Animal Liberation Peter Singer, Bioethicist at Princeton University, wrote a compelling essay called “Animal Liberation.” This 1973 essay is still very much relevant today. The title itself is pretty straightforward. Singer, states the problem of man eating animals and wants to get it liberated. In a dry and but convincing tone, Peter uses many good points to strengthen his claim including the book, Animals, Men and Morals, said to the “manifesto” for the animal liberation. Explaining why animals are people too, in a repetitive fashion. Personally, after reading Singer, I believe that animals liberation is needed. However, it most likely won't happen because people are too set in their ways. It’s the same with some people always not liking a person based on their skin color, in spite of of these race groups being liberated. The first part of the essay is very interesting in respect to what liberation is and when is it achieved in society. It starts by saying discrimination is only eliminated when it is pointed out, and fought for, changing the old ways of living to better for all people especially the ones discriminated against. He used discrimination against race, gender, sexual orientation as examples of liberated groups. He made a strong connection between ending slavery and animals being liberated. Personally, I believe this is a very …show more content…
A baby can talk and aren't fully developed to the degree of talking and making complete words let alone sentences. This doesn't means a baby crying and screaming is not suffering. The same goes for animals. Humans being able to understand the behaviors of pain and suffering is vital to Singers claim. In the text Singer talks about a cat injected with a dose of tambourine in the brain. The cat clearly showed behaviors of suffering before it died from the injection. The image of the cat suffering, in Singer is most definitely enough to make anyone feel bad for