Let animal slavery join human slavery in the graveyard of the past. “Animal Liberation” sounds more like a parody of liberation movements than a serious objective.Tags: Tale Of Two Cities Theme EssayWhat I Like About Myself Spm EssayMy Life As An Undocumented Immigrant EssayOf An Apa Style Research PaperNursing Diagnosis For Postpartum Hemorrhage EssayCreative Writing Classes For KidsResearch Papers For Mechanical EngineeringHow To Write Application Letters In English
Providing an answer to this question has become increasingly important among philosophers as well as those outside of philosophy who are interested in our treatment of non-human animals.
For some, answering this question will enable us to better understand the nature of human beings and the proper scope of our moral obligations.
We are familiar with Black Liberation, Gay Liberation, and a variety of other movements.
With Women’s Liberation some thought we had come to the end of the road.
Peter Singer is an Australian utilitarian philosopher and is a professor at Princeton University.
His views have been evaluated by many people and have been disapproved of by many.
Some argue that there is an answer that can distinguish humans from the rest of the natural world.
Many of those who accept this answer are interested in justifying certain human practices towards non-humans—practices that cause pain, discomfort, suffering and death.
Consequently, anyone who cares about the welfare of non-human animals must acknowledge an enormous debt to Singer.
However, it is important to distinguish the beneficial impact Singer’s work has had on public awareness from the philosophical arguments he uses to defend the moral claims of non-humans. And this chapter is concerned purely with the philosophical arguments.