UNIVERSIDAD PERUANA UNIN

FACULTAD DE TEOLOGA

ANIMAL LIBERATION

SUMMARY

PRESENTED PURSUANT TO

THE REQUIREMENTES OF THE SUBJET OF

CHRISTIAN ETHICS

GROUP 1

BY

NHILO JAIMES LOZANO

AA, LIMA

JUNE 2017
 SUMMARY

Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation. Read Pages: 1-5

In Animal Liberation Peter Singer attempts to establish the validity of this

movement by arguing that it is not the IQ, nor the ratiocination that determines the right

to equality, but the capacity to suffer. In that sense, Singer shows that the suffering of

each being -human or nonhuman- should be considered on the same basis.

Accordingly, Singer refutes the two main arguments holding that animals do not

suffer. Firstly, the inability to speak does not exclude the sensibility to suffer. Singer

(based on Jane Goodall's article in Animals, Men and Morals) shows that chimpanzees

express basic emotions such as pain, fear, and sexual arousal in ways similar to humans,

which is why there is no reason to believe that a being without language can not suffer.

Secondly, the fact that pain can not be verbally expressed does not mean that pain is not

present. Singer states that the biological behavioral signals of animals are similar to ours

and, as a result, they also suffer. Otherwise, infants or some elders unable to use language

would be considered insensitive to suffering.

The two suppositions refuted above are characteristic of the attitude that Singer

calls "speciesism" (citing Richard Ryder). The logic of this attitude is demonstrated by

the experiments on nonhuman beings to benefit humans. The millions of experiments

carried out on animals are not only used in medicine, but are part of forensic and

psychological studies, among others. Thus, Singer asserts that vivisection practitioners

are wrong to ask, is it better to let thousands of people die if they can be saved by the
experiment done on an animal? The answer would be another question: could you

experiment with an orphan child of less than six months if this was the only way to save

many lives? In this regard, Singer concludes that human children share - at the same or

even lower level - the same characteristics as adult mammals. In this way, speciesism

manifests an inclination towards the human species in prejudice of animals.

At the heart of this attitude towards animals, Singer argues, is the use of them for

food, as evidenced by industrial farming. Singer mentions the failed control campaign by

Britain to contrast its proposals with the reality of industrial farming. Thus, while the

ideals of such a campaign promoted the farming in freedom, the comfortable

environments and the good feeding, the procedures of the industrial farming radically

violate these ideals.

Finally, since the issue of industrial farming concerns every person, Singer refutes

the arguments of two groups: the defenders of industrial farming and habitual readers.

The first group states that, since the animals know nothing else, they do not suffer.

However, not all behavior has to be learned, as observed in the activities that the chicks

perform without having lived in the conditions necessary for doing so. In addition, it is

said that industrial farming is necessary to provide sufficient protein to the population,

without considering that it is possible to produce much more protein by growing

vegetables.

The second group states that there is nothing wrong with raising animals for food

provided that they are killed humanely. Against this position, Singer asserts (citing

Roslind Godlovitch) that the mixture between the idea of "animal suffering should be

avoided" with the idea of "there is nothing wrong with killing animals", would result in
the annihilation of all animals. Avoiding suffering does not automatically justify murder,

as in the case of the euthanasia alluded by Singer. In addition, Singer asserts that raising

animals to kill them humanely is the same as considering them to be means rather than

ends in themselves. For this reason, attempts for make animals live and die without

suffering would be an impossibility on the scale of modern industrial production.

In summary, Singer presents the topic of the animal liberation movement as a

conflict of interests, in which human beings are called to demonstrate an altruistic

behavior towards those who can not claim for their rights. This would require a profound

change in their comportment and lifestyle. In this way, the challenge is in force and the

question is pressing: Is the man capable of such altruism? Who knows?

 RESUMEN

Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation. Read Pages: 1-5

En Animal Liberation Peter Singer intenta establecer la validez de este

movimiento argumentando que no es el coeficiente intelectual, ni la facultad de

raciocinio los factores que determinan el derecho a la igualdad, sino la capacidad de

sufrir. En ese sentido, Singer muestra que el sufrimiento de cada ser humano o no

humano debera ser considerado sobre la misma base.

