Which 1975 book by the Australian philosopher Peter Singer is considered to be the founding philosophical statement of the animal rights movement?
"can be friends neither with a Martian nor with a bat, for the simple reason that you have too little in common with them."" In her response, Costello equates the belief that animals are not entitled to equal rights, because they do not reason abstractly, with racism. Then she, once again, rejects reason as a valid basis for the animal rights argument, concluding that, if reason is all she shares with her philosophical opponents, then she has no use for it. In responding to Coetzee's novella, the philosopher Peter Singer, author of ""Animal Liberation"" (1975), writes a somewhat mocking short"
"Peter Singer's 1975 book ""Animal Liberation"" critiqued anthropocentrism and put the case for animals to be given moral consideration. This can be seen as a part of a process of expanding the prevailing system of ethics to wider groupings. However, Singer has disagreed with deep ecology's belief in the intrinsic value of nature separate from questions of suffering, taking a more utilitarian stance. The feminist and civil rights movements also brought about expansion of the ethical system for their particular domains. Likewise deep ecology brought the whole of nature under moral consideration. The links with animal rights are perhaps the"
"they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?"" Peter Singer, a bioethicist and author of ""Animal Liberation"" published in 1975, suggested that consciousness is not necessarily the key issue: just because animals have smaller brains, or are ‘less conscious’ than humans, does not mean that they are not capable of feeling pain. He goes on further to argue that we do not assume newborn infants, people suffering from neurodegenerative brain diseases or people with learning disabilities experience less pain than we would. Bernard Rollin, the principal author of two U.S. federal laws regulating pain relief for animals, writes"
"Can they reason? nor, can they talk? but, Can they suffer?"" Peter Singer, a bioethicist and author of ""Animal Liberation"" published in 1975, suggested that consciousness is not necessarily the key issue: just because animals have smaller brains, or are ‘less conscious’ than humans, does not mean that they are not capable of feeling pain. He goes on further to argue that we do not assume newborn infants, people suffering from neurodegenerative brain diseases or people with learning disabilities experience less pain than we would. Bernard Rollin, the principal author of two U.S. federal laws regulating pain relief for animals,"
"writing that """"Animals, Men and Morals"" is a manifesto for an Animal Liberation movement."" The article prompted the ""New York Review"" to commission a book on the subject from Singer, which was published as ""Animal Liberation"" (1975), and which became one of the animal rights movement's canonical texts. Animals, Men and Morals Animals, Men and Morals: An Inquiry into the Maltreatment of Non-humans (1971) is a collection of essays on animal rights, edited by Oxford philosophers Stanley and Roslind Godlovitch, both from Canada, and John Harris from the UK. The editors were members of the Oxford Group, a group of"
"Men and Morals"" (1971) by three Oxford philosophers, John Harris and Roslind and Stanley Godlovitch. Singer declared the book a manifesto for ""animal liberation,"" thereby coining the phrase. Spira got hold of Singer's article and felt inspired: ""Singer described a universe of more than 4 billion animals being killed each year in the USA alone. Their suffering is intense, widespread, expanding, systematic and socially sanctioned. And the victims are unable to organize in defence of their own interests. I felt that animal liberation was the logical extension of what my life was all about – identifying with the powerless and"
"know – that animals are sentient and that we have a moral obligation not to exploit or mistreat them.” The book states that Singer’s “moral philosophy on animal equality was sparked when he asked a fellow student at Oxford University a simple question about his eating habits.” Peter Singer Peter Albert David Singer, AC (born 6 July 1946) is an Australian moral philosopher. He is the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, and a Laureate Professor at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne. He specialises in applied ethics and approaches"
"In 1789, the British philosopher and social reformist, Jeremy Bentham, addressed in his book ""An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation"" the issue of our treatment of animals with the following often quoted words: ""The question is not, Can they reason? nor, can they talk? but, Can they suffer?"" Peter Singer, a bioethicist and author of ""Animal Liberation"" published in 1975, suggested that consciousness is not necessarily the key issue: just because animals have smaller brains, or are ‘less conscious’, this does not mean that they are not capable of feeling pain. Bernard Rollin, the principal author of"
"New York high school, teaching students from the ghettos.[1] Spira told ""The New York Times"" that he first became interested in animal rights in 1973 while looking after Nina, a friend's cat: ""I began to wonder about the appropriateness of cuddling one animal while sticking a knife and fork into another."" Around the same time, he read a column by Irwin Silber in ""The Guardian"", a left-wing newspaper in New York (now closed) about an article on 5 April 1973 by the Australian philosopher Peter Singer in ""The New York Review of Books"". Singer's article was a review of ""Animals,"
"who argued that animals do not experience pain and suffering because they lack consciousness. In 1789, the British philosopher and social reformist, Jeremy Bentham, addressed in his book ""An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation"" the issue of our treatment of animals with the following often quoted words: ""The question is not, Can they reason? nor, can they talk? but, Can they suffer?"" Peter Singer, a bioethicist and author of ""Animal Liberation"" published in 1975, suggested that consciousness is not necessarily the key issue: just because animals have smaller brains, or are ‘less conscious’ than humans, does not"
"an interest in not suffering—is different in any morally significant way from a violation of the basic interests of a nonhuman. Singer used the term ""speciesism"" in the book, citing Ryder, and it stuck, becoming an entry in the ""Oxford English Dictionary"" in 1989. The book's publication triggered a groundswell of scholarly interest in animal rights. Richard Ryder's ""Victims of Science: The Use of Animals in Research"" (1975) appeared, followed by Andrew Linzey's ""Animal Rights: A Christian Perspective"" (1976), and Stephen R. L. Clark's ""The Moral Status of Animals"" (1977). A Conference on Animal Rights was organized by Ryder and"
"by the Australian philosopher Peter Singer in his book ""Animal Liberation"" (1975). Singer had known Ryder from his own time as a graduate philosophy student at Oxford. He credited Ryder with having coined the term and used it in the title of his book's fifth chapter: ""Man's Dominion ... ""a short history of speciesism"""", defining it as ""a prejudice or attitude of bias in favour of the interests of members of one's own species and against those of members of other species"": Racists violate the principle of equality by giving greater weight to the interests of members of their own"
"terms, and asked: ""If, under special conditions, it were one day found possible to cross a professor of biology with an ape, would the offspring be kept in a cage or in a cradle?"" The book was reviewed by Peter Singer in 1973 in ""The New York Review of Books"", in which he argued that it was a call for the foundation of an animal liberation movement. The article led the ""New York Review"" to commission a book from Singer, published as ""Animal Liberation"" (1975). Singer used the term ""speciesism"" in the book, attributing it to Ryder, and included it"
"Australian philosopher and animal rights author Peter Singer said,I am opposed to subjecting animals to unnecessary pain and killing for food. Even so ... when a deer is accidentally hit by a car ... killing the animal to remove the pain is, in my opinion, justified and ethical. If an animal has been killed in an accident or is killed to prevent additional suffering before it dies and if this dead animal is a source of food, why not eat it when it is edible? The theme of environmental responsibility is taken up in a number of publications by radical"
"quoted by Michael Specter in ""The New Yorker"" on the book's impact: The book has also received a wide range of philosophical challenges to his formulation of animal rights. In a lengthy debate in Slate Magazine, Richard Posner wrote that Singer failed to see the ""radicalism of the ethical vision that powers [his] view on animals, an ethical vision that finds greater value in a healthy pig than in a profoundly intellectually challenged child, that commands inflicting a lesser pain on a human being to avert a greater pain to a dog, and that, provided only that a chimpanzee has"
"rights of animals. They soon developed (and borrowed) a range of powerful arguments in support of their views, so that Oxford clinical psychologist Richard Ryder, who was shortly to become part of the group, writes that ""rarely has a cause been so rationally argued and so intellectually well armed."" It was a 1965 article by novelist Brigid Brophy in ""The Sunday Times"" which was pivotal in helping to spark the movement. Brophy wrote: The philosophers found this article and were inspired by its vigorous unsentimental polemic. At about the same time, Ryder wrote three letters to the ""Daily Telegraph"" in"
"inspired to move into the area of animal rights after reading Peter Singer's ""Animal Liberation"" (1975), often referred to as 'the bible of the animal liberation movement'. A practicing animal protection attorney, he is president of the nonprofit Nonhuman Rights Project, where he directs its Nonhuman Rights Project, the purpose of which is to obtain basic common law rights for at least some nonhuman animals. He lives in Coral Springs, Florida, with his children Chris and Siena. Wise's position on animal rights is that some animals, particularly primates, meet the criteria of legal personhood, and should therefore be awarded certain"
