Peter Singer updates Animal Liberation

[Graeme M]

After almost half a century, Peter Singer has updated his ground-breaking book, "Animal Liberation". The new publication, "Animal Liberation Now", should be out in June. Singer says that he has made quite a few changes so as to better address modern issues and also to make it more accssible to the everyday reader.

One of the odd things about Singer's book is that many think of him as the founder of the animal rights movement, but he himself does not agree with a rights-based framework for our relations with other animals. Animal Liberation (AL) was always about preventing harm and cruelty to other animals whenever we can and as such he is not an abolitionist. In fact, his book doesn't even talk to his own personal utilitarian stance but rather seeks a simple strategy of doing what you can to not contribute to animal suffering/

Peter Singer's Classic 'Animal Liberation' Fully Renewed

Singer is among the most influential and controversial living philosophers.

www.psychologytoday.com

 

[Lou]

Speaking of Peter Singer, The Life You Can Save was updated. in 2019. And the kindle version is 99¢ at Amazon.

The Life You Can Save: How to Do Your Part to End World Poverty: 10th Anniversary ed. Edition - Kindle edition by Singer, Peter. Politics & Social Sciences Kindle eBooks @ Amazon.com.

The Life You Can Save: How to Do Your Part to End World Poverty: 10th Anniversary ed. Edition - Kindle edition by Singer, Peter. Download it once and read it on your Kindle device, PC, phones or tablets. Use features like bookmarks, note taking and highlighting while reading The Life You Can...

www.amazon.com

 

[Lou]

And there is more

Philosopher Peter Singer: ‘There’s no reason to say humans have more worth or moral status than animals’

The controversial philosopher on the importance of updating his landmark book on animal liberation, being ‘flexibly vegan’ and the ethical dangers of artificial intelligence for the non-human world

www.theguardian.com

 

[ewomack]

I'm very glad that he's finally updating Animal Liberation. It arguably helped ignite the animal rights movement, and it has begun to sadly fall into the status of an outdated, but important, historical relic (i.e., something to revere, but not to read). In another thread here a while back, I talked about a young animal rights protestor I spoke with in San Francisco a few years ago who had never even heard of Singer or of the book. That shocked me.

In one of Singer's last recent books, Why Vegan? he said that he doesn't technically follow veganism because he focuses on suffering. Given that, he claimed to have no problem eating "bivalves," because no evidence exists that they have a central nervous system and so they apparently don't feel pain. I wonder if that will make it into the updated Animal Liberation? In other words, does speciesism rely on suffering?

I have always wanted to read Animal Liberation, but it's reputation as an outdated book has kept me from doing so for years. The updated edition will finally give me a reason to read it. I have read some of his other books, including Practical Ethics, The Life You Can Save, and Why Vegan?. As a philosophy major in college (from back when it only mattered that you had a degree), I took some ethics courses and Peter Singer inevitably came up. It's nice to see him in the news again.

 

[Graeme M]

In other words, does speciesism rely on suffering?

Like I said above, I believe that Singer's stance rests on the principle of non-maleficence, ie cause no harm. He isn't an animal rights advocate and in a sense he didn't really support the animal rights movement. As someone interested in preventing suffering, he would (I think) take something of a nuanced view about sentience. For example, he doesn't think that other animals have a sense of personal continuity so aren't concerned about their futures the way we are.

Given that it is extremely unlikely that oysters are sentient in the way that demands personal moral consideration, I am sure he is comfortable eating oysters. As am I. I think it's a somewhat arbitrary and rigid stance to argue that vegans just don't eat "animals".

So in answer to your question, my guess is that for Singer, speciesism does rather rest on suffering. Speciesism, as I understand it, is simply the idea that we give other species' interests fair consideration the way we do so for our own species. But that doesn't mean we have to imagine an interest that doesn't exist. If oysters cannot suffer, why should we be bothered by their non-existent interest in not suffering?

 

[Lou]

If oysters cannot suffer, why should we be bothered by their non-existent interest in not suffering?

IF.

Here in California we have a movement called Bivalve Vegans. Ten years ago it got a lot of attention. I'm pretty sure I have a thread here devoted to it. I was interested in it because it makes us question our assumptions. Probably the same reasoning that you have for considering it.

The first problem with it is that little word I put up top. IF. How do we know they don't suffer. It wasn't that long ago that people were convinced fish could feel no pain. But legitimate scientific experimentation proves they feel pain.

Certainly oysters can't feel pain (or suffer) like we (or fish) do. But there is little doubt that they experience their environment. And for all we know, oysters may interpret some of those stimuli as something like pain.

Although it doesn't fit into vegan ethics - so many vegans also consider the environment. I've heard that oyster farms make positive contributions to the environment. But leaving the oysters alone and not harvesting them would be even better.

