster from being even worse than it was.  Food and Drug
  Administration officials had suspected the drug may cause nerve damage,
  based on results of animal studies, and were awaiting additional results
  when the disaster unfolded in Europe.  Consequently, thalidomide was never
  sold in the U.S.
	 In Chapter 4, Singer sings the praise of vegetarianism.  He argues its
  moral justification, touts its benefits to health, and wrestles with the
  question of where one should draw the line on meatlessness.  In the first
  edition of Animal Liberation, he considered it morally acceptable to eat
  oysters, scallops and clams.  In this edition, he announces that he now
  gives molluscs the benefit of the doubt and doesn't eat them either.
	 Chapter 5 tracks the historical roots of "speciesist" thought from the
  biblical creation story, in which God grants Adam and Eve dominion over the
  animals, to Darwin's theory of evolution.  But Singer then side-steps an
  obvious incongruity of animal liberation theology when he concludes that
  Darwin's theory negates speciesism.  Since species in Darwin's world
  mercilessly exploit one another for survival, any species foolish enough to
  grant equal consideration to another won't be long for that world.
	 In Chapter 6, Singer examines current attitudes toward animals among
  those (i.e. most human beings) who have not yet embraced the animal
  liberationist faith.  He complains that human self-interest and "scientific
  secrecy" promote low public interest in liberating animals.  Finally, he
  rests his case on reason, expecting those who read this book to see the
  error of their speciesist ways and reshape their lives in tune with animal
  liberation theology.
	 This book seems overly optimistic.  Singer's reductionist arguments are
  flawed and unconvincing (as even other proponents of animal rights have
  noted), and his emotional bias in presenting the case against animal
  experimentation is clearly evident.
	 Nevertheless, many have adopted the animal liberationist faith.  This
  book defines the basis for that faith and should be read by anyone who wants
  to understand it.  When viewed from a scientist's perspective, this faith
  may seem to be largely rooted in emotion, nurtured by distortion, and
  sustained through ignorance.  Sadly, Animal Liberation promotes all three.