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 name 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 "speciesinsm," 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,m 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 sufer, 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 disasterfrom 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 ot eat
oysters, scallops and clams.  In this edition, he announces that he now give
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 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.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals