Concern for all animals

Many people are concerned about animals, but they aren't always consistent in their attitudes. Animal Liberation, on the other hand, is concerned about all animals with feelings.

• Many people are appalled by the idea of eating dogs, but they eat cows and lambs without a second thought. What's the difference? Animal Liberationists don't eat any animals.

• Many people would be outraged if dogs and cats were kept permanently in small wire cages, but they buy eggs from battery hens at the supermarket. Animal Liberationists, if they eat eggs at all, only buy free range eggs.

• Many people are concerned about dolphins and sea turtles drowning in nets, but never think about the millions of tuna, sharks and other fish who suffer a miserable death. Animal Liberationists don't eat fish and so don't support the death of any creatures in fishing nets.

• Many people are concerned about native animals, especially if they are cute like koalas. At the same time, they may be completely unconcerned about the slow and painful death of rabbits or foxes through poisons or steel-jaw traps. Where animal populations need to be controlled, Animal Liberation supports fertility control methods, not cruel killing programs.

The ideas behind Animal Liberation

Our organisation is based on the ideas expressed by Peter Singer, professor of philosophy at Monash University, in his book Animal Liberation .

He argues that the ethical consideration we give to other humans should also be extended to non-humans. The reason animals deserve this consideration is because they have feelings. On the one hand, they are capable of enjoying their lives. On the other hand, they can feel pain, fear and stress. It is no more justifiable to ignore their suffering than it is to ignore the suffering of other humans.

Currently humans ruthlessly exploit other animals. They crowd hens into small cages to produce cheaper eggs, they infect animals with diseases in laboratories, and they shoot and wound ducks for "sport". They treat animals in ways which would be considered completely immoral if applied to other humans. How do they justify this treatment?

Mostly they don't even see a need to justify their actions. It is taken for granted that humans may exploit non-humans for their own purposes. They are, after all, "only animals". When people do try to justify their actions, they most often say that humans are superior because they are more intelligent, can reason, can talk, and so on.

However, there are humans who can't talk, or who are severely brain damaged. They may have less mental capacity than many animals. This doesn't mean that we can eat them or experiment on them. The fact is, we don't find out how intelligent someone is before we decide whether or not they deserve our consideration. Intelligence has nothing to do with how much consideration an individual deserves.

The real reason animals are exploited is not based on intelligence. As Peter Singer has said:
" Why do we lock up chimpanzees in appalling primate research centres and use them in experiments that range from the uncomfortable to the agonising and lethal, yet would never think of doing the same to a retarded human being at a much lower mental level? The only possible answer is that the chimpanzee, no matter how bright, is not human, while the retarded human, no matter how dull, is ."

Basically people exploit animals because they are not of our species, they are not human. This is a prejudice like racism or sexism, where members of one group think they are more important and deserve greater consideration than members of another group. Prejudices like this are very useful for the dominant group. They can, for example, be used to "justify" slavery. However, they aren't based on logic or justice. Neither is prejudice against other species.

To sum up:

• Other animals can feel pain and negative emotions like fear and frustration. To be fair and consistent we must be as concerned about this suffering as we are about similar suffering in humans. As Peter Singer has said: " Pain and suffering are in themselves bad and should be prevented or minimised, irrespective of the race, sex or species of the being that suffers ".

• Other animals are capable of enjoying their lives, and it is wrong to needlessly deprive them of this enjoyment by killing them.

We can live a happy and healthy life without causing harm to animals. For information on cruelty-free living, go to Vegetarianism - the cruelty-free diet and Cruelty-free products .

Further reading

P Singer, Animal Liberation (2nd ed), New York Review, New York 1990
P Singer, "Ethics and the new animal liberation movement", in P Singer (ed), In Defence of Animals , Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1985
T Regan, "The case for animal rights", in P Singer (ed), In Defence of Animals , Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1985