Peter Singer Quotes
All the arguments to prove man's superiority cannot shatter this hard fact: in suffering, the animals are our equals.
If possessing a higher degree of intelligence does not entitle one human to use another for his or her own ends, how can it entitle humans to exploit non-humans?
We are, quite literally, gambling with the future of our planet- for the sake of hamburgers
Hebrew word for "charity" tzedakah, simply means "justice" and as this suggests, for Jews, giving to the poor is no optional extra but an essential part of living a just life.
Becoming a vegan is a sure way of completely avoiding participation in the abuse of farmed animals. Vegans are a living demonstration of the fact that we do not need to exploit animals for food.
If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it.
Dolphins are social mammals, capable of enjoying their lives. They form close bonds with other members of their group.
Killing a defective infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Sometimes it is not wrong at all.
Those who purchase meat, fur, and leather have no right to be shielded from the sights and sounds of the slaughterhouses from which these products were produced.
Animal factories are one more sign of the extent to which our technological capacities have advanced faster than our ethics.
Of course, infanticide needs to be strictly legally controlled and rare - but it should not be ruled out, any more than abortion.
Surely there will be some nonhuman animals whose lives, by any standards, are more valuable than the lives of some humans.
We should give the same respect to the lives of animals as we do to the lives of humans.
History is not going to look kindly on us if we just keep our head in the sand on armed autonomous robotics issue because it sounds too science fiction.
We see things like reciprocity which are fairly central to our view of ethics. But if you're talking about a set of worked-out rules on what we are supposed to do then, yes, it is a human product.
Christianity is our foe. If animal rights is to succeed, we must destroy the Judeo-Christian religious tradition.
The traditional view of the sanctity of human life will collapse under pressure from scientific, technological and demographic developments.
Effective altruism is the form of altruism in which we bring our rational capacities to bear in order to do the most good that we can.
There is a growing movement called effective altruism. It's important because it combines both the heart and the head.
Personal purity isn’t really the issue. Not supporting animal abuse – and persuading others not to support it – is.
I do not believe that it could never be justifiable to experiment on a brain-damaged human.
Extreme poverty is not only a condition of unsatisfied material needs. It is often accompanied by a degrading state of powerlessness.
The Internet, like the steam engine, is a technological breakthrough that changed the world.
An animal experiment cannot be justifiable unless the experiment is so important that the use of a brain-damaged human would be justifiable.
We should aim for our children to be good people, and to live ethical lives that manifest concern for others as well as for themselves.
We are not especially 'interested in' animals. Neither of us had ever been inordinately fond of dogs, cats, or horses in the way that many people are. We didn't 'love' animals.
My work is based on the assumption that clarity and consistency in our moral thinking is likely, in the long run, to lead us to hold better views on ethical issues.
Interest in business ethics courses has surged, and student activities at leading business schools are more focused than ever before on making business serve long-term social values.
At present scientists do not look for alternatives simply because they do not care enough about the animals they are using.
As we realize that more and more things have global impact, I think we're going to get people increasingly wanting to get away from a purely national interest.
The idea that we can actually have an impact on places more or less instantly, too, by responding in some way or not responding, I think, also makes it true.
What you could say, and what I do argue in the book, is that he doesn't have as much concern for the lives of Iraqis as he does for the lives of Americans, or even frozen American embryos.
If penicillin had been judged by its toxicity to guinea pigs, it might never have been used by man.
The prescription of the equality of human beings is not a description of an alleged actual equality among humans: it is a prescription of how we should treat human beings.
The capacity to reason is a special sort of capacity because it can lead us to places that we did not expect to go.
If you go back in time you'll find tribes that were essentially only concerned with their own tribal members. If you were a member of another tribe, you could be killed with impunity.
I think ethics is always there; it's not always a very thoughtful or reflective ethics.
I don't think there's anything in the compromise that means that there's a clash of ethics.
I don't understand the notion that modern farming is anything do to with nature. It's a pretty gross interference with nature.
Since ancient times, philosophers have maintained that to strive too hard for one's own happiness is self-defeating.
I'm a Utilitarian, so I don't see the rule against lying as absolute; it's always subject to some overriding utility which may prevent its exercise.
Somebody who eats twice as much factory-farmed products as he or she needs to is clearly doing twice as much damage to the planet. From a utilitarian point of view, that's twice as bad.
I don't think nationalism is alone holding the field; it's in contention with a lot of different things.
If we can put a man on the moon and sequence the human genome, we should be able to devise something close to a universal digital public library.