کتاب آزادی حیوانات

اثر پیتر سینگر از انتشارات ققنوس - مترجم: بهنام خداپناه-بهترین کتاب ها و نمایشنامه های فلسفی

Since its original publication in 1975, this groundbreaking work has awakened millions of concerned men and women to the shocking abuse of animals everywhere -- inspiring a worldwide movement to eliminate much of the cruel and unnecessary laboratory animal experimentation of years past. Peter Singer exposes the chilling realities of todays factory forms and product-testing procedures -- offering sound, humane solutions to what has become a profound environmental and social as well as moral issue. An appeal to conscience, fairness, decency and justice, Animal Liberation is essential reading for the supporter and the skeptic alike.v


خرید کتاب آزادی حیوانات
جستجوی کتاب آزادی حیوانات در گودریدز

معرفی کتاب آزادی حیوانات از نگاه کاربران
Animal Liberation is credited with launching the animal rights movement in the industrialized world when it was first published in 1975 by the then relatively unknown, Peter Singer ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Si...]). You can blame all of the illogical stupidity of [http://www.peta.org] PETA on this book. But PETAs antics tend to blind people to any logical discussion of the real points in Animal Liberation. Singer does not support the animal rights movement epitomized by PETA but holds many of the same views, referred to as speciesism ([http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciesism]), based on a logical examination of the practices of the industrialized societies in their use of animals. The examination is based on Utilitarian ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitar...]) morals and ethics and you have to read the book with that frame of mind, even if you dont agree you have to be open to utilitarian ideas, to understand some of what Singer is talking about.

Most people in the industrial world are far removed from how their food is produced and how their beauty products or drugs are tested and approved. This blinds many people to the true magnitude of the use of animals in sustaining or modern standard of living. Animal liberation strips off the blinders and exposes the realities of our system of animal exploitation. Animal Liberation is an academic book on ethics but is also in-your-face and readable.

I first read Animal Liberation when I worked in the fish store back in Cville. One of our regular customers was a post-doc biologist at the university. She came in one day to buy 100 Zebra Danios to be used in an experiment. Im not sure now what the exact nature of the experiment was but Jason argued with her and said he would not sell them to her if she was going to cut their heads open and stick electrodes in their brains. Jason continues to argue by asking her have you even read Animal Liberation? to which she responded, yes, have you? The only thing Jason could say was, um. No, actually.

Even though Jason, John and myself had, for a time, been vegetarian neither Jason or I had read Animal Liberation yet and Im not sure if John had finished it yet. Wed become vegetarians based on discussion of the principles in Animal Liberation with several of our customers and friends, including a ethics teacher at the university. This was when I picked up my first copy of the book, figuring that I could not speak intelligently about the decision I had made, could not even justify the decision unless I had actually read the book. Im glad it was Jason and not me that got caught on the soap box without being prepared.

If its hard to imagine going vegetarian or vegan read Animal Liberation and then think about it. Its hard for anyone Ive meet to read Animal Liberation and not change their lifestyle in some way. Not everyone goes vegetarian or vegan but they all change some, the arguments are compelling and the images and examples of humans use of non-humans are graphic and disturbing.


مشاهده لینک اصلی
Sur la couverture de la nouvelle édition française en poche de La Libération animale, de Peter Singer, il y a : un cheval, un cerf et une biche, un lion, un cavalier king charles, un paon, un faisan, deux lévriers afghans, un renard, deux pigeons, une petite salamandre jaune et noire, une belette et un drôle doiseau. Le cheval et le cerf se regardent comme si ils devaient décider de la direction où mener toute leur petite troupe (putain de société patriarcale). Tout le monde a lair de vivre en bonne harmonie, même le lion, qui est pourtant visiblement grognon. Le tout sur fonds de pâturages verts, et darbres, avec dautres animaux au loin. Ça ma rappelé un tract des témoins de Jéhovah que javais un jour reçu dans ma boîte aux lettres : une tripotée danimaux différents qui vivaient dans lharmonie la plus totale avec des humains. Je me rappelle quil y avait un petit garçon noir qui caressait un lion dans un bosquet, dans une sorte de vision paradisiaque, où les hommes vivraient en accord avec les animaux - enfin, avec certains animaux, les animaux politiquement acceptables : animaux sauvages à défendre, animaux domestique mignons, mais fi des porcs et des poulets.

Dans la Libération animale de Peter Singer, nous parlerons pourtant de porcs et de poulets. Nous parlerons de bœufs, de vaches, de veaux anémiés en fer qui tentent de lécher leur urine pour se nourrir, de truies confinées qui écrasent leurs petits, de poules élevées en batterie, sur des grillages, réduites à limmobilité, à tel point que leurs pattes se fondent parfois dans les grilles, de beagles auxquels on arrache les yeux, de chats quon mutile sexuellement, de singes auxquels on découpe la boîte crânienne, le tout sans anesthésie. Nous parlerons mutilations et électrocutions, antibiotiques, amputation du bec ou de la queue, meulage de dents, déclenchement de la dépression chez les bébés singes. Vous risquez de faire de drôles de grimaces en lisant ça dans le métro.

Le classique de Singer est souvent décrié : dernièrement, jai encore eu loccasion de voir Léa Salamé à la télévision, expliquer que Singer justifie les maltraitances sur les personnes handicapées mentales, alors quil demande à ses lecteurs de bien traiter les animaux. La vie dun animal non-humain en bonne santé aurait donc plus de valeur que celle dun humain déficient.
Cest toujours une bonne idée de lire et de comprendre le livre avant de raconter nimporte quoi sur une chaîne de grande audience, du coup je lai fait après coup pour Léa : Singer amène effectivement largument dune personne handicapée, pour se demander dans quelle mesure la discrimination peut-elle être justifiée envers les êtres vivants. Nous entendons souvent dire que lhomme est plus fort que les animaux, ce qui justifierait sa domination : cet argument serait-il valable, si lon envisage le cas dun être humain en pleine santé, et dun être humain en situation de handicap ? Nous entendons également régulièrement dire que lhomme est plus intelligent que lanimal, ce qui justifierait également sa domination sur lanimal : faudrait-il alors admettre quune personne déficiente a moins de valeur quune personne non-déficiente ? Pourrait-on justifier la pratique de la vivisection sur cette personne, à supposer quelle ne comprenne pas ce qui lui arrive ? Et Singer de rappeler quil y a peu encore, les nouveaux-nés étaient opérés sans anesthésie préalable.
Largument convoqué, sil peut choquer, est amené, évidemment, pour que le lecteur y réponde de manière négative : rien ne justifie un mauvais traitement dune personne déficiente mentalement. Et alors, si on ne justifie pas par la force, par lintelligence, ou par quelque autre moyen, la domination de lhomme sur les animaux, ne faudrait-il pas admettre quon doit respecter la vie des animaux en soi, juste parce quils ont un intérêt à vivre ? Comme nous le faisons pour une personne déficiente mentale, évidemment, ou pour un nouveau-né.

Sensuivent deux chapitres : lun concerne lexpérimentation animale, et il ma durablement choquée. Depuis que jai commencé à lire autour du sujet, jai toujours zigzagué entre les ouvrages évoquant la vivisection, car, même si je vois la nécessité quil y a den apprendre plus sur le sujet, jai clairement du mal à affronter. Les descriptions des méthodes de vivisection, les rapports dexpérimentations sur animaux, étaient simplement horrifiques. Je fais déjà attention à utiliser des marques de cosmétiques ou de produits dentretien qui ne testent pas, mais le chapitre ma donné envie de me renseigner plus précisément sur le sujet - aujourdhui en France, quelles sont les pratiques encore en vogue, comment peut-on sy opposer, etc.

