REPLY TO SINGER

"[Peter] Singer. . . has written major articles, including one
for the Encyclopedia Britannica, [Footnote: "The esteemed
Encyclopedia Britannica is not above criticism in its choice of
authors..."] and books on ethics and that he has edited numerous
books on ethics and philosophy. His works may be widely used, as
he claims, in philosophy and/or ethics courses in various
countries. Nevertheless, these facts do not exempt him from
criticism of what we consider to be unethical behavior.

With regard to Singer's philosophical position, many philosophers
are not impressed either with Singer's works or by his
arguments. In addition to Peter Carruthers' critical
analysis,. . . Richard Sorabji. . . states that the arguments of
both Singer and Tom Regan for the equality of animals with humans
are one-dimensional and as such are not persuasive. . .

. . . Other philosophers have also been highly critical of the
philosophy of animal rights. For example, Robert Nozick, chairman
of the Department of Philosophy at Harvard University, had this
to say in a review of Tom Regan's book on the subject:

"Animal rights seems a topic for cranks. . . The mark of cranks
is disproportionateness. lt is not merely that they devote great
energy to their issue . . . They view the issue as far more
important than it is, more pressing than others that, in fact,
are more significant."

Further, on the subject of 'speciesism,' Nozick stated:

"Our view of what treatment severely retarded people are owed
surely in part depends on their being human, members of the human
species. Sweeping away this consideration as morally irrelevant
can only result in society's treating severely retarded people
like animals, not the other way around."

And Charles Griswold, Jr., professor of philosophy at Howard
University, wrote in the Washington Post:

"The animal rights movement illustrates the incoherent nature of
a moral passion become immoral by virtue of its extremism. In the
name of the laudable quality of humaneness, the use of animals
for food, clothing and medical experimentation is
prohibited. Research that could save your child's life, or save
you from an excrucitating disease, is declared unethical. The
result is inhumanity toward man."

[pp.149-150]

Sharon M. Russell and Charles S. Nicholl. "Reply to Singer's "Blind
Hostility"." Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and
Medicine. February 1996, Vol.211 No.2. pp.147-154