Product Description
Hegel is regarded as one of the most influential figures on modern political and intellectual development. After painting Hegel's life and times in broad strokes, Peter Singer goes on to tackle some of the more challenging aspects of Hegel's philosophy. Offering a broad discussion of Hegel's ideas and an account of his major works, Singer explains what have often been considered abstruse and obscure ideas in a clear and inviting manner. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (14)

Meaninglessness is the thing that gives Hegel meaning?
Peter Singer is a world class philosopher and moral theorists, albeit one whose main works I find unconvincing.Nor do I regularly read Oxford's "Very Short Introduction" series.But I really enjoyed Singer's short book on Karl Marx (Marx (A Brief Insight)), which is the best overview I know of the thoughts of Das Kapital's author.I may disagree with Singer's philosophy, but he is a clear thinker and talented writer.

Unfortunately, Singer's book on Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831) while still well written, is less lucid than his book on Marx.This is mostly due to the difference between the philosophies of Hegel and his those of his later day disciple:Marx's ideas were frequently wrong, often bizarre, and sometimes naïve, but they were, mostly at least, intelligible.Despite Singer's great efforts, most of Hegel's writing remains utterly mysterious, a blur of surreal concepts about the destinies of such ill defined entities as Geist, and concepts (such as 'Freedom') taken far from their regular usage.

Freedom, for example, does not mean the ability to do as you please.Since what you please is conditioned on your genetic makeup and upbringing, it is not 'you' who chooses.Your choice is only free if you cleanse yourself of all these influences and follow only the dictates of pure reason.But this bizarre concept of Freedom is not all that Hegel meant by Freedom.Freedom is also an element of the human condition that is developed throughout history;It is the condition of a society organized along rational principle.Such utopian society is the (or one of the) goals of history (why would anyone think that history has goals is never satisfactory explained), and so Hegel's "Philosophy of History" is a phantasmagorical historical account of various civilizations which purports to show how freedom evolved through the ages until it reaches its pinnacle in the Prussian state.Or, to be entirely fair to Hegel, in a somewhat more liberal version of the Prussian state.

As far as I can tell, Hegel gave no arguments for believing in any of his wild theories.He could sometimes make vaguely plausible critiques of the wild theories of his predecessors, but never marshal any positive evidence for any of his own.His theories are not only wild, they are also Delphic in their meaning;Singer repeatedly admits that he can't make sense of Hegel's work.

And yet, despite his opacity and evidence free fantasizing, or maybe because of them, one canalmost find parts and passages of Hegel that are enlightening or interesting.I strongly suspect that these passages are interesting because blurry - they are like abstract art, their meaning is in the eye of the beholder.So unlike Marx's philosophy, Hegel's might mean something because it is meaningless.

On the other hand, Hegel's concept of the "dialectical method" - that ideas come in the form of thesis-antithesis-synthesis, is interesting and worthwhile.Obviously not all ideas develop in this form, and sometimes ideas are presented as a synthesis of previous ideas to make them seem moderate and considered, but the dynamic is apparent.

Singer's book about Hegel is less satisfying than his book on Marx also because Singer doesn't engage as much with Hegel's ideas;He does defend Hegel from the criticism leveled against him by Karl Popper (although he doesn't whitewash him as a previous reviewer implied), he criticizes a few of Hegel's wilder ideas and talks a little about his successors, particularly, of course, Marx.But Singer never tries to assess or contextualize what is still worthwhile of Hegel's thought.He settles for clearing the fog around Hegel's ideas, and paradoxically risks eliminating the only thing that gives them meaning.

An Introduction to Marx?
My interest i Hegel, which isn't great, is more an interest in Marx. Hegel is not a favorite, but to understand Karl it may be necessary to understand Georg.I grew up on Hegel and Marx.My father was a far left winger who was crushed by the failure of Communism and the unending life of the church.If my mother hadn't forbidden it my first words would have been "Religion is the opiate of the people."You understandably have no interest in my family--very dull indeed--so on to our study for this day.Where does this book fit in the study of philosophy or history for that matter.