Le deuxième chapitre évoquait les pratiques délevage. Celui-ci a un peu valeur de document socio-historique : ce sont des pratiques qui se faisaient dans les années 80, aux Etats-Unis, qui diffèrent encore de celles pratiquées aujourdhui en France. Toutefois, il est intéressant de voir jusquoù on a pu aller dans lhorreur, de constater que certains pays ont légiféré à lépoque sans acter depuis, de voir que la situation de certains animaux en élevage na aucunement progressé.

Enfin, la dernière partie du livre plaide pour le végétarisme. Le végétalisme, le véganisme, ne sont que rapidement abordés ; lauteur pense que revendiquer la pureté dun régime entièrement végétal peut décourager dautres personnes de prendre la voie dune alimentation sans cruauté, quil vaut mieux aller dans le bon sens, tout en militant. Une position critiquable-mais-bon-cest-aussi-lépoque.

Les questions denvironnement, de santé, dempathie avec les animaux, qui pourraient nous mener à un mode de vie plus éthique, sont quant à elles laissées de côté : finalement, la seule question qui mène le texte est dordre moral : peut-on moralement faire du mal aux animaux, alors que nous ny sommes pas obligés ?

Quatre cents pages qui ont changé la philosophie, et qui contribuent encore, à petits pas, à changer le monde.
Tiens, si tu as la flemme de lire parce quil fait chaud, voilà le lien dune conférence de Peter Singer (et de Mathieu Ricard puis dAymeric Caron) :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEZgI...


مشاهده لینک اصلی
Peter Singer builds a step-by-step, iron-clad ethical case for considering the welfare of animals as part of our ever-expanding circle of moral consideration. While non-human animals may not be our equals in many respects, the only thing that really matters is their shared ability to experience pain and suffering. Any attempt to draw a line between what makes humans worthy of consideration and non-human animals not worthy of consideration fails in establishing any kind of logical distinction. If we are to include all humans as having the right to avoid suffering, then that includes many developmentally disabled humans that are exceeded in their capacities by many non-humans.

Singer establishes these ethical foundations and then examines at length the use of animals in laboratory experiments and in factory farming. While he outlines some of the other areas in which our interests conflict with those of animals, these are the two he focuses on for the greater balance of the book. While at times I suspected that his extrapolations on figures and facts should be treated as speculations (he does present them as such), the underlying logic is well-defended. An account is given also of the progression of Western thought about animals and interaction with animals. While necessarily brief and not all-inclusive, it helps to paint the broad canvas of humanitys inhumanity to non-humans as well as the progress of animal advocacy and consciousness-raising.

Another significant aim of the book is to encourage a vegetarian diet. As a life-long meat eater, this was incredibly important for me to read. For, if these ethical implications are true (they are), then one must take a vegetarian and even a vegan diet seriously into consideration in order to be morally and ethically consistent. Singer does not create this as a black-and-white proposition; he explores the potential situations in which meat eating could be ethical, and the spectrum of consideration that corresponds to relative degrees of suffering. He also addresses dietary concerns, social impact, and the language and practice of speciesism; I found his treatment nuanced and thought-provoking. (Spoiler: the only potential nutrient a vegan needs to be concerned about lacking is vitamin B12, which can be had via supplements.)

Id already heard these arguments through various other sources, and as a result have made efforts to reduce my meat consumption over the past 11 months that I have been monitoring it. I admit it has not been easy for me nor a clean break, but Animal Liberation has renewed my commitment to strive for a diet that is consistent with my morals.

