LETTER:Philosophising about the rights of animals
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.From Mr Dave Godin
Sir: As a lifelong opponent of all animal abuse, I have always maintained that when the day comes and we are close to making a significant impact on the general consciousness and behaviour patterns, then the movement will be infiltrated by those who seek to destroy it from within. To read Peter Singer's latest philosophical position (Thinkers of the Nineties, 13 November) inclines me to think that this just might be his role, since his arguments of Preference Utilitarianism are, in effect, precisely those used to justify vivisection and other atrocities against non-human life forms.
I too regret that there is no secular equivalent to the word "sacred", but the moral basis for respecting all life forms is comparatively simple, and has no need of tortuous reasoning to sustain it. Once life is extinguished, it is beyond our power to restore it. Thus, though we have indeed got the ability to destroy it, it can never rationally be argued that we have any such right.
In his book Animal Liberation, Singer argued that, under certain circumstances, the use of torture could be justified. Given this, I cannot see see how he differs in his arguments from those who support vivisection; or, come to that, from those who would seek to justify the many heartbreaking case histories that Amnesty International publishes. Singer's macho, tough- love stance may well be his form of psychic self-defence, but it cuts no ice with this sentimental softy.
Yours sincerely,
Dave Godin
Sheffield
13 November
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments