side of the movement, presented by philosopher Peter Singer
—with a utilitarian
focus on suffering and consequences, rather than on the concept of rights—to the abolitionist
side, represented by law professor Gary Francione, who argues that animals need only one right: the right not to be property.
The question is not can they reason, nor can they talk, but can they suffer?
It is my view that the vegetarian manner of living by its purely physical effect on the human temperament would most beneficially influence the lot of mankind.
You have just dined, and however scrupulously the slaughter-house is concealed in the graceful distance of miles, there is complicity, expensive races, — race living at the expense of race.
The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.
We have enslaved the rest of the animal creation, and have treated our distant cousins in fur and feathers so badly that beyond doubt, if they were able to formulate a religion, they would depict the Devil in human form.
As often as Herman had witnessed the slaughter of animals and fish, he always had the same thought: in their behaviour toward creatures, all men were Nazis. The smugness with which man could do with other species as he pleased exemplified the most extreme racist theories, the principle that might is right.
A man can live and be healthy without killing animals for food; therefore, if he eats meat, he participates in taking animal life merely for the sake of his appetite. And to act so is immoral.