DOCSLIB.ORG

Singer Says the Satya Interview with Peter Singer

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Singer Says the Satya Interview with Peter Singer Google Search Search www.satyamag.com Read each article! Satya has ceased publication. This website is maintained for informational purposes only. All contents are copyrighted. Click here to learn about reprinting text or images that appear on this site. October 2006 Singer Says The Satya Interview with Peter Singer As a university student in the early 1970s, Peter Singer sat across from a friend who ordered a vegetarian meal. While eating meat, Singer asked his classmate why he didn’t eat meat. His ethical reasons for vegetarianism prompted Singer to plumb some of the deepest moral issues of the time. He found factory farming indefensible and applied a utilitarian philosophical framework to a culture based on animal exploitation. Thus a book called Animal Liberation was born, published in 1975, which inspired an international movement. Three decades later, Peter Singer holds professorships at both Princeton University and the University of Melbourne, and Peter Singer and Maude at Farm Sanctuary. has published dozens of books addressing a wide range of Photo by Derek Goodwin ethical issues. In 2005, Singer was listed as one of the world’s 100 “most influential people” by Time magazine. At 60, Singer’s standing as a major figure in the animal rights movement was reinforced with the publication of The Way We Eat: Why Our Food Choices Matter (Rodale) this spring. Singer paired up again with co-author Jim Mason to revisit some of what they explored in Animal Factories. To examine the many ethical issues related to food, the authors followed around three families: a Wal-Mart shopping family who eats fast food, an environmentally-conscientious family, and a vegan family. Singer’s philosophy has also stirred controversy and offense on a number of fronts, including with disability rights activists, for his contention that infanticide can be justified in certain circumstances where a newborn is severely disabled; anti-abortion activists, for his stance that human fetuses do not qualify for personhood; feminists, for his rejection of an ethic of caring as a necessary component of a moral framework; and animal rights activists, for his utilitarian relegation of some animals as “replaceable.” Over tofu BLTs at Chelsea’s all-vegan restaurant Blossom, Catherine Clyne asked Peter Singer about his new book and how his strategy for animal liberation has changed over time, and about some of his controversial views on animal welfare reform. What do you want the general public to get from reading your book, The Way We Eat? The overarching thing I would like is to get them to think of food as an ethical question, which most of them don’t. Once they do that, the single most important thing I’d like them to do is to realize that buying factory farmed products is something we can’t defend on a lot of different grounds. And at a minimum, to make that step away from buying anything from factory farms. What do you want animal activists to get from the book? Well, some of them might think a bit more about some of the other aspects of what they’re eating. That is, they might think about buying fair trade products and more organic produce, for example. Beyond that, I would like them to think about what’s the most appropriate way to really reduce the suffering of animals. The book is suggesting that we might be more effective by being somewhat more tolerant of people who consume animal products, if they’re thoughtful about where they came from and try to ensure that the animals have had a decent life. And that we not be too fanatical about insisting on a purely vegan life. What’s the response been so far? From the general public, it’s been really very good. The reviews have been strong and positive, and a number of people have spoken to me or emailed—people who are not part of the animal movement—to say they read the book and became vegetarian, or will say I’m never going to eat chicken again. (Several people found the chapter on chickens particularly off-putting.) So that’s really encouraging. From the activist movement, it’s generally been very good too. I’ve been pleased that people who are vegan themselves, and are involved in some of the major animal rights organizations, have been strongly in support of it. I’ve had a few gripes from the kind of people I would expect to have gripes from. I mean, there are people who I think are a little too ready to criticize others who are basically on the same side of the fence, but are not as pure as they are, and they’ve fixed on the fact that this book doesn’t simply say you ought to go vegan and nothing else. How do you respond to such criticism? If you read the book, it does make clear that going vegan is a good solution to a lot of the ethical problems. It doesn’t hide that; and it defends the fact that you can bring up your children as healthy vegans and so on. In my view I guess the line that says just tell people to go vegan and that’s it, really hasn’t faced up to reality. I’ve been in the movement for more than 30 years and the number of vegans is still a tiny minority, we haven’t got into the mainstream. Today, factory farming is the mainstream. So if we could change the mainstream from eating factory farmed products to eating only free-range, pasture raised animal products, that would be a huge and positive change. People would end up eating a lot less meat and fewer animal products anyway, and the animals they do eat would have had better lives. How has your strategy changed since you wrote Animal Liberation? I suppose when I wrote Animal Liberation I didn’t really quite know what to expect. But I did think the argument was very clear and compelling and that any reasonable person who read it would say, ‘well, that’s right, so therefore I shouldn’t be eating animals and I should change my whole lifestyle.’ And if enough people did that, and told others about it, then these animal industries would collapse fairly quickly. Now, I wasn’t totally naïve even then. I guess I realized that these were big, powerful interests and maybe people are just too selfish to accept a rational argument when it goes against their eating habits. So I wasn’t really sure that would happen, but I did think there was a really powerful argument that should appeal to people. I still think that’s true, but given that we haven’t got anywhere near where I hoped we would be, 30 years down the track, I think we do have to look for other things. Over the years since Animal Liberation, I’ve become more of an incrementalist. That is, I’m prepared to say that we’ve got to make progress where we can, we’ve got to reduce animal suffering where we can, and even if we’re just doing it by taking small steps, which fall well short of our ultimate goal, that’s a good thing to do. I would be concerned if I thought that in some way this was going to prevent us from achieving further goals, but I can’t see that it is. I know some people claim it will make people comfortable with eating meat, but I don’t think we’re going to get the mainstream of the population to just become vegan. It’s not as if there are more vegans in countries like in the U.S., where animals are more abused than in Britain or Sweden or somewhere else where they have better protection; in fact, there are fewer vegans here than in Britain. I think they actually reinforce themselves: the greater consciousness of animal issues, improvements in the way animals are kept, feeds back to greater consciousness and more people thinking that even though there have been improvements, this is really still not good enough. Whereas, if you don’t have the debate about the improvements, people don’t know about the conditions in which animals are kept and they don’t really change. You are kind of considered the “godfather” of the animal rights movement for writing such a watershed book. Most people point to Animal Liberation as at least a starting point for this discussion. So how do you respond to people who feel The Way We Eat is too watered down, that it doesn’t make as strong an argument for vegetarianism as you have in the past? I don’t think that the ultimate argument is different. I’ve not said anything in Animal Liberation I no longer believe or say in The Way We Eat. Other than strategic issues—how do we get more people to do something that will reduce animal suffering—I certainly stand by the ethical argument of Animal Liberation. I think people are mistaken if they think I’ve watered down that underlying ethical argument. Now, other people assume, incidentally, that in Animal Liberation I said that killing animals is always wrong, and that was somehow the argument for being vegetarian or vegan. But if they go back and look at Animal Liberation, they won’t find that argument. But vegetarianism and veganism is still a consistent response to factory farming and its overwhelming abuse and exploitation. That’s right.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Ethics, Agency & Love
    Ethics, Agency & Love for Bryn Browne Department of Philosophy, University of Wales Lampeter Speciesism - Arguments for Whom? Camilla Kronqvist Please do not quote without permission! Since the publication of Animal Liberation by Peter Singer in 1975 there has been an upshot of literature concerned with the moral standing of animals and our attitudes and reactions towards them. The starting point for most of these discussions can mainly be found in the notion of speciesism, a term that originally was introduced by Richard Ryder but that has become more widely spread with the writings of Peter Singer. It is also Singer that I am discussing in this essay although many other philosophers have brought forward similar ideas. The idea that lies behind this notion is basically that we as human beings have prejudices in our attitudes towards animals and that we discriminate against them on grounds that are unacceptable in a society that stresses the importance of equality. The line that we draw between human beings, or members of the species Homo Sapiens as Singer prefers to put it, and animals is as arbitrary as the lines that previously have been drawn on the basis of sex or race. It is not a distinction that is based on any factual differences between the species but simply on the sense of superiority we seem to pride ourselves in with regard to our own species. Allowing the species of a being to be the determining factor for our ethical reactions towards is, according to the argument, as bad as letting sex or race play the same part.
