Home / Quotes / Quote by Peter Singer

Quote by Peter Singer

“...the proposed air force and army experiments were designed so that many animals would suffer and die without any certainty that this suffering and death would save a single human life or benefit humans in any way at all; but the same can be said of millions of their experiments performed each year in the United States alone.”

Quote by Peter Singer

Book:Animal liberation: a new ethics for our treatment of animals

Work

Animal liberation: a new ethics for our treatment of animals

Animal Liberation presents a comprehensive argument for the ethical consideration of animals, discussing the moral implications of human-animal interactions and proposing a new framework for animal rights and welfare. more

Author

Peter Singer (born July 6, 1946) is an Australian moral philosopher renowned for his work in applied ethics, particularly animal liberation, effective altruism, and global poverty. He is a professor of bioethics at Princeton University and author of 'Animal Liberation,' a foundational text of the animal rights movement. Singer argues for extending moral consideration to all sentient beings based on utilitarian principles. His controversial views have sparked global debates but profoundly influenced contemporary ethics, charity practices, and animal welfare policies. more

You May Also Like

“People tend to care about dogs because they generally have more experience with dogs as companions; but other animals are as capable of suffering as dogs are. Few people feel sympathy for rats. Yet rats are intelligent animals, and there can be no doubt that rats are capable of suffering and do suffer from countless painful experiments performed on them. If the army were to stop experiments on dogs and switch to rats instead, we should not be any less concerned.”

People Ifs Feels Should Care Suffering Animal Doubt Dog Capable Concerned Army Intelligent Painful Experiments Liberation No Doubt Companion Rats Animal Liberation

Author:Peter Singer

“There has been opposition to experimenting on animals for a long time. This opposition has made little headway because experimenters, backed by commercial firms that profit by supplying laboratory animals and equipment, have been able to convince legislators and the public that opposition comes from uninformed fanatics who consider the interests of animals more important than the interests of human beings.”

“It may be thought justifiable to require tests on animals of potentially life-saving drugs, but the same kinds of tests are used for products like cosmetics, food coloring, and floor polishes. Should thousands of animals suffer so that a new kind of lipstick or floor wax can be put on the market? Don't we already have an excess of most of these products? Who benefits from their introduction, except the companies that hope to profit from them?”

Should Kind May Used Suffering Animal Company Products Drug Benefits Tests Profit Saving Liberation Excess Introduction Polish Lipstick Cosmetics Animal Liberation Life Saving

Author:Peter Singer

“As for cages themselves, an ordinary citizen who kept dogs in similar conditions for their entire lives would risk prosecution for cruelty. A pig producer who keeps an animal of comparable intelligence in this manner, however, is more likely to be rewarded with a tax concession or, in some countries, a direct government subsidy.”

Source: Animal liberation: a new ethics for our treatment of animals

“With the eventual acceptance of Darwin's theory we reach a modern understanding of nature, one which has since then changed in detail rather than in fundamentals. Only those who prefer religious faith to beliefs based on reasoning and evidence can still maintain that the human species is the special darling of the entire universe, or that other animals were created to provide us with food, or that we have divine authority over them, and divine permission to kill them.”

“If animals are no longer quite outside the moral sphere, they are still in a special section near the outer rim. Their interests are allowed to count only when they do not clash with human interests. If there is a clash - even a clash between a lifetime of suffering for a nonhuman animal and the gastronomic preference of a human being - the interests of the nonhuman are disregarded. The moral attitudes of the past are too deeply embedded in our thought and our practices to be upset by a mere change in our knowledge of ourselves and of other animals.”

Source: Animal Liberation

“It is an indication of the extent to which people are now isolated from the animals they eat that children brought up on storybooks that lead them to think of a farm as a place where animals wander around freely in idyllic conditions might be able to live out their entire lives without ever being forced to revise this rosy image.”

People Thinking Children Might Able Animal Conditions Wander Liberation Farms Isolated Indication Animal Liberation Rosy Idyllic

Author:Peter Singer

“The newspapers do little better. Their coverage of nonhuman animals is dominated by "human interest" events like the birth of a baby gorilla at the zoo, or by threats to endangered species; but developments in farming techniques that deprive millions of animals of freedom of movement go unreported.”

Source: Animal liberation: a new ethics for our treatment of animals

“Even people who are aware that the traditional family farm has been taken over by big business interests, and that some questionable experiments go on in laboratories, cling to a vague belief that conditions cannot be too bad, or else the government or the animal welfare societies would have done something about it.”

Source: Animal liberation: a new ethics for our treatment of animals

“Whatever the reason, for most of the present century, the literature and publicity of the old established [animal welfare] groups made a significant contribution to the prevailing attitude that dogs and cats and wild animals need protection, but other animals do not. Thus people came to think of "animal welfare" as something for kindly ladies who are dotty about cats, and not as a cause founded on basic principles of justice and morality.”