Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals

Two of the primary goals that Singer has in Animal Liberation are proving the existence of “speciesism” and informing the public about the truth of the animal testing and meat industries. What is the relationship between these goals, and what might a world without “speciesism” look like?

Singer frequently compares the plight of animals to the civil rights and feminist movements. Does this add to his argument, hurt it, or a combination of both? Why does Singer choose to use these comparisons?

Animal Liberation is a book-length exposé and persuasive essay. What kinds of rhetorical strategies does Singer use to ensure that his arguments are cohesive and effective?

In Chapter 5, Singer dives into religious attitudes toward animals. Do these attitudes evolve, and if so, are they so different from current attitudes today? Why do you think that is the case?

Singer quotes several key philosophers like Jeremy Bentham, René Descartes, and Aristotle in Animal Liberation. Why do you think he chooses these philosophers? Is there anything that links them together?

Singer argues several times that vegetarianism and veganism are conducive not only to solving issues around animal cruelty but environmentalism and world hunger as well. Identify and explain two or three such instances that could apply to these two additional arguments.

Since Singer’s updated preface in 2009, how do you think attitudes toward animal rights have changed? Do you think the vegetarianism and veganism movements have gained traction? If so, why do you think this change occurred?

In Chapter 6, Singer writes:

Unless you can refute the central argument of this book, you should now recognize that speciesism is wrong… Otherwise no basis remains from which you can, without hypocrisy, criticize racism or sexism (234). 

How does this view of the animal rights movement affect the message that Singer is trying to send? Are there any downsides to viewing the animal rights movement in this way?