Bajo esta perspectiva, Singer refuta los dos principales argumentos que sostienen

que los animales no sufren. En primer lugar, la incapacidad de hablar no excluye la

capacidad de sufrir. Singer (apoyndose en el artculo de Jane Goodall en Animals, Men

and Morals) muestra que los chimpancs expresan emociones bsicas como dolor, temor

y excitacin sexual en formas similares a las de los seres humanos, razn por la cual no

habra razn para creer que un ser sin lenguaje no puede sufrir. En segundo lugar, el

hecho de que no se pueda expresar verbalmente el dolor no quiere decir que este no est

presente. Singer afirma que las seales conductuales biolgicas de los animales son

similares a las nuestras y, en consecuencia, ellos tambin sufren. De lo contrario, los

infantes o algunos ancianos incapaces de usar el lenguaje seran considerados insensibles

al sufrimiento.

Las dos suposiciones refutadas ms arriba, son caractersticas de la actitud que

Singer denomina especiecismo (citando a Richard Ryder). La lgica de esta actitud se

demuestra por medio de los experimentos realizados sobre seres no humanos para
beneficiar a los humanos. Los millones de experimentos realizados sobre animales no

sirven nicamente a la medicina, sino que forman parte de estudios forenses y

psicolgicos, entre otros. Siendo as, Singer afirma que los practicantes de la viviseccin

se equivocan al preguntar es mejor que dejar morir a miles de personas si ellas pueden

ser salvadas por el experimento hecho sobre un animal? La respuesta sera otra

interrogante podra experimentarse sobre un nio hurfano de menos de seis meses si

esta fuera la nica manera de salvar muchas vidas? Ante esta cuestin, Singer concluye

que los nios humanos comparten en igual o incluso menor nivel las mismas

caractersticas que los mamferos adultos. De este modo, el especiecismo manifiesta una

inclinacin hacia la especia humana en detrimento de los animales.

En el corazn de esta actitud hacia los animales, aduce Singer, est la utilizacin

de ellos para comida, tal como se evidencia en la cra industrial. Singer menciona la

fallida campaa de control realizada por Gran Bretaa para contrastar sus propuestas con

la realidad de la cra industrial. As, mientras que los ideales de tal campaa promovan la

crianza en libertad, los ambientes cmodos y la buena alimentacin, los procedimientos

de la cra industrial violan radicalmente estos ideales.

Por ltimo, puesto que el asunto de la cra industrial concierne a toda persona,

Singer refuta los argumentos de dos grupos: los defensores de la cra industrial y los

lectores habituales. El primer grupo afirma que, siendo que los animales no saben nada

ms, ellos no sufren. No obstante, no toda conducta tiene que ser aprendida, tal como se

observa en las actividades que los polluelos realizan sin haber vivido en las condiciones

necesarias para ello. Adems, se dice que la cra industrial es necesaria para proveer
suficiente protena a la poblacin, sin considerar que es posible producir mucha ms

protena cultivando vegetales.

El segundo grupo afirma que no hay nada malo en criar animales para comida

siempre que se los mate humanitariamente. Contra esta posicin, Singer asevera (citando

a Roslind Godlovitch) que la mezcla entre la idea de el sufrimiento animal debe ser

evitado con la idea de no hay nada malo en matar animales, tendra como

consecuencia la aniquilacin de todos los animales. El evitar el sufrimiento no justifica

automticamente el asesinato, tal como en el caso de la eutanasia presentado por Singer.

En adicin, Singer afirma que criar animales para matarlos humanitariamente es lo

mismo que considerar que ellos son medios en lugar de fines en s mismos. Por esta

razn, los intentos por hacer que los animales vivan y mueran sin sufrir sera una

imposibilidad en la escala de produccin industrial moderna.

En sntesis, Singer presenta el tpico del movimiento de liberacin animal como

un conflicto de intereses, en el cual los seres humanos son llamados a demostrar una

conducta altruista hacia aquellos que no pueden reclamar por sus derechos. Esto

requerira un profundo cambio en la conducta y el estilo de vida. De este modo, el desafo

est vigente y la interrogante es acuciante ser el hombre capaz de tal altruismo? Quin

sabe?