Review by Choice Review
Speciesism has been a rhetorical cornerstone of arguments for animal liberation. By equating prejudice based on species membership with racism and sexism, many have used the term to undermine support for exploiting other animals. However, Zamir (Hebrew Univ. of Jerusalem) argues that speciesism also places an unnecessary burden on animal liberationists by making them defend questionable claims for the rights or moral status of animals. According to Zamir, one can make a strong case for animal liberation without necessarily rejecting deep-seated speciesist intuitions. So, although one might hold the position that human interests outweigh equivalent interests of other species, trivial human interests should never trump life-and-death interests of other animals. Zamir criticizes much of the medical research done using animals, but he shifts the argument away from extreme "lifeboat cases" to issues where preserving human life at the cost of animals is not in question. By "decluttering" the case for reform, Zamir tries to provide arguments for a broader consensus for moral vegetarianism and the elimination of exploitive practices such as hunting, zoos, and farming practices that cause the death of animals. The book is clearly written and refreshingly free of programmatic claims. Summing Up: Recommended. Upper-level undergraduates and above. J. B. Hagen Radford University
Copyright American Library Association, used with permission.
Review by Choice Review