And although it doesn't fit into vegan ethics, so many vegans consider personal health. Oysters are sometimes contaminated with toxic bacteria. Also since they are filter feeders their meat is often contaminated with the pollution we find in the ocean. Including heavy metals like mercury.


Here is a good balanced article on the subject.

Are Oysters Vegan? Do They Feel Pain? What You Need To Know | The Minimalist Vegan

In this blog post, I’ll explore both sides of the argument and try to conclude whether or not you can call yourself a vegan if you eat oysters.

theminimalistvegan.com

and one more.

The world is your oyster…or is it? – Open for Animals

 

[Graeme M]

Thanks for the links, @Lou. The second has heaps of related references so I have some reading to do. I think we are on very safe ground to believe that oysters do not have the degree of sentience to demand our moral duty. One of the most important things as I see it is an actual experiential memory, rather than simple weighted affect. Any neural network can be trained to respond to stimuli in ways that reflect a weighting of affect (ie, in some way a stimulus can be given a qualitative weight that allows comparitive considerations of that and other stimuli). The reason I think this, is that without memory, it is hard to see why pain matters. I think pain is probably somewhat ubiquitous in animals, but if an animal doesn't remember pain moment by moment then it's not having an experience. Most animals seem to have experiential memory of sort, but some presumably don't. I think oysters would be in that group. One of the reasons I find it hard to be motivated by the suffering of oysters is that if they do suffer, it is almost certainly less than insects experience and we happily kill those in vast numbers to grow crops. So it seems odd to ignore pest insects in favour of oysters, particularly as it is possible that more insects might be killed per gram of protein.

Agriculture and insects

Intensive agribusiness is causing a global decline in insect populations with serious consequences for humans and the rest of nature.

theecologist.org

 

[Graeme M]

I have been so disappointed lately to find so many websites/groups/FB pages that advocate for other animals to have become defunct over the last couple of years. The resource you linked above, @Lou, OpenForAnimals, seems a great resource yet it last was active about 2-3 years ago.

 

[Lou]

I have been so disappointed lately to find so many websites/groups/FB pages that advocate for other animals to have become defunct over the last couple of years. The resource you linked above, @Lou, OpenForAnimals, seems a great resource yet it last was active about 2-3 years ago.

don't worry too much about it. OpenForanimals was just one of hundreds of websites that started up and then faded away.
It was even more successful than a lot of others. They still have their domain name.
It looks like they were active for just a year.

Could have started from Grant money that wasn't renewed. Or maybe it was just something a couple of people wanted to have as an experience or on their resume.

 

[Lou]

Peter Singer just had an article published in the Atlantic. Its behind a pay wall but you can at least read the beginning

The Meat Paradox

Vegetarianism is more popular than ever—but so is meat consumption. How can this be?

www.theatlantic.com

 

[Lou]

More Peter Singer in the news.

Peter Singer on the conversation that forever changed his life

Within a month of that conversation, Peter Singer became a vegetarian. His call for a boycott of factory farms is rooted in his ethics.

bigthink.com

 

[Lou]

And...

Philosopher Peter Singer Defends Animals, ‘Merit’ —And Courting Controversy

One of the world's most influential and controversial living philosophers talks about his new book and push to tackle hard topics.

www.forbes.com

 

[Lou]

Wait. There's more

Beyond Factory Farms: A New Look at the Rights of Animals

Philosopher Peter Singer’s book, Animal Liberation, helped launch the animal rights movement nearly 50 years ago. He talks with Yale Environment 360 about how we now better understand how animals feel pain and how other species are not so different from humans as we thought.

e360.yale.edu

 

[Graeme M]

"The Meat Paradox". I think the truth is that most people are very happy to eat meat, even though they care about animals. The animal ag sector has done a very good job of selling itself as caring too, over the past few years.

 

[Lou]

I don't know. Maybe it's my news reader is in sort of a feedback loop. it learns what I'm interested in by my clicks. So if I click on Singer articles it then tries and shows me more Singer articles. Although there has to be Singer article out there to show me.

Here is another Singer article, an interview. This one is sort of different.

One of the world’s most controversial philosophers explains himself

The moral philosopher Peter Singer on animal welfare, the ethics of euthanasia, and more.

www.vox.com

 

[Graeme M]

I resonated with Singer's expectation that publishing his book would lead to change. I once started a FB page about how pigs are treated, thinking that all that people needed was to be shown how bad it is and they'd change their minds and do things differently. How wrong I was!! I also agree with him more generally about infants with severe disability. It seems odd to keep such children alive at all costs when so often it results in poor lives for all concerned. Not in all cases, of course, but I do think we should be free to end such lives early. We have a remarkable attachment to the idea humans should be alive as long as possible and that our lives are somehow vitally important when no other animals' is....