Customer Reviews

Against Liberation: Putting Animals in Perspective

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(13)

 

 

The arguments in this books are so illogical and unscholarly as to be laughable.

This book is best considered as a (unintentionally) satirical look at the position of those that put people first and practice speciesism by using animals for food, experimentation, etc. Michael Leahy is probably the kind of person that 150 years ago would have written a book defending the institution of slavery and opposing suffrage for women -- both pretty morally indefensible positions.

Mr. Leahy is totally uneducated as to the philosophy behind those who work for the advocacy of animals. I'd recommend those interested in this subject to begin with Peter Singer's 'Animal Liberation'. Mr. Leahy's book solidifies my opinion that the animal research community is based on greed, greed, greed.

I rate this book as two stars rather than one because the author has at least made an effort at producing a philosophical justification for his pro-exploitative position, however incoherently this is argued.

The author considers that it is the presence of language that give humans sufficient self awareness to have moral rights, and that all animals lack this awareness. The authors arguments are however incoherent, rambling and very hard to understand even for a reader such as myself with some understanding of philosophy.

The author displays woeful ignorance not only of recent studies into the philosophy of mind, but in modern linguistics - surprising for somebody whose arguments stand or fall on linguistic premises. The presence of language-less human adults (as recounted by Steven Pinker in "the language instinct")counters Leahey's arguments. Such humans presumably can be expoited at will according to Leahey's logic. Yet once these people had been taught language, all had a great deal to say about their experiences as languageless humans, and all showed that they had a high level of self awareness.

His arguments are not only rambling and incoherent, but often contradict themselves. When arguing for the continuation of fox hunting for example, the author uses the argument both that foxes are vermin that should be wiped out, and that hunting helps in the conservation of foxes! He is obviously confused.

If you want a book that will provide a well reasoned argument to continue with exploitative practices regarding animals, then I suggest you look elsewhere. In my opinion the philosophical case for animal liberation has been won. The best arguments against liberation come from Michael Fox and Roger Frey. And it should be noted that even these arguments failed to convince their authors as they later came over to the animal liberation side.

Incoherent ramblings. I didn't learn anything other than those whose lives depend on animal slavery will do anything to protect their vested interests.

Oh, ok, now I get it! It's ok to torture and murder animals because we're the masters of universe, and we are so important that we shouldn't even try to change things! Seriously...

This drab piece of literature is no more than a collection of contorted opinions that shows the true ignorance of our society regarding animal rights & welfare.

I can only find one point for this book and that is so the ignorant people have someone to relate to. No where in the author's incoherent ramblings did I find anything that even resembled a reasonable excuse for the mindless animal torturing to continue. This book, in my opinion is poorly reasearched and little is explained. I think it was a waste of time and money.

The worst book ever! Don't waste your time or money reading this poorly researched and poorly written piece of (you know). Main points that to the non-reader should be obviously discussed in detail are not even written about at all. Doesn't explain why we should continue to murder and torture animals, doesn't explain how the human race will still be here in 50-100 years because of the enviornmental effects of eating meat, etc. Bottom line THERE WAS NO ONE TO ARGUE HER POINTS! IF THERE WERE, SHE WOULD HAVE NOTHING ELSE TO SAY.

"Reviewer: A reader from Boston
I just want to register my support for this book. I think that animals should be freely killed, eaten, and processed into useful products for humans. We need many more books like this one in our day."

That was a review from another reader. They gave it 5 stars by the way. I hope he finds these useful products to be what they are- unneeded. Meat is full of cholesterol, saturated fat, meat eaters are altogether unhealthier than non-meateaters. It is disgusting, their arrogance towards other living creatures. You have no right to use, exploit, torture or kill another animal for your own benefit.

The purpose of this book is to use semantic tricks in order to attempt to justify needless institutionalized violence against non-human animals.