مشاهده لینک اصلی
Normally I won’t review nonfiction, since most of the time I don’t even give them a star rating. However, there a few exceptions. First of all I may end up reviewing some memoirs since I consider a good memoir to be a blend of fiction and nonfiction (think James Frey here, but also less sinister examples). So my major exception will be this book. I feel okay with reviewing this book because I do have a philosophy degree, and also because this book had a major impact on me at a fairly young age. When I was a young whippersnapper of 20 I read a brief essay by the controversial Australian philosopher Peter Singer, in the Sunday New York Times magazine (this was a around the time of his protested appointment as Bioethics Professor at Princeton) about poverty and the choices we make in the West. The piece was simple, it was straightforward, and it was brilliant. He argued that we need to do more to help those who are starving and dying (not a revolutionary concept, but certainly one that has yet to catch on), but he did so by drawing specific analogies of behavior which we would consider grossly unethical (not stepping into mud to save a drowning child for fear of ruining a pair of 200$ pants) with behavior that we consider perfectly acceptable (buying 200$ pants when that same money could dig a well, or a send a child to school for a year, if spent elsewhere). The only difference between the two being distance. The only reason one is unacceptable is because we are face to face with it. But how does mere distance alter the ethical demands, he asks? It shouldn’t, of course, is the answer. This piece moved me in a direct way, and it helped to shape my decision to pursue a philosophy degree (a decision which my bank account laments, but my brain appreciates). But perhaps even more changing was the brief bio at the end of the piece which read something to the effect of: “Peter Singer is the author of the seminal 1975 work Animal Liberation which posits that non-human animals should be treated on the same ethical plain as humans”. As a young man on the Canadian prairies this idea was a bit new to me, but it also felt right. I often thought that I would one day stop eating meat (I enjoyed the taste, but something did seem not quite right) and so I took this book out of the library. A week later I ate my last piece of meat (thanksgiving dinner) and that was seven years ago. [return]The book follows a similar plan to the brief piece I read in the New York Times (which was called simply “Rich and Poor” and was the same abridged version of “Famine, Affluence, and Morality@ [http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/... also appeared in his book Practical Ethics). It uses simple analogies based on ethical norms that we already accept and he broadens them to include new norms that are currently rejected. In Animal Liberation one of the key arguments is that our sense of the ethical world needs to be broadened to include non-human animals and that we need to redraw the bounds based on sentience (roughly the ability to feel pain) rather than on perceived intelligence or rationality. I am restraining myself from trying to mention some of his arguments here, as they are powerful and to the point, but I would only get bogged down in the finer points and be overly concerned that I was giving Mr. Singer a fair representation, also I run the risk of looking like a moron if I miss, or misinterpret, something. So read the book if you want to hear the points, and I encourage you to do so. He writes with a clarity and simplicity that makes it an easy (though not light) read. This is an accessible book written for the masses and requires no philosophical background to comprehend. All it takes is an open inquiring mind. So give it a chance if you care at all about living an ethical life. It may seem like it is impossible to do everything good, and that there are so many terrible and tempting things in the world that it you can’t avoid them all, but that does not mean you shouldn’t do anything. Reading this book is a good place to start.

مشاهده لینک اصلی
Even after so many years, most people remains either unaware or indifferent to the horrible way we are treating animals. Most people are unaware because it is difficult to see connections when you live in a city you never leave and just see a piece of red, inanimate matter wrapped in plastic that just tastes delicious.

Animal liberation must have been a shocking book, a revelation to many people about the unfair use and abuse animals suffer because of our insatiable search for pleasure, our ignorance about food, the power of the food sector and the fear of... of what? Just like abolitionists, Singer is a pioneer of the animal liberation movement and argues that there is fundamentally no difference among racists, sexists and specieists.

Almost three years ago, I decided to stop eating animals. I just did, with nobody telling me anything. Never, ever, had people (besides my mom when I was a child) been so worried about what I ate. Nobody had ever worried about my protein intake or pretty much anything else. Suddenly, they do now. Why is it that they feel my choices threatening? Is there some guilt in them just to see me reject animals in my plate?

I do not think you need justifications to break your connections to this infamous, inhumane and disgusting industry. However, Animal Liberation helps you to see many facts you have probably not seen and help you take that step.

مشاهده لینک اصلی
کتاب های مرتبط با - کتاب آزادی حیوانات


 کتاب جنس دوم
 کتاب مرد اول
 کتاب تأملات
 کتاب علیه تفسیر
 کتاب لبخند با یک مغز اضافه
 کتاب درآمد به متافیزیک