Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals

“We have to speak up on behalf of those who cannot speak for themselves.”

In the above quote, Singer appeals to the reader’s guilt and arrogance. Protecting those who are unable to protect themselves is a moral and ethical obligation inherent to the human condition. In making this argument, Singer taps into the emotions of the reader, into the feelings of guilt and sympathy that most people have in the face of another creature’s suffering. By insisting that humans are the heroes who have to “speak up” for those who are unable to, Singer speaks to the ego as well.

“By ceasing to rear and kill animals for food, we can make so much extra food available for humans that, properly distributed, it would eliminate starvation and malnutrition from this planet. Animal Liberation is Human Liberation too.”

Singer offers numerous reasons to switch over to a vegetarian diet. He makes a case for it by offering statistics about the treatment of animals, the impact eating meat has on the environment, and information about the food waste that comes from rearing animals for slaughter. All of these statistics allow the reader to clearly see the true cost of eating meat.

“The basic principle of equality does not require equal or identical treatment; it requires equal consideration. Equal consideration for different beings may lead to different treatment and different rights.”

This is the primary foundation of Singer’s argument for “speciesism.” By proving that equality is not based on uniformity, he is able to then include animals in the dialogue of egalitarianism. It cannot be argued that animals are different from people, and instead of denying this, Singer chooses to focus on those differences.