"these pamphlets in 1970 that he coined the term ""speciesism"" to describe the exclusion of nonhuman animals from the protections offered to humans. He subsequently became a contributor to the Godlovitches' symposium, as did Harrison and Brophy, and it was published in 1971 as """". In 1970, over lunch in Oxford with fellow student Richard Keshen, a vegetarian, Australian philosopher Peter Singer came to believe that, by eating animals, he was engaging in the oppression of other species. Keshen introduced Singer to the Godlovitches, and in 1973 Singer reviewed their book for ""The New York Review of Books"". In the"
"such as great apes, dolphins, orcas, and elephants, would be recognized as having some of the rights of mentally competent adult humans. Singer himself is a vegetarian, and advocates for vegetarianism. He adds that he is concerned with the rights of any creatures that currently exist, not with ""potential"" persons. Medical ethicists, characterized in their philosophy as personists, have argued for parents to be allowed to kill their newborn babies because they are not ""actual persons"" and have received criticism for that position. Personism Personism is an ethical philosophy of personhood as typified by the thought of the utilitarian philosopher"
"Evolutionary and Ethical Perspective"", which was published by the University of California Press in 1986. Fox had been unimpressed by Peter Singer's call for animal liberation in the latter's 1975 book, and had dismissed Singer's arguments about the wrong of speciesism. Fox then published a series of papers challenging Singer's ideas, and advised several organisations on animal experimentation. In ""The Case for Animal Experimentation"", Fox argues that, in many cases, invasive animal testing is ethically justifiable, and that the ethical challenges to it can be overcome. He also explores a number of experiments which have received particular criticism from critics,"
"to do graduate work in philosophy at New College, Oxford (1968–1971), where through the good offices of Alan Montefiore (at Balliol College) Jacques Derrida was a frequent visitor. Under the influence of a group of animal rights activists led by Roslind and Stanley Godlovitch – now known as the Oxford Group; Peter Singer, author of ""Animal Liberation"" (1975) was associated with them – he became a vegetarian and started Ecology Action, a short-lived environmental group. He was subsequently hired by the University of Warwick, where he went on to become chair of the philosophy department and director of the Centre"
"""there are obviously important differences between humans and other animals, and these differences must give rise to some differences in the rights that each have."" In ""Animal Liberation"", Singer argues against what he calls speciesism: discrimination on the grounds that a being belongs to a certain species. He holds the interests of all beings capable of suffering to be worthy of equal consideration and that giving lesser consideration to beings based on their species is no more justified than discrimination based on skin color. He argues that animals rights should be based on their capacity to feel pain more than"
"interests of farmers are not weighty enough. Philosopher Peter Singer, a protectionist and utilitarian, argues that there is no moral or logical justification for failing to count animal suffering as a consequence when making decisions, and that killing animals should be rejected unless necessary for survival. Despite this, he writes that ""ethical thinking can be sensitive to circumstances"", and that he is ""not too concerned about trivial infractions"". An argument proposed by Bruce Friedrich, also a protectionist, holds that strict adherence to veganism harms animals, because it focuses on personal purity, rather than encouraging people to give up whatever animal"
"The Case for Animal Rights The Case for Animal Rights is a 1983 book by the American philosopher Tom Regan, in which the author argues that at least some kinds of non-human animals have moral rights because they are the ""subjects-of-a-life,"" and that these rights adhere to them whether or not they are recognized. The work is considered an important text within animal rights theory. Regan's position is Kantian (though Kant himself did not apply it to non-humans), namely that all subjects-of-a life possess inherent value and must be treated as ends-in-themselves, never as a means to an end. He"
"that, ""animals also suffer from floods, fires, and droughts, and, since they are not descended from Adam and Eve, they cannot have inherited original sin."" In 1989 and 1990, Peter Singer's work was the subject of a number of protests in Germany. A course in ethics led by Dr. Hartmut Kliemt at the University of Duisburg where the main text used was Singer's ""Practical Ethics"" was, according to Singer, ""subjected to organised and repeated disruption by protesters objecting to the use of the book on the grounds that in one of its ten chapters it advocates active euthanasia for severely"