We can't cover every aspect of Hegel's thought here, not am I able to, so let's pick on Religion."Orthodox religion is . . . a brrier to the goal of restoring man to a state of harmony, for it makes man subordinate his own powers of thought to an external authority (page 9)."Hegel was according to our author an adherent to the Lutheran religion.He has been mistaken as a humanist in religion, but it is too simple a designation for a certainly complex man.

A person who thinks cannot be fitted into an easy mold.Hegel is no different.We as humans like our heroes and villains to be all of one or another thing, it makes life so much simpler, as the saying "ignorance is bliss" and thinking is hell.If you are a thinking person welcome to HELL.

A general overview
Given the space restrictions, I doubt that many people would be able to explain Hegel's thought in more than a simplistic fashion. I bought the book to see what Singer has to say about Hegel, and in that department I would have liked more commentary. As it stands, it's just a very simple intro to Hegel, one perhaps aimed at beginners.

Crappy
The VSI series has produced some terrific introductions (notably, Scruton's Kant) but this falls well short. Of course, Hegel's density and obscurity present some unique challenges but Singer's exegesis it extremely flat. Unfortunately, I can't recommend a nice, short introduction to Hegel. As far as I know, no one has yet accomplished this difficult task. However, for those with some philosophy background, I would highly recommend Justus Hartnack's "An Introduction to Hegel's Logic." Because its object is Hegel's Logic, you won't find much discussion of the Phenomenology or his work on history. However, in a brilliantly concise 124 pages, Hartnack concisely digests and summarizes Hegel's most difficult work. It's really helpful for understanding how the dialectic works.

good introduction
This is about the fifth of the Very Short Introduction series I read. Although I didn't know much about Hegel's works before reading this book, I feel that the author does a good job introducing "Hegel" in a well-balanced, well-rounded way, in that he talks about how Hegel fits into the historical context and about other historical figures who influenced him and who he influenced.

It was helpful for me that the author introduced the "dialectical method" that you hear so often about, in a clear, concise way. Apparently, the author doesn't cover all of Hegel's major works, but overall he does a good job getting the reader interested in Hegel's works enough that he would look into Hegel's works in more detail on subjects that interest him. ... Read more

Product Description

For the first time in history, eradicating world poverty is within our reach. Yet around the world, a billion people struggle to live each day on less than many of us pay for bottled water. In The Life You Can Save, Peter Singer uses ethical arguments, illuminating examples, and case studies of charitable giving to show that our current response to world poverty is not only insufficient but morally indefensible. The Life You Can Save teaches us to be a part of the solution, helping others as we help ourselves.

Customer Reviews (1)

A brilliant piece of philosophical writing that everyone should read...
In this relatively short book, Professor Singer makes an extremely compelling case for why it is morally obligatory for capable individuals to aid beings that suffer. Those that are familiar with his previous work will recognize his basic arguments on poverty, which he has been expanding upon for over three decades. For those who are unfamiliar with Peter Singer, the argument he expands upon in this book is quoted as follows...

1.) "Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter and medical care are bad."
2.) "If it is in your power to prevent something bad from happening, without sacrificing anything nearly as important, it is wrong not to do so."
3.) "By donating to aid agencies, you can prevent suffering and death from lack of food, shelter and medical care, without sacrificing anything nearly as important."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Conclusion - "Therefore, if you do not donate to aid agencies, you are doing something wrong."

This argument is valid, and I think sound, so if one is to reject the conclusion, one MUST reject one (or more) of the premises. If they accept the premises, then they MUST accept the conclusion.

