This is an incredibly eye-opening book and the most widely read on this subject. It starts with the a priori assumption that all beings deserve equal consideration, from which follows the axiom of Utilitarianism that the interest of any one individual is of no more importance than the interest of another. "At an absolute minimum," Singer says, all beings have "an interest in not suffering." Because all animals (or at the very least all mammals) can suffer, there is as much reason to prevent their suffering as to prevent human suffering. The fact that this principle of the equal consideration of interests is usually not extended to non-humans indicates that "speciesism" is a social problem at least as pernicious as racism or sexism. He illustrates this point with the example of our consideration and treatment of human infants, or adult humans with permanent brain damage or with severe learning disabilities. It is generally assumed that we should consider the interests of humans such as these as no less important than our own, though their cognitive abilities are at most no greater the most intelligent nonhumans. Thus, it follows that if we are consistent we cannot deny the same considerations to any being with the same interests. Or we may also decide that it is acceptable to eat or perform scientific experiments on brain damaged humans, too. But we cannot arbitrarily exclude nonhumans from consideration, unless we baldly admit that we are guilty of speciesism, for reasons no better than the prejudice of racists and sexists.The biggest part of the book is dedicated to exposing the atrocities that are being committed in animal research labs and in factory farms. Singer's research on these issues is thoroughly documented, based on objective and original sources, and provides many little-known mind-blowing statistics. (Around 60 million mice, rats, guinea pigs, hamsters, and rabbits were used in labs in 1965; of 1.6 million animals reported by the USDA in 1988, over 90,000 were reported to have experienced "unrelieved pain or distress;" p.37) Citing this book, Derrick Jensen rightly says it is not for the faint of heart, but its information is incredibly important given the dismal ignorance about (denial of?) these realities.Striking a weird note, Singer says that in a totally vegetarian world he hopes that eventually "the only herds of cattle and pigs to be found will be on large reservations" but the question remains whether they should be born at all. He doesn't go into any more detail than this, but the reserve idea strikes me as pretty absurd. I don't see cattle and pigs acquiring the status of pets; their domestication was exclusively agricultural. Their companionship was neither the intent nor a consequence of their breeding, and zoo animals are only interesting for their lack of domestication. (The only tenable alternatives seem to be extinction or readaptation to the forces of natural selection.)He also raises the issue of nonhuman carnivores, and goes so far as to consider whether humans might have an obligation to eliminate carnivorous species in order to reduce suffering. Thankfully he dismisses this idea, but disturbingly not because he finds it inherently wrong (no joke!); he just thinks that humans have thus far demonstrated a practical inability to police all of nature. Taken to its logical conclusion here, it's obvious to me his whole utilitarian system falls apart, and even a logically less airtight ecological ethic (that values whole species and communities) aligns much better with the larger reality. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that the plight of animals used in labs and factory farms can hardly be represented better than Singer does.In the final chapter Singer responds to his detractors. He includes a great refutation of the Carrot juice is murder! claim that that we must either cause suffering or starve, which is too clever not to share: Even if plants can feel pain just like animals, it still makes more sense not to eat flesh if we don't want to inflict pain. This is because, by eating an animal, we are "responsible for the indirect destruction of at least ten times as many plants" (100 calories of an animal's flesh required his/her consumption of at least 1000 calories). If carrot juice is murder, then rabbit stew is genocide. ( )

This is an interesting and thoughtful book about how animals are treated and how they should be treated. Singer did a considerable amount of research for this book and put a great deal of thought into his arguments. Not surprisingly, he arrives at a unique point of view that does not always coincide with the views of mainstream animal rights adherents. If anything, this fact will make this book even more interesting to people interested in the rights or welfare of animals.

The first section of the book presents his overall argument that animals should be treated much better than they currently are by western society. The presentation is logical and slightly abstract. It will appeal to independent thinkers who find logic persuasive. However, readers who feel animals are so fundamentally different from humans that they need not be included in any system of ethics that governs human behavior will not find Singer's arguments at all convincing. To the extent that most readers feel this way, Singer is preaching to the choir.

The second section of the book describes some of the many ways that our society horribly mistreats animals. Singer explicitly tries to present the concrete facts without unduly appealing to the reader emotionally. He wants the reader to be persuaded on an intellectual level. However, the uninformed reader will surely find this section of the book disturbing, and may feel Singer has failed in his attempt to merely present the facts.

I do have one criticism of Singer's presentation of the abuses of animals. Although I think Singer is right that most experiments on animals are not justified by the knowledge (if any) that is gained, I feel that Singer unfairly characterizes the goals of many experiments. For example, in the various experiments on how being separated from their mothers affects the emotional health of monkeys, Singer says the point is merely to determine whether the monkeys are adversely affected. He points out that this is obvious from historical observation. He totally ignores the controlled nature of the experiments and the specific conclusions that experimenters are able to draw from them. Similarly, Singer characterizes basic scientific terminology as euphemisms for animal abuse and tools for indoctrination of unsuspecting students. It is certainly fair to argue that the ends do not justify the means and that educators are disingenuous, but Singer ought to do so without resorting to straw men.

In the next section Singer discusses some of the implications of his ideas for everyday behavior. These are not quite what you'd expect from a book that is sometimes described as the bible of the animals rights movement. Here Singer also acknowledges the limitations of his arguments and admits that some of his conclusions are hard to swallow.

The next section of the book is a history of the ethics of animal treatment in Western civilization. It is a fascinating dissection of the fallacies and limitations of a variety of thinkers throughout history.

Finally, Singer includes a little section detailing progress that has been made since first publication. He also discusses some of the questions and attacks that any animal rights advocate is sure to encounter on a daily basis. It is nice for a somewhat depressing book to end on an optimistic note and with sound practical advice. ( )

My all-time favorite book. Informative, clear, effectively written. The arguments are persuasive and beautifully presented. ( )

A horrifying account of the nation's meat industry and animal abuse in this country. If you have every loved an animal, read this book. I stopped eating beef because of this book! ( )

this amazingly sad book shines light on animal creulty in a very excellant fashion. i wish i wasnt so omniverous. ( )