Animal Liberation by Peter Singer.
I read it over 20 years ago. I've been a vegetarian/vegan ever since. There were probably other things I read or saw that contributed to the decision, but that was, I think, the primary catalyst.
I read it over 20 years ago. I've been a vegetarian/vegan ever since. There were probably other things I read or saw that contributed to the decision, but that was, I think, the primary catalyst.
I turned vegetarian in the mid-nineties because my first girlfriend was vegetarian. It coincided with media focusing on unnecessarily long animal transports in the EU, and I quickly realized I didn't want to take any part in factory farming. My wife turned vegetarian after meeting me, and we're both vegan since 2007. I joke that vegetarianism and veganism is transferred from partner to partner. Both our kids have been vegan their whole lives.
I came in contact with Singer's ideas in articles, and was both put off by the utilitarian ideas as I couldn't see them coexist with ideas of inviolable human and animal rights, and also that he used mentally disabled children as an example of the absurdity of using mental capacity as a measure of whether you can be used to make food and clothes. I agree, of course, that you shouldn't use human children or animals, it was just that the examples and arguments didn't speak to me at all.
Do you remember what it was by Singer that spoke to you?
I spent a lot of years being a natural rights libertarian, but when it comes down to it, I can't figure out where "rights" derive from. What's the first principle that says anyone has a "right" to anything? That's not to say I don't believe in civil rights as a just cause, or that human rights should be upheld, I just think they are a construct of sentient beings...not endowed by a creator or by nature. Utilitarianism has some reasonable answers on the question of rights, among other things.
I understand the discomfort people feel in comparing humans to animals, but I found it challenging in a good way. I've always had serious doubts about the arguments people make about humans being unique; I haven't believed in a soul since I was a child. So, Singer's arguments, even the uncomfortable ones, weren't such a huge leap.
I am biased though, I've met the man and we really didn't like one another, our values were far too opposed when we met. From my brief exposure, in life he seemed to be a mandarin who played the academic system expertly for his own benefit, with a public persona crafted to help with that. His private and public opinions could diverge to a staggering degree, but at least he did sometimes share some of his private opinions with youngsters, even if he wouldn't own them in any other context. A conscious hypocrite, I give him that.