Home / Quotes / Quote by Peter Singer

Quote by Peter Singer

“Should one break in and free the animals? That is illegal, but the obligation to obey the law is not absolute. It was justifiably broken by those who helped runaway slaves in the American South, to mention only one possible parallel.”

Quote by Peter Singer

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

“Habits of thought lead us to brush aside descriptions of cruelty to animals as emotional, for "animal-lovers only"; or if not that, then anyway the problem is so trivial in comparison to the problems of human beings that no sensible person could give it time and attention. This too is a prejudice - for how can one know that a problem is trivial until one has taken the time to examine its extent?”

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

“It would be nonsense to say that it was not in the interests of a stone to be kicked along the road...A stone has no interests because it cannot suffer. The capacity for suffering and enjoyment is, however, not only necessary, but also sufficient for us to say that a being has interests - at an absolute minimum, an interest in not suffering. A mouse, for example, does have an interest in not being kicked along the road because it will suffer if it is.”

Ifs Doe Would Be Suffering Interest Animal Example Capacity Stones Absolutes Liberation Sufficient Enjoyment Nonsense Minimum Mice Animal Liberation

Author:Peter Singer

“The statement "I am in pain" may be one piece of evidence for the conclusion that the speaker is in pain, but it is not the only possible evidence, and since people sometimes tell lies, not even the best possible evidence. Even if there were stronger grounds for refusing to attribute pain to those who do not have language, the consequences of this refusal might lead us to reject the conclusion. Human infants and young children are unable to use language. Are we to deny that a year-old child can suffer?”

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

“Sometimes animals may suffer more because of their more limited understanding. If, for instance, we are taking prisoners in wartime we can explain to them that although they must submit to capture, search, and confinement, they will not otherwise be harmed and will be set free at the conclusion of hostilities. If we capture wild animals, however, we cannot explain that we are not threatening their lives. A wild animal cannot distinguish an attempt to overpower and confine from an attempt to kill; the one causes as much terror as the other.”

“...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.”

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

“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.”