"argument, incidentally, falls under both the libertarian extension and the ecologic extension. Peter Singer's work can be categorized under Marshall's 'libertarian extension'. He reasoned that the ""expanding circle of moral worth"" should be redrawn to include the rights of non-human animals, and to not do so would be guilty of speciesism. Singer found it difficult to accept the argument from intrinsic worth of a-biotic or ""non-sentient"" (non-conscious) entities, and concluded in his first edition of ""Practical Ethics"" that they should not be included in the expanding circle of moral worth. This approach is essentially then, bio-centric. However, in a later"
"of ideas in the areas of global poverty, animal welfare and the human condition."" Singer received ""Philosophy Now""'s 2016 Award for Contributions in the Fight Against Stupidity for his efforts ""to disturb the comfortable complacency with which many of us habitually ignore the desperate needs of others ... particularly for this work as it relates to the Effective Altruism movement."" In 2018, Singer was noted in the book, ""Rescuing Ladybugs"" by author and animal advocate Jennifer Skiff as a “hero among heroes in the world,” who, in arguing against speciesism “gave the modern world permission to believe what we innately"
"substantial capacity for cooperation that has also been selected for during human evolution. The philosopher Philip Kitcher has criticised the book's handling of sociobiology, saying that it contains ""credulous retailing of sociobiological speculations"" while noting that ""much of this book is admirable in its clarity, directness, and grasp of central points"". A Darwinian Left A Darwinian Left: Politics, Evolution and Cooperation is a 1999 book by Peter Singer, in which the author argues that the view of human nature provided by evolution (e.g., evolutionary psychology) is compatible with and should be incorporated into the ideological framework of the Left. Singer"
"prevention or reduction of animals' suffering was in harmony with HSUS's objectives. Singer's philosophy did not rest upon the rights of animals, and he specifically rejected the framework of rights in favor of a utilitarian assessment that focused on animal sentience. His principal concern, like that of HSUS, was the mitigation and elimination of suffering, and he endorsed the view that ethical treatment sometimes permitted or even required killing animals to end their misery. The 1980s witnessed a flourishing of concern about animals and a proliferation of new organizations, many influenced by the emergence of a philosophy holding that animals"
"Consumer Nutrition Information Act and the Federal Meat Inspection Act of 1978. During that period, Hershaft also organized several conferences on strategies for promoting vegetarianism. Some participants, influenced by Peter Singer's 1975 treatise ""Animal Liberation"", felt that the scope of these conferences should be expanded to include discussions of animal rights. Accordingly, in the summer of 1981, Hershaft organized Action For Life, a national conference at Cedar Crest College in Allentown, PA, that effectively launched the U.S. animal rights movement. Participants included such animal rights pioneers as Cleveland Amory, Ingrid Newkirk, Alex Pacheco, Peter Singer, Henry Spira, Gretchen Wyler, as"
"Sentinel Chicken by Nobel Laureate Peter Doherty, Where Songs Began by Tim Low and Platypus by Ann Moyle. Peter Menkhorst Peter Menkhorst is an Australian ecologist and an authority on Australian mammals and birds. He is experienced in threatened species recovery and been the team leader in a number of recovery programs including: the Orange-bellied Parrot; Helmeted Honeyeater, Regent Honeyeater, Mountain Pigmy Possum and Brush-tailed Rock Wallaby. Menkhorst is also a natural history author, book reviewer and researcher who recently co-authored The Australian Bird Guide. Menkhorst graduated in 1973 with a Bachelor of Science from Monash University majoring in Biology"
"the killing of nonhuman animals, with an afterword by Peter Singer. Reviewing ""The Ethics of Killing Animals"" in ""Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews"", the philosopher Jeff Sebo said he could ""highly recommend this book for research as well as teaching"", calling it ""essential for people working on animal ethics"". Višak is known for her exploration of the ethics of killing nonhuman animals who have lived happy lives, and specifically her rejection of the idea that it is acceptable to kill animals for agricultural purposes provided they have pleasant lives. She challenges Peter Singer's idea that nonhuman animals are ""replaceable"", meaning that"
"equality, rather than continuing with any more simple yes-or-no battles about whether animals have them. Regan’s book is certainly important and in many ways admirable – a serious, substantial contribution to giving animals their proper place on the philosophical map. The Case for Animal Rights The Case for Animal Rights is a 1983 book by the American philosopher Tom Regan, in which the author argues that at least some kinds of non-human animals have moral rights because they are the ""subjects-of-a-life,"" and that these rights adhere to them whether or not they are recognized. The work is considered an important"