![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
So, recently I read Animal Liberation by Peter Singer. What astounds me is that, despite the fact that I've fully despised this guy for years before I read this book (so much so that I got into an argument with another vegan when they recommended it), the actual text itself managed, if anything, to make me loathe him even more.
Despite what I knew about Singer going in, I was nonetheless surprised that his position, as stated in this text, is very clearly one of *animal welfarism*, not animal rights. This can be seen in such statements as:
"In keeping with the reasons given there, I do not, on balance, object to free-range egg production."
Animal Liberation (2015 Edition) by Peter Singer, Ch 4 Becoming A Vegetarian
This statement not only ignores the often less than cozy realities behind the 'free range' label, but ignores the fact that artificial selection has produced the chickens' prolific egg-laying entirely for the benefit of humans, and at great cost in overall health and happiness to the birds themselves.
While he does not spend (much) time criticizing vegans, he also focuses almost entirely on reform of an irretrievably broken capitalist system that serves neither human nor non-human animals. This is unsurprising because Singer is one of the few beneficiaries of that system. He seems to have very little actual understanding of the human social justice movements he casually brings up in the most clumsy, insulting, and ineffectual ways.
What surprised me is how little of the book is devoted to actual *philosophy*. To be sure, Singer stops after lengthy exposition of facts to occasionally muse on the meaning of it all, but he devotes little more time to this than any average news expose might. Excuse me if I thought a philosopher might spend more time actually philosophizing.
I guess you really can't criticize something until you've read it. I mean, I was right, Singer is not a vegan, but this book also does not advocate for veganism. Also I've read more thoughtful philosophy on Twitter, a social media site I have numerous philosophical objections to and do not use.
And that's my review of this book!
Despite what I knew about Singer going in, I was nonetheless surprised that his position, as stated in this text, is very clearly one of *animal welfarism*, not animal rights. This can be seen in such statements as:
"In keeping with the reasons given there, I do not, on balance, object to free-range egg production."
Animal Liberation (2015 Edition) by Peter Singer, Ch 4 Becoming A Vegetarian
This statement not only ignores the often less than cozy realities behind the 'free range' label, but ignores the fact that artificial selection has produced the chickens' prolific egg-laying entirely for the benefit of humans, and at great cost in overall health and happiness to the birds themselves.
While he does not spend (much) time criticizing vegans, he also focuses almost entirely on reform of an irretrievably broken capitalist system that serves neither human nor non-human animals. This is unsurprising because Singer is one of the few beneficiaries of that system. He seems to have very little actual understanding of the human social justice movements he casually brings up in the most clumsy, insulting, and ineffectual ways.
What surprised me is how little of the book is devoted to actual *philosophy*. To be sure, Singer stops after lengthy exposition of facts to occasionally muse on the meaning of it all, but he devotes little more time to this than any average news expose might. Excuse me if I thought a philosopher might spend more time actually philosophizing.
I guess you really can't criticize something until you've read it. I mean, I was right, Singer is not a vegan, but this book also does not advocate for veganism. Also I've read more thoughtful philosophy on Twitter, a social media site I have numerous philosophical objections to and do not use.
And that's my review of this book!