    [Show full text]
  • The Scope of the Argument from Species Overlap
    bs_bs_banner Journal of Applied Philosophy,Vol.31, No. 2, 2014 doi: 10.1111/japp.12051 The Scope of the Argument from Species Overlap OSCAR HORTA ABSTRACT The argument from species overlap has been widely used in the literature on animal ethics and speciesism. However, there has been much confusion regarding what the argument proves and what it does not prove, and regarding the views it challenges.This article intends to clarify these confusions, and to show that the name most often used for this argument (‘the argument from marginal cases’) reflects and reinforces these misunderstandings.The article claims that the argument questions not only those defences of anthropocentrism that appeal to capacities believed to be typically human, but also those that appeal to special relations between humans. This means the scope of the argument is far wider than has been thought thus far. Finally, the article claims that, even if the argument cannot prove by itself that we should not disregard the interests of nonhuman animals, it provides us with strong reasons to do so, since the argument does prove that no defence of anthropocentrism appealing to non-definitional and testable criteria succeeds. 1. Introduction The argument from species overlap, which has also been called — misleadingly, I will argue — the argument from marginal cases, points out that the criteria that are com- monly used to deprive nonhuman animals of moral consideration fail to draw a line between human beings and other sentient animals, since there are also humans who fail to satisfy them.1 This argument has been widely used in the literature on animal ethics for two purposes.
    [Show full text]
  • Equality, Priority and Nonhuman Animals*
    Equality, Priority and Catia Faria Nonhuman Animals* Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Department of Law [email protected] http://upf.academia.edu/catiafaria Igualdad, prioridad y animales no humanos ABSTRACT: This paper assesses the implications of egali- RESUMEN: Este artículo analiza las implicaciones del iguali- tarianism and prioritarianism for the consideration of tarismo y del prioritarismo en lo que refiere a la conside- nonhuman animals. These implications have been often ración de los animales no humanos. Estas implicaciones overlooked. The paper argues that neither egalitarianism han sido comúnmente pasadas por alto. Este artículo de- nor prioritarianism can consistently deprive nonhuman fenderá que ni el igualitarismo ni el prioritarismo pueden animals of moral consideration. If you really are an egali- privar de forma consistente de consideración moral a los tarian (or a prioritarian) you are necessarily committed animales no humanos. Si realmente alguien es igualitaris- both to the rejection of speciesism and to assigning prior- ta (o prioritarista) ha de tener necesariamente una posi- ity to the interests of nonhuman animals, since they are ción de rechazo del especismo, y estar a favor de asignar the worst-off. From this, important practical consequen- prioridad a los intereses de los animales no humanos, ces follow for the improvement of the current situation of dado que estos son los que están peor. De aquí se siguen nonhuman animals. importantes consecuencias prácticas para la mejora de la situación actual de los animales no humanos. KEYWORDS: egalitarianism, prioritarianism, nonhuman ani- PALABRAS-CLAVE: igualitarismo, prioritarismo, animales no hu- mals, speciesism, equality manos, especismo, igualdad 1. Introduction It is commonly assumed that human beings should be given preferential moral consideration, if not absolute priority, over the members of other species.
    [Show full text]
  • Against Animal Liberation? Peter Singer and His Critics
    Against Animal Liberation? Peter Singer and His Critics Gonzalo Villanueva Sophia International Journal of Philosophy and Traditions ISSN 0038-1527 SOPHIA DOI 10.1007/s11841-017-0597-6 1 23 Your article is protected by copyright and all rights are held exclusively by Springer Science +Business Media Dordrecht. This e-offprint is for personal use only and shall not be self- archived in electronic repositories. If you wish to self-archive your article, please use the accepted manuscript version for posting on your own website. You may further deposit the accepted manuscript version in any repository, provided it is only made publicly available 12 months after official publication or later and provided acknowledgement is given to the original source of publication and a link is inserted to the published article on Springer's website. The link must be accompanied by the following text: "The final publication is available at link.springer.com”. 1 23 Author's personal copy SOPHIA DOI 10.1007/s11841-017-0597-6 Against Animal Liberation? Peter Singer and His Critics Gonzalo Villanueva1 # Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017 Keywords Animal ethics . Moral status of animals . Peter Singer. Animal liberation Peter Singer’s 1975 book Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals has been described as ‘the Bible’ of the modern animal movement.1 Singer’s unrhetorical and unemotional arguments radically departed from previous conceptions of animal ethics. He moved beyond the animal welfare tradition of ‘kindness’ and ‘compassion’ to articulate a non-anthropocentric utilitarian philosophy based on equal- ity and interests. After the publication of Animal Liberation, an ‘avalanche of animal rights literature’ appeared.2 A prolific amount of work focused on the moral status of animals, and the ‘animal question’ has been given serious consideration across a broad range of disciplines.
