Singer, "All Animals Are Equal...," from Animal Liberation Now (2023)

Peter Singer, “All Animals are Equal…” Chapter 1, pages 1-29, in Animal Liberation Now, New York: Harper Perennial, 2023. 

• Almost half a century on from the publication of Animal Liberation, Peter Singer offers a major update in the form of Animal Liberation Now.

• Start with humans, and the common (but factually false) claim that all humans are equal. “The principle of the equality of human beings is not a description of an alleged actual equality among humans: it is a prescription of how we should treat human beings [p. 3].” 

• “The basic principle of equality does not require equal or identical treatment; it requires equal consideration [p. 2].”

• “Concern for the well-being of children requires that we teach them to read; concern for the well-being of pigs may require no more than that we leave them with other pigs in a place where there is adequate food and room to roam freely [p. 3].” 

•  The principle of equal consideration of interests is the basis for the condemnation of sexism, racism – or speciesism (pages 3-4).

• What quality is required before animals “count” in calculating overall well-being? Jeremy Bentham answers in the form of a series of questions: “The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?” [From note 122 in chapter 17 of Bentham’s 1823 An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation.]

• The argument for equal consideration of nonhuman animal interests might be made in terms of “rights,” but they are not fundamental (for a utilitarian like Bentham or Singer): rights are there to reduce suffering and increase well-being (things that are fundamental) (p. 7).

• How we feel about a given “unit” of suffering should be independent of the species of the animal that is suffering “sentience… is the only defensible boundary of concern for the interests of others [p. 7].” 

• Notice how we grant equal consideration to the interests of human infants, or severely disabled people – even if they are not rational or self-aware (p. 8).

• “Most human beings are speciesists…. ordinary human beings – not a few exceptionally cruel or heartless humans, but the overwhelming majority – are complicit in the continuation of practices that thwart the most important interests of members of nonhuman animals in order to promote far less significant human interests [p. 9].” 

• We are not certain that other people possess consciousness or can experience pain – but that doesn’t stop us from acting as if they do (p. 10). 

• The best evidence we have is that many nonhuman animals are sentient. The evidence comes from neurobiology, from aversive behaviors and responses to painkillers, from biological markers… 

• Parents can understand their infants even before the infants can speak – and many human companions to animals can do likewise.

• Most fish seem to be sentient. We are less sure about sharks and rays. Crabs, lobsters, octopuses, and other invertebrates also appear to be sentient. Insects? 

• Treating one human badly (in a way that is publicly known) can inspire widespread fear, but not so for an animal – so that is a reason, if bad treatment is required, to prefer to treat the nonhuman badly (p. 21). But note that the same reasoning means that it is preferable to mistreat profoundly mentally disabled people than their non-disabled con-specifics (p. 22).

• For policy guidance now, we don’t need precise information on the comparative suffering of humans and animals – the pain imposed on animals for the slight benefit to humans is unjustifiable (p. 22). 

• We also do not need to know the precise conditions under which killing is justified to know that factory farming and other animal abuse is wrong. 

• Most people who hold that human life is sacrosanct have no problem with killing animals – this is speciesist (p. 24). 

• We should generally avoid eating animal products because of animal suffering, not because of animal death (p. 28).