Varför frigörelse för djuren? : En jämförande analys mellan Lewis Gompertz och Peter Singers djuretiska tänkande

Sammanfattning: This study examines differences and similarities in how two animal ethicists living in different times have argued for a liberation of the animals, the basis for the study is Lewis Gompertz Moral Inquiries: On the Situation of Man and of Brutes (1824) and Peter Singers Animal Liberation (1975). The analysis has been conducted with a historical perspective where close reading and contextualization have been used to further understand both the sources and the authors. The investigation is limited to four themes: animal's ability to experience, to kill animals, using animals and products of animals, and finally the idea of equality. The study concludes that there are significant similarities between the arguments Gompertz and Singer use, and that their ideas are rooted in a view of equality where the ability to suffer and have needs should be fundamental for our moral caring towards other creatures. A significant difference between the authors is their relationship to reason, where Gompertz highlights the animals' ability to reason as a cause to treat them well while Singer dismisses the idea that such abilities are of any interest for our moral considerations. The study also points out that the differences in the authors' conclusions and arguments can be understood on the basis of the scientific and intellectual context they operate in, where Gompertz can be described as an enlightenment philosopher with a strong belief in the developable reason within creatures, while the modern-day philosopher Singer rather sees reason as excluding, not only of animals but also of human beings. For animals to be liberated from man's oppression, both writers argue that it is necessary for man to eat a vegetarian diet.