Professor Singer's logic is solid throughout. His writing is both lucid and entertaining, making this work accessible, absorbing and crucially important to philosophers and philosophical novices alike. This is simply a must read for everyone. ... Read more

Product Description
Today, as never before, we are subjecting animals to scientific experimentation, wearing furs and leather goods, and eating commercially produced meats - casually accepting slaughter as a necessary way of life, and carefully ignoring the inhumanity and illogic of our behavior. There are extensive federally financed programs in which animals are poisoned, starved and tortured, although many authorities now say the experiments are not worth doing and yield results not worth publishing. Singer describes this cruelty we impose upon other animals with logic and restraint. He shows how, whenever we start to become aware of our practices, we marshal a host of rationalizations to defend them. Singer peers behind the scenes and exposes the collaboration between politicians and those special interest groups who speak for the users and suppliers of laboratory animals. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (1)

This is the book that started the modern animal rights movement
This book is the classic that is often credited with starting the modern animal rights movement.You might also want to check out Dr. Singer's recently published update of Animal Liberation: The Definitive Classic of the Animal Movement (P.S.).

If the whole world thought that concentration camps were right, that wouldn't make concentration camps right. Moral knowledge is not difficult to acquire or use; it is only prejudice and vested interests that stand in the way. Those prejudice and vested interests can make us enthusiastic adherents or accomplices in the most deplorable behaviors imaginable, and often with smiles on our faces (as the world saw in our clean-shaven, church-going youth in Abu Ghraib).

Thankfully, Dr. Singer was not content to leave morality to others, as he so aptly demonstrates with this book.He offers readers the moral knowledge they need to do good, or at least stop doing harm.

I'd put off reading this book for about 10 years.I'd been a vegetarian that length of time, but I didn't want to listen to some `radical' idea about `animal rights'.I finally began reading this book on a three-hour train ride, and by the time I'd reached my destination, I turned vegan and felt ashamed that I hadn't made the move to before then.I remain a vegan 10 years later, largely based on the convictions formed while reading this book.

This seminal work offers telling observations of humans and other animals that, often, should be obvious to any five-year-old, but which aren't widely discussed in `polite' society.For example, "Nearly all the signs which lead us to infer pain in other humans can be seen in other species..."."There are many areas in which the superior mental powers of normal adult humans make a difference...[y]et these differences do not all point to greater suffering on the part of the normal human being." Animals suffer, animal suffering matters, and our illusion of innocence in the process of confining and killing must be confronted to stop the suffering.Such lucid, well-written comments leave us little room to hide our prejudices and vested interests.I've read my copy twice now, and expect to read it again soon.

Dr. Singer points out that "...the conclusions that are argued for in this book flow from the principle of minimizing suffering alone."In practice, the author is a utilitarian.Contractarianism, as suggested by Mark Rowlands in Animals Like Us (Practical ethics series), offers a more robust and morally satisfying approach, but in a world where 50 billion animals are tortured and slaughtered every year to feed humans, this is arguably just hair-splitting.

Not many books can make you want to change what you eat or wear for the rest of your life.This one does.And you will thank Dr. Singer for it.
... Read more

Product Description
In A Darwinian Left, Peter Singer argues that the political left has misunderstood Darwinian ideas and as a result been hostile to the application of Darwinian thinking to politics.Those on the political left who seek a more egalitarian society should instead embrace evolutionary ideas and learn how to use evolutionary thinking in order to build the kind of cooperative society sought.Amazon.com Review
Philosophers don't have to be arcane and out oftouch. Princeton's Peter Singer gives 21st-century liberals andradicals something to think about with the slim but powerful volume ofDarwinism Today titled A Darwinian Left. Long noted for holdingcontroversial bioethical beliefs related to animal rights, abortion,and euthanasia, Singer tends to quickly polarize his readers. Thistime, he chooses to antagonize those most sympathetic with hispositions, arguing that the political left should re-evaluate itsdependence on Marxism and its shunning of Darwinism. His writing islucid and pulls no punches in examining the consequences of20th-century answers to poverty; fans of the welfare state are in forsome discomfort.

But Singer sees making a few liberals squirm as crucial to stealingDarwinism from the right and combining the noble desire to help thehelpless with a realistic view of human nature and evolution. Hebuilds a compelling line of thought, peppered with examples, thatshows how our competitive "survival of the fittest" conception ofevolution falls far short of modern scientific thinking. Instead,Singer suggests we incorporate a Darwinian ethic of cooperation intoour political thought and reflect carefully on the consequences of ourremedies for the evils of the world.--Rob Lightner ... Read more

Customer Reviews (21)

What's Left in Singer's `Darwinian Left' that is recognisably of the Left
"In the 20th century the dream of the perfectibility of humankind turned into the nightmares of Stalinist Russia," Singer writes. In the course of this pamphlet, Singer exhorts the Left to wake up.
Although Social Darwinism survives only as a straw man and despite the attachment of some conservatives to creationism, a Darwinian view of human nature is perceived as more compatible with conservatism than socialism: Women are naturally suited to child-care; men have greater status-orientation; the theory of kin selection reinforces faith in the family; and viewing humans as self-interested confirms the underlying assumptions of classical economics (Darwinian Conservatism (Societas S.).
If we are innately predisposed to care more about ourselves and our families than unrelated third-parties, this presents a problem for egalitarian utopianism for 3 reasons:
1) Individuals inevitably strive to promote themselves and their kin above fellow citizens.
2) Only coercive state apparatus can prevent them so doing and the individuals in control of this apparatus will use it corruptly to promote the interests of their own self and kin.
(`What egalitarian revolution has not been betrayed by its leaders?' Singer laments. Mencken observed the "one undoubted effect [of revolutions] is simply to throw out one gang of thieves and put in another".)
3) Egalitarianism would remove the incentive of self-advancement which lies behind the production of goods and services which benefit us all, not to mention of works of art and scientific advances.
(Adam Smith: `It is not from the benevolence of the butcher... that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest'.)

Animal Liberation
Singer argues our common evolutionary origin precludes a difference in kind between humans and animals (say, in the ability to suffer) sufficient to justify the different treatment accorded to each. However, evolutionary continuity also renders implausible anti-vivisectionists' argument that medical research on non-human subjects has no applicability to humans.
If humans are subject to the same principles of natural selection as other species, this suggests, not the elevation of non-human species to the status of humans, but rather the relegation of humans to that of animals.
Finally, acceptance of human nature, entails recognition of carnivory as part of this nature. That something is natural does not mean it is right. However, if it is wrong for us to kill animals, is it also wrong to allow lions to eat gazelles?

Eugenics
In response to the claim that welfare promotes dysgenic fertility patterns, Singer argues, "even if there were a genetic component to something as nebulous as unemployment, to say that these genes are `deleterious' would involve value judgements that go way beyond what the science alone can tell us". While viewing traits as desirable or undesirable involves extra-scientific value judgements, everyone would accept some traits (e.g. generosity) as more desirable than others. Twin and Adoption Studies have demonstrated a heritable component to personality traits of the sort that may underlie unemployment.
Given Singer argues Darwinism can help us how achieve, but not select, social goals, eugenics may provide a useful means of achieving the goal of producing more altruistic people. Given the incompatibility of human nature and egalitarianism, perhaps the only way to rescue the dream of socialism is to genetically-reengineer human nature itself.
At the book's conclusion, Singer follows Dawkins in suggesting our capacity for Reason enables us to revolt against `selfish genes'. However, Reason (like the desire to revolt) is itself a product of the same genes and evolved to enable us to pass on our `selfish genes' more efficiently.
However, Reason can enable the development of eugenic technologies allowing the genetic-engineering of altruism. However, the humans controlling eugenic programmes (governments or corporations) will, given human nature, have less than altruistic motivations themselves (see Straw Dogs: Thoughts on Humans and Other Animals).

Reciprocity
Singer observes that financial interest is not synonymous with Darwinian fitness. Indeed, in novel environments, the 2 may not even correlate (Vining 1986). Neither does wealth always lead to greater happiness.
However, Singer is wrong to see competition as in conflict with cooperation. Extreme altruism often occurs in the context extreme competition (e.g. self-sacrifice in war).
Trade is as fundamental to capitalism as competition. In The Origins of Virtue: Human Instincts and the Evolution of Cooperation Ridley promotes unregulated free markets on the ground that reciprocity allows humans to produce efficient systems of exchange without central planning.
Whereas economic trade is motivated by self-interested calculation, Singer envisages reciprocity mediated by emotions such as compassion and guilt. However, these emotions have evolved through the rational calculation of natural selection (Trivers 1971) and, while open to manipulation in evolutionarily-atypical societies, are limited in application.
Neither does Singer explain how a culture of altruism is to be fostered. Changing the values of a culture is not easy, even for a totalitarian government.

What's Left?
Singer defines `the Left' as "on the side of the weak, not the powerful; of the oppressed, not the oppressor" (p8). However, conservatives would hardly admit to being on the side of the oppressor. Free-marketeers claim their policies benefit everyone while socialist reforms harm those they aspire to help.
Conservatives share Singer's aspiration to create a more altruistic culture. This aspiration seems compatible with the libertarian notion of voluntary charitable donations replacing taxation.
Singer accepts that not "all inequalities are due to discrimination, prejudice, oppression or social conditioning". He suggests the gender pay-gap may result from a greater innate status-orientation among men and attachment to offspring among women. (See Biology at Work: Rethinking Sexual Equality (The Rutgers Series in Human Evolution)). He even recognises hierarchy as an innate human universal.
This certainly represents progress in the thought of `progressives'. However, is Singer on the brink of progressing beyond progressivism altogether? If there is nothing left in Singer's `Darwinian Left' recognisably of the Left, perhaps the Left is to be left behind altogether.

Trivers, R `The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism' Quarterly Review of Biology 1971

Vining, DR `Social Versus Reproductive Success' Behavioral and Brain Sciences 1986

Good Idea, Marred by Singer's Philosophy
Peter Singer certainly has a good idea in A DARWINIAN LEFT.Given the abysmal failure of Marxism, the practice of which left a hundred million dead and billions impoverished, developing a left based on the realities of Darwinian theory would certain be an improvement.However, with the exception of the big idea itself, the rest of this book leaves a lot to be desired.

Right off the bat, Singer fails to account for another big idea which underlies the intellectual shift he advocates.Specifically, the left has shown time and time again that it is simply impervious to negative feedback about, and even outright failure of, its ideas.Marxism has failed everywhere it has been tried?Well, c'mon, let's just try again.The left is simply so blinded by its vision of itself as being morally superior to those with a different perspective that it is difficult to envision it rejecting that vision that has guided it for so long simply because it does not work.

Singer himself contributes to this problem several times.There is his initial conception of the left that is not only incredibly patronizing but also unbelievably arrogant.For Singer, the left is composed of those who, seeing the pain and suffering that exist in the world, wish to do something to reduce it.The possibility that those not on the left - indeed, maybe even those (gasp) on the right - share this goal but approach it from a radically different angle is not even on the list of alternatives.Thomas Sowell writes of this phenomenon in his books on ideology and Sowell is right on target.If it came to be generally accepted that Milton Friedman cared as much about the poor as Andrew Hacker or that Clarence Thomas cared as much about blacks as Al Sharpton (Thomas almost certainly cares quite a bit more), now that would be a paradigm shift.Singer's vision of the left as having a lock on such compassion demonstrates only that Singer's vision has been sucked deeply, perhaps inescapably, into an ideological vortex.

Singer's concern for relieving pain and suffering in this world also takes a disastrously wrong turn when it comes to alleviating poverty.Like many on the left, Singer focuses on the poor without examining the larger issue of wealth creation which would alleviate their suffering.