    [Show full text]
  • The Moral Standing of Animals: Towards a Psychology of Speciesism
    The Moral Standing of Animals: Towards a Psychology of Speciesism Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Lucius Caviola, Jim A.C. Everett, and Nadira S. Faber University of Oxford We introduce and investigate the philosophical concept of ‘speciesism’ — the assignment of different moral worth based on species membership — as a psychological construct. In five studies, using both general population samples online and student samples, we show that speciesism is a measurable, stable construct with high interpersonal differences, that goes along with a cluster of other forms of prejudice, and is able to predict real-world decision- making and behavior. In Study 1 we present the development and empirical validation of a theoretically driven Speciesism Scale, which captures individual differences in speciesist attitudes. In Study 2, we show high test-retest reliability of the scale over a period of four weeks, suggesting that speciesism is stable over time. In Study 3, we present positive correlations between speciesism and prejudicial attitudes such as racism, sexism, homophobia, along with ideological constructs associated with prejudice such as social dominance orientation, system justification, and right-wing authoritarianism. These results suggest that similar mechanisms might underlie both speciesism and other well-researched forms of prejudice. Finally, in Studies 4 and 5, we demonstrate that speciesism is able to predict prosociality towards animals (both in the context of charitable donations and time investment) and behavioral food choices above and beyond existing related constructs. Importantly, our studies show that people morally value individuals of certain species less than others even when beliefs about intelligence and sentience are accounted for.
    [Show full text]
  • Ethics and Animals Fall 2020
    Ethics and Animals Fall 2020 Description This course examines the morality of our treatment of nonhuman animals. We start with a survey of moral theory. Do animals have moral status? Do we have a right to harm or kill some animals in order to benefit or save others? We consider these questions from a variety of moral perspectives, including consequentialism, Kantian ethics, virtue ethics, and feminist ethics. We then apply these ideas to different kinds of animal use. For example, what is the morality of our treatment of animals in food, research, captivity, and the wild? Finally, we will explore ethical questions that arise for animal activists, including about what ends they should pursue, what means they should take towards those ends, and how they should relate to other social movements. General Information Time: T 5:00{7:30 ET Place: online Instructor: Name: Jeff Sebo Email: jeff[email protected] Office: online Office Hours: M 3-5pm ET 1 Readings The required books for this class are: Julia Driver, Ethics: The Fundamentals; Lori Gruen, Ethics and Animals; and Gary Francione & Robert Garner, The Animal Rights Debate. These books are available online, and the Gruen and Francione & Garner books are also available for free at the NYU library website. All readings not from the required books will be posted on the course website. Grading Your grades will be determined as follows: • Papers (75%): You will write three papers explaining and evaluating the ideas and arguments discussed in class. You will email this paper to [email protected]. For each paper, you can either create your own prompt (provided that you clear it with us in advance) or select from prompts that we create.
    [Show full text]
  • Vegetarianism and Virtue: Does Consequentialism Demand Too Little?
    WellBeing International WBI Studies Repository 1-2002 Vegetarianism and Virtue: Does Consequentialism Demand Too Little? Nathan Nobis University of Rochester Follow this and additional works at: https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/acwp_aafhh Part of the Animal Studies Commons, Other Anthropology Commons, and the Other Nutrition Commons Recommended Citation Nobis, N. (2002). Vegetarianism and Virtue: Does consequentialism Demand Too Little?. Social Theory & Practice, 28(1), 135-156. This material is brought to you for free and open access by WellBeing International. It has been accepted for inclusion by an authorized administrator of the WBI Studies Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Vegetarianism and Virtue: Does Consequentialism Demand Too Little? Nathan Nobis Department of Philosophy, University of Rochester I will argue that each of us personally ought to be a vegetarian.1 Actually, the conclusion I will attempt to defend concerns more than one's eating habits in that I will argue that we should be "vegans." Not only should we not buy and eat meat, but we should also not purchase fur coats, stoles, and hats, or leather shoes, belts, jackets, purses and wallets, furniture, car interiors, and other traditionally animal-based products for which there are readily available plant-based or synthetic alternatives. (Usually these are cheaper and work just as well, or better, anyway.) I will argue that buying and eating most eggs and dairy products are immoral as well. (Since it's much easier
    [Show full text]
  • And Transhumanism Robert Ranisch & Stefan Lorenz Sorgner Scientific and Technological Advances Have Questioned Predominant Doctrines Concerning the Human Condition
    Introducing Post- and Transhumanism Robert Ranisch & Stefan Lorenz Sorgner Scientific and technological advances have questioned predominant doctrines concerning the human condition. Transhumanism and posthumanism are among the most recent and prominent manifestations of this phenomenon. Debates on trans- and posthumanism have not only gained a considerable amount of aca- demic and popular attention recently, but have also created a widespread con- ceptual confusion. This is no surprise, considering their recent dates of origin, their conceptual similarities, and their engagements with similar questions, top- ics, and motifs. Furthermore, trans- as well as posthumanism frequently question their relationship to humanism1 and reconsider what it means to be human. In this regard both movements are streaming beyond humanism. What this means, however, is far from clear and shall be subject of discussion in this volume. In order to make sense of these two approaches and to investigate their inter- relationship, a clarification of these concepts is necessary. As a first approxima- tion, transhumanism can be seen as a stance that affirms the radical transfor- mation of human’s biological capacities and social conditions by means of tech- 1 We will not be able to address the complex histories and varieties of humanism in this chapter. Yet, the following must be noted: The word “humanism” (Humanismus) was coined in 1808 by the German theologian and philosopher Friedrich I. Niethammer in the context of educational curricula, as it is derived from the Latin word humanitas. This word has a variety of meaning but has strongly been identified with the Greek word paideia (παιδεία), e.g., i.) in Cicero’s De Oratore (I, 71) the meaning of the concept hu- manitas corresponds to that of the concept paideia; ii.) in the text Noctes Acticae (XIII, 17) by the Latin author Aulus Gellius, who lived in the 2nd century, an explicit identifi- cation of paideia and humanitas can be found.
    [Show full text]
  • Singer on Killing Animals
    OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, Thu Jul 02 2015, NEWGEN 8 Singer on Killing Animals SHELLY KAGAN here are, I think, at least two questions that any adequate account of Tthe ethics of killing animals should try to answer. First of all, and most importantly, we’d like to know whether it is indeed wrong (other things being equal) to kill animals at all. Of course, killing may often involve pain, and most of us would agree that it is wrong (again, other things being equal) to cause an animal pain. But recognizing this fact doesn’t yet tell us whether there is anything wrong with killing the animal per se—that is to say, above and beyond the pain it might involve. Suppose that we are considering killing a given animal painlessly. Would that still be objection- able? If so, why? Second, assuming for the moment that it is, in fact, wrong to kill animals, is there something particularly wrong about killing people? That is to say, if we distinguish between being a person (being rational and self-conscious, aware of oneself as existing across time) and being what we might call a “mere” animal (sentient, but not a person), we might wonder whether it is somehow worse to kill a person than it is to kill an animal that is merely sentient. Most of us, I imagine, think that something like this is indeed the case.1 But it is not obvious whether this common view is justified, and even if it is, it is not obvious what makes the killing of the person worse.
    [Show full text]
  • ANIMAL (DE)LIBERATION: Should the Consumption of Animal Products Be Banned? JAN DECKERS Animal (De)Liberation: Should the Consumption of Animal Products Be Banned?
    ANIMAL (DE)LIBERATION: Should the Consumption of Animal Products Be Banned? JAN DECKERS Animal (De)liberation: Should the Consumption of Animal Products Be Banned? Jan Deckers ]u[ ubiquity press London Published by Ubiquity Press Ltd. 6 Windmill Street London W1T 2JB www.ubiquitypress.com Text © Jan Deckers 2016 First published 2016 Cover design by Amber MacKay Cover illustration by Els Van Loon Printed in the UK by Lightning Source Ltd. Print and digital versions typeset by Siliconchips Services Ltd. ISBN (Hardback): 978-1-909188-83-9 ISBN (Paperback): 978-1-909188-84-6 ISBN (PDF): 978-1-909188-85-3 ISBN (EPUB): 978-1-909188-86-0 ISBN (Mobi/Kindle): 978-1-909188-87-7 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/bay This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Interna- tional License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons. org/licenses/by/4.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 444 Castro Street, Suite 900, Mountain View, California, 94041, USA. This license allows for copying any part of the work for personal and commercial use, providing author attribution is clearly stated. The full text of this book has been peer-reviewed to ensure high academic standards. For full review policies, see http://www.ubiquitypress.com/ Suggested citation: Deckers, J 2016 Animal (De)liberation: Should the Consumption of Animal Products Be Banned? London: Ubiquity Press. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/bay. License: CC-BY 4.0 To read the free, open access version of this book online, visit http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/bay or scan
    [Show full text]
  • The Replaceability Argument
    Uppsala universitet Filosofiska institutionen The Replaceability Argument - An evaluation of a utilitarian argument for the permissibility of purchasing meat Hampus Gunnarsson C-uppsats VT-18 Handledare: Simon Rosenqvist Contents 1. Introduction 2 2. The Replaceability Argument 2 3. Premise One: The Causal Impotence Problem 4 3.1 Causal Impotence 5 3.2 Counterarguments 6 3.3 Responses to the Counterarguments 7 3.4 Discussion 9 3.5 Conclusions 10 4. Premise Two: Living a Valuable Life 11 4.1 Two Theories of Welfare 12 4.2 The Lives of Animals in the Meat Industry 14 4.3 Conclusions 17 5. Premise Three: Alternative Acts 17 5.1 Environmental Effects 18 5.2 Human Health Effects 20 5.3 Conclusions 21 6. Conclusion 22 1 1. Introduction Utilitarian arguments for the permissibility of purchasing meat have a long history. In 1914, the British writer and animal rights campaigner Henry Salt lamented what he called the “logic of the larder” – the way meat purchases are justified by the alleged fact that they allow the slaughtered animals to live in the first place.1 Recent proponents of this view include Torbjörn Tännsjö who thinks that as long as animals reared for slaughter live valuable lives, the practice of eating meat isn’t problematic. 2 This type of argument is also described as one of the possible utilitarian arguments for meat consumption by Bob Fisher in his contribution to The Oxford Handbook of ​ Food Ethics.3 The thinkers who argue for versions of the logic of the larder model ​ stand in sharp contrast to the large number of contemporary utilitarian philosophers who claim that the impermissibility of buying meat follows from the utilitarian theory.4 The aim of this thesis is to examine and evaluate the utilitarian argument for the permissibility of buying meat that I call “the replaceability argument”.
    [Show full text]
  • La Argumentación De Singer En Liberación Animal: Concepciones Normativas, Interés En Vivir Y Agregacionismo Diánoia, Vol
    Diánoia ISSN: 0185-2450 [email protected] Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México México HORTA, OSCAR La argumentación de Singer en Liberación animal: concepciones normativas, interés en vivir y agregacionismo Diánoia, vol. LVI, núm. 67, noviembre, 2011, pp. 65-85 Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México Distrito Federal, México Disponible en: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=58433540004 Cómo citar el artículo Número completo Sistema de Información Científica Más información del artículo Red de Revistas Científicas de América Latina, el Caribe, España y Portugal Página de la revista en redalyc.org Proyecto académico sin fines de lucro, desarrollado bajo la iniciativa de acceso abierto La argumentación de Singer en Liberación animal: concepciones normativas, interés en vivir y agregacionismo OSCAR HORTA Fundación Española para la Ciencia y la Tecnología/ Rutgers University [email protected] Resumen: Este artículo examina los presupuestos metodológicos, axiológicos y normativos en los que descansa la que posiblemente sea la obra más co- nocida de Peter Singer, Liberación animal. Se exploran las tensiones entre la posición normativa, de compromisos mínimos, que se intenta adoptar en esa obra, y las posiciones de Singer acerca del utilitarismo de las preferencias y el argumento de la reemplazabilidad. Se buscará elucidar en particular el modo en el que surgen tales tensiones al abordarse la consideración del agregacio- nismo y el interés en vivir en relación con el uso de animales no humanos. Palabras clave: especismo, principio de no maleficencia, utilitarismo, valor de la vida Abstract: This paper examines the methodological, axiological and normative assumptions on which Animal Liberation —arguably the most poular work by Peter Singer— rests.
    [Show full text]