In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Epilogue Animal Liberation will require greater altruism on the part of human beings than any other liberation movement . . . . Human beings have the power to continue to oppress other species forever, or until we make this planet unsuitable for living beings. . . . Or will we rise to the challenge and prove our capacity for genuine altruism by ending our ruthless exploitation of the species in our power, not because we are forced to do so . . . but because we recognize that our position is morally indefensible? The way in which we answer this question depends on the way in which each one of us, individually, answers it. —Peter Singer, Animal Liberation You are reading copyrighted material published by Ohio University Press/Swallow Press. Unauthorized posting, copying, or distributing of this work except as permitted under U.S. copyright law is illegal and injures the author and publisher. W hen Peter Singer published Animal Liberation in 1975, the sociocultural and even political foundations for his ideas were already in place. Although the historical record may have ignored those voices of the voiceless that echoed over the preceding century, the activism and legacies of the earlier advocates made the developments of 1975 and the years thereafter possible. Thus, it seems appropriate to end this book at that point. But perhaps the greatest significance of the year 1975 is that it marked the moment when Singer’s book opened a new door for animal advocacy and for society in general. The publication of Animal Liberation propelled animal defenders, even conservative ones, to another level of activism and ideology. But as the movement took off in a new and exciting direction, its evolution would continue to be influenced, for better and for worse, by the past. When post-1975 activists ventured into new campaigns against the wearing of fur or factory farming, they carried with them the movement’s historical strengths: diverse strategies (and agendas ), adaptability, and determination. But they also inherited their movement ’s family squabbles and rocky friendships. Exactly where all these new and old forces take animal advocacy or humankind in general, for that matter, is a story yet to be told, but understanding the role of Singer’s book is the first crucial step in constructing that tale. Peter Singer rooted his primary thesis in the long tradition and language of human rights. Just as certain humans experienced racism, sexism , and classism, nonhumans endured speciesism. As he explained, speciesism “is a prejudice or attitude of bias in favor of the interests of members of one’s own species and against those of members of other species.” Moreover, he continued, “most human beings are speciesists in their readiness to cause pain to animals when they would not cause a similar pain to humans for the same reason.”1 He asserted that, like women, peoples of color, and the poor, animals deserved to be freed from the institutionalized discrimination that oppressed them. To prove his point, the philosopher harkened back to Jeremy Bentham’s premise that “the question is not, Can they reason? nor Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?” and he argued that a capacity for suffering and enjoyment meant a creature had legitimate interests that had to be ethically considered . For Singer, the existing social construct of animals, based on speciesism, was as wrong as the social constructs that oppressed fellow humans. The greater difficulty for nonhumans was that they did not 198 EPILOGUE You are reading copyrighted material published by Ohio University Press/Swallow Press. Unauthorized posting, copying, or distributing of this work except as permitted under U.S. copyright law is illegal and injures the author and publisher. share a language with their oppressors and thus could not assert their interests . Change had to emanate solely from the oppressor. To liberate animals, humans had first to liberate themselves of speciesism. Importantly, Singer did not specifically advocate a doctrine of animal rights. In fact, he denies that animals have rights.2 Instead, his ideas about speciesism and liberation provided activists with the ideological foundations for their own more radical declarations on behalf of nonhumans . In this way, Animal Liberation significantly altered both the larger struggle and individual lives. After 1975, the words rights and liberation emanated more frequently from diverse animal advocacy organizations. Moreover, when modern activists discuss the motivations behind their involvement in the movement, they might begin by speaking of their lifelong bond with animals or a particular act of cruelty that motivated them to action, but eventually, they...

Share