“[One thing] underpins, makes consistent, and gives meaning to all our other activities on behalf of animals. This one thing is that we take responsibility for our own lives, and make them as free of cruelty as we can. The first step is that we cease to eat animals. Many people who are opposed to cruelty to animals draw the line at becoming a vegetarian. It was of such people that Oliver Goldsmith, the eighteenth-century humanitarian essayist, wrote: "They pity, and they eat the objects of their compassion."”

Source: Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for our Treatment of Animals (1975), Ch. 4: Becoming a Vegetarian

Adopted from Wikiquote. Last update June 3, 2021. History

Help us to complete the source, original and additional information

Do you have more details about the quote "[One thing] underpins, makes consistent, and gives meaning to all our other activities on behalf of animals. This one t…" by Peter Singer?
Peter Singer photo
Peter Singer 54
Australian philosopher 1946

Related quotes

Morarji Desai photo

“As long as man eats animals how can cruelty to animals be removed.”

Morarji Desai (1896–1995) Former Indian Finance Minister, Freedom Fighters, Former prime minister

19th World Vegetarian Congress 1967

Ingrid Newkirk photo
Ingrid Newkirk photo
Peter Singer photo
Thomas Aquinas photo
Sharon Gannon photo
Rose Scott photo

“We will one day think it as horrible to eat animals as we now think it horrible to eat each other.”

Rose Scott (1847–1925) Australian suffragist

Miscellaneous Notes, Scott Papers; as quoted in A New Australia: Citizenship, Radicalism and the First Republic by Bruce Scates (Cambridge University Press, 1997), p. 247 https://books.google.it/books?id=zkgeEmlRjEgC&pg=PA247.

Mark Rowlands photo

“Even if vegetarian dishes are less palatable than meat-based dishes, and it is not clear that they are, we have to weigh up humans' loss of certain pleasures of the palate against what the animals we eat have to give up because of our predilection for meat. Most obviously, of course, they have to give up their lives, and all the opportunities for the pursuing of interests and satisfaction of preferences that go with this. For most of the animals we eat, in fact, death may not be the greatest of evils. They are forced to live their short lives in appalling and barbaric conditions, and undergo atrocious treatment. Death for many of these animals is a welcome release. When you compare what human beings would have to 'suffer' should vegetarianism become a widespread practice with what the animals we eat have to suffer given that it is not, then if one were to make a rational and self-interested choice in the original position, it is clear what this choice would be. If one did not know whether one was going to be a human or an animal preyed on by humans, the rational choice would surely be to opt for a world where vegetarianism was a widespread human practice and where, therefore, there was no animal husbandry industry. What one stands to lose as a human is surely inconsequential compared to what one stands to lose as a cow, or pig, or lamb.”

Mark Rowlands (1962) British philosopher

Animal Rights: Moral Theory and Practice https://books.google.it/books?id=bFYYDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA0 (Palgrave Macmillan, 2nd ed. 2009), pp. 164-165.

Sharon Gannon photo

Related topics