I'm quite surprised by the amount of hostility to Singer's suggestion that we expand our circle of ethical consideration for others to include non-human beings. I find the suggestion altogether reasonable and measured and the fact that Singer admits that he is unsure about the implications of the suggestion for non-vertebrates is acknowledgment that none of us has all the answers to the difficult, deeply personal and communal problem of the relation between humanity and its food. That a call to ethical eating which is respectful of all forms of life would generate absurd statements such as "they [cattle] ain't us" is evidence of how frighteningly disconnected from the natural world we moderns have become. Of course a cow is not a human, but that in no way negates our ethical obligation to respect the Life that resides in that cow, as the Life that is in the cow is psychically connected to the Life that is in me. Death is in Life and so it is possible to honor the Life in the cow even as the cow is killed for its meat. But industrial animal farming and factory slaughterhouses do not honor Life. Why are so many people so threatened by the mere suggestion that the Life that permeates all living things obligates us to act ethically, kindly, tenderly in our interactions with each other and with the natural world which is our home and family?

It's apparent that this article went right over the heads of most of the people who have posted here so far.

First of all, Singer goes to great pains to say that chickens are not equal to Jews, boy is not equal to rat, etc. etc., so people, get over it. Much ranting has been done here on this issue and it's ridiculous when Signer's own words on this topic are simply ignored by the ranters so they can defend their own opinions.

Second of all, the moral basis of all his arguments, as stated at the top of the article is this:

ALL ACTIONS ARE JUDGED BY THE OBJECTIVE MEASURE OF SUFFERING THEY CAUSE.

Any counter-arguments that ignore this basis, however logical, however solidly based in "reality", are in fact justifications for causing suffering. You just won't get very far in a discussion of ethics if you defend the causing of suffering.

Singer is a PHILOSOPHER; he paint a picture of the ideal, the thing we should shoot for, even if practical considerations prevent us from achieving the ideal.

To say that the ideal of "causing the least amount of suffering as possible", is ridiculous baloney, as many here have apparently done, is, in my opinion, to degrade yourself as an ethical and moral being.

It's no secret utilitarianism often works better as a thought experiment than in practical application. While it may not be possible to "alleviate the suffering of others up to that point where the suffering of our sacrifice is equal to the suffering of those we are trying to help", I'd still say that donating 20% of one's salary is a good start. How much of your salary goes to charity, Xanthro?

Utilitarianism only founders on its assumptions so long as you fail to retain a matter of perspective. Why should we do good to others? What choice would you make, to do good or do evil, if you weren't sure which side of the equation you'd be on?

Big Mac, Peter Singer studied philosophy at Oxford. Did you attend clown college?

If you read the entire article, you finally understand what Singer's talking about. I think Singer's statement that a farmer has a responsibility to humanely kill spent hens is fundamental to his argument. We can't (or most of us wouldn't chose to) live in an ideal world, so we have to make our real world less morally objectionable. Oh, and watch the video of the kosher slaughterhouse on PETA's web site. I'd sooner eat a ham sandwich (with cheese, of course) from a humane slaughterhouse than give any business to that slaughterhouse.

"they ain't us" person: you missed the point. Singer in this very interview affirms a fundimental difference between human and non-human in this very interview (did you read it?). His point is that the "they ain't us" argument is the very same argument used throughout history to perpetrate suffering on all sorts of groups of humans. His observation is that to him it seems that the tendancy seems to widen this circle of inclusion. The goal is simply less suffering among species able to experience something akin to what we know as suffering. He also points out that the idealistic farm situation you describe is increasingly rare, and his points here are geared towards so-called 'factory farm' installations which are the single biggest threat to the 'family farm' you so fondly recall.

"Why should we do good to others?" person: the goal is simple, and stated simply in the interview (you did read it, didn't you?). The idea seems to be to reduce the amount of suffering within the realm of creatures which can experience suffering in ways which we can define. Whether Singer is a hypocrit or not, I do not know (I'd never heard of him before today). But his answering or not answering your question quoted above, does not have any bearing on whether he is a hypocrit or not. If you can not see the universal benefit to reducing suffering in general, to your own species, or to there species (which in the end may turn out to be your own), then you've either got bigger problems than the ones Singer is discussing, or you simply are a superior person to the silly people wanting to reduce suffering in the world (unfortunately this doesn't seem, to me at least, to be evidenced by your letter). You end up with more questions: "What are rights? From where do they derive?" If you read the article you will see very early on that Singer expresses that he has doubts as to the concept of (or foundation of) "Rights" himself. So it is rather ironic that you'd ask of him this question, if you'd read the interview.

"without gettin its birth rate under control" person. You seem to know a lot about how the world works. Mr Singer however is said to have meticulous research to back him up, some slight glimpses of which he offered in the interview. You have offered not a hint of figures to back up your claim regarding this birth rate problem being a central problem in keeping countries in a "third world" state. (Frankly your assertion seems utterly ludicrous to me, but i'd be willing to keep an open mind and entertain some evidence.) Your statement about Mr Singer "buying off his person guilt seems also to me more than a slight bit presumptious, which doesn't help me to think that your other statements aren't equally as presuptuous. Regarding chickens being disgusting. I find that a lot of humans are pretty disgusting as well. Hitler found jews disgusting. This is part of Singer's point, if you had read the article: that these very same statements people make justifying the suffering of animals are the same that have been historically made over and over (and are still made) to justify the suffering of various groups of what most of us now consider fellow humans with "certain inaliable rights" (so to speak), so he just urges us to think about where we draw the line in justifying the suffering of creatures known to have the capability of experiencing suffering, no matter how stupid, disgustig, or "inhuman" they seem to us.

"How does one become a professional ethecist" person: welcome to Salon, a once-upon-a-time hang out of thoughtful people, who liked reading challenging articles. I am not a professional answerer of the question of how one becomes a professional anything, but after stopping to think for about one second I came up with the idea that perhaps it is roughly the same way anyone goes about becoming a professional anything? The term "professional" denotes a certian level of expertise, as well as often indicating the status as being one of something one makes one's living from. Thus a professional journalist is one who often (but not always) has studied journalism, and who usually (though not always---hopefully these exceptions are not too confusing for you) makes one's living through practicing journalism. Admittedly the definitions can become cloudy at times. Professional hockey players often are well studied in stick handling and skating, and make their living at playing the game. However, so do many so-called "amateur" class hockey players. This is a much more perplexing question, and i suggest you pursue it's seeming pardox rather than the actually rather straight forward "professional ethecist" question. You're welcome.

"anyone becoming a vegan" person: I am married to a vegetarian, though I do not claim to be one myself. I have to agree with Singer that vegan is an ideal, in most situations. It's an ideal that even my wife has not been able to maintain though. What hope have I? I continue to think about it, however. In the meantime, my "utilitarianism" goes in a bit of a different direction than Singers. Apparently I put a much higher priority on certain things than I do mass animal suffering. I feel that it is better for me to focus on other things as a higher priority at this time. Some believe the things I set as a higher priority will fall into place if one pursues the alleviation of general suffering as a highest priority. I respect that, but can not adhere to it, at the moment.

To anyone interested in a more thoughtful investigation of the issues, I'd highly recommend the book "Meat Market: Animals, Ethics, & Money" by Marcus Erik.

I'm afraid by simply making that recommendation that many here will now have declaired me a "nutjob". Oh wait, they already have from reading the rest of this letter.