Excerpts From Philosopher Peter Singer’s Groundbreaking Work, “Animal Liberation”, courtesy of PETA
It is an implication of this principle of equality that our concern for others and our readiness to consider their interests ought not to depend on what they are like or on what abilities they may possess. Precisely what our concern or consideration requires us to do may vary according to the characteristics of those affected by what we do: concern for the well-being of children growing up in America would require that we teach them to read; concern for the well-being of pigs may require no more than that we leave them with other pigs in a place where there is adequate food and room to run freely. But the basic element—the taking into account of the interests of the being, whatever those interests may be—must, according to the principle of equality, be extended to all beings, black or white, masculine or feminine, human or nonhuman.
Thomas Jefferson, who was responsible for writing the principle of the equality of men into the American Declaration of Independence, saw this point. It led him to oppose slavery even though he was unable to free himself fully from his slaveholding background. He wrote in a letter to the author of a book that emphasized the notable intellectual achievements of Negroes in order to refute the then common view that they have limited intellectual capacities: “Be assured that no person living wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a complete refutation of the doubts I myself have entertained and expressed on the grade of understanding allotted to them by nature, and to find that they are on a par with ourselves … but whatever be their degree of talent it is no measure of their rights. Because Sir Isaac Newton was superior to others in understanding, he was not therefore lord of the property or person of others.”
Similarly, when in the 1850s the call for women’s rights was raised in the United States, a remarkable black feminist named Sojourner Truth made the same point in more robust terms at a feminist convention: “They talk about this thing in the head; what do they call it? [“Intellect,” whispered someone nearby.] That’s it. What’s that got to do with women’s rights or Negroes’ rights? If my cup won’t hold but a pint and yours holds a quart, wouldn’t you be mean not to let me have my little half-measure full?”
It is on this basis that the case against racism and the case against sexism must both ultimately rest; and it is in accordance with this principle that the attitude that we may call “speciesism,” by analogy with racism, must also be condemned. Speciesism—the word is not an attractive one, but I can think of no better term—is a prejudice or attitude of bias in favor of the interests of members of one’s own species and against those of members of other species. It should be obvious that the fundamental objections to racism and sexism made by Thomas Jefferson and Sojourner Truth apply equally to speciesism. If possessing a higher degree of intelligence does not entitle one human to use another for his or her own ends, how can it entitle humans to exploit nonhumans for the same purpose?
*note: although PETA didn’t write this, I found it on their site and copied it here. If indeed (and I’m not sure on this one) PETA adheres to this philosophy, then I think we may find more comrades among them than some might expect.
I am a firm believer everyone and thing has a purpose on this earth. While I agree that the purpose of a human is not to solely serve another human, I disagree that certain animals were not intended to be eaten. I do not support killing animals for support. However, I do support raising animals for the purpose of eating. You have to question your judgment if you think Peter Singer’s argument follows sound logic. Comparing eating animals with slavery is like comparing exterminating roaches from your house with the Holocaust. Everything has a purpose….as far as I am concerned a pig’s purpose is to provide us with barbecue and bacon (not a fan of pork chops).
I haven’t read all of Singer’s book, and if he does compare eating animals to slavery then I would have to disagree with him on that one. But he did make a good point in the except that I did publish: that we need to give animals consideration regarding their suffering. I myself eat meat – albeit not as much as I used to owing to my slowing metabolism – and I see no real moral problem with it. I would be a hypocrite if I were to say “we shouldn’t eat animals” when I know full well that if I were stranded in the wilderness I wouldn’t hesitate to hunt for survival.
That being said, the only qualm I take with (for lack of a better term) “modern meat-eating habits” is the procedures by which the meat is produced. Surely we don’t need to drug, abuse, and torture the creatures we are about to kill for our consumption. Even if they are bound to die, so are we humans, does that mean that we don’t live our lives on the basis of avoiding suffering?