Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals

In Chapter 5, Singer analyzes the history of speciesism through the lens of religion. He focuses primarily on the West and the traditions of Judaism and Greek antiquity, followed by an in-depth analysis of Christianity and its attitude toward animals. Singer first discusses how attitudes toward animals manifest before the spread of Christianity and in Hebrew writings. Before the fall of man, Adam and Eve exist solely on a vegetarian diet. The “dominion” of men over animals is more akin to “stewardship” or guardianship rather than exploitation. In Greece, Aristotle believes animals to be merely a tool for humans. These thoughts evolve when Christianity spreads.

Singer believes that Christianity united Jewish and Greek ideologies around animals. During this time, the clear delineation between animals and men becomes fully formed in religious doctrine. Singer quotes passages from the Bible as well as from Saint Augustine to substantiate his claims. When asked if the sin of killing applies to slaughtering animals, St. Thomas Aquinas, an influential Catholic priest in the thirteenth century, writes, “There is no sin in using a thing for the purpose for which it is” (189). This attitude toward plants and animals is, at its core, utilitarian and exploitative. The Renaissance continues a similar strain of thought; scientists like René Descartes followed anthropocentric views. Rampant animal experiments are done at the time. A 1988 statement from the Roman Catholic Church is the first to indicate that the environmental movement affected religious teachings; the statement urges humans to respect nature and the organisms in it.  

Singer believes that the animal experimentation during the Renaissance period may have led to improving attitudes toward animals. Though animals are still used and experimented upon, many wonder if they can feel pain. While the “special status of human beings did not disappear,” the kind treatment of animals did gain traction. The first proposal of a law to prevent animal abuse comes in 1800 and seeks to prohibit the practice of bullbaiting (198). Though the law fails, a bill passes in 1801 to protect domestic animals from “wanton” mistreatment (199). Singer concludes the chapter by providing examples from different authors and philosophers who recognize the similarity between humans and animals but who continue to eat and use the creatures. Singer ends with the idea that little about “speciesist” attitudes has changed; the moral and ethical question about how to treat animals is a foregone conclusion but only when it does “not clash with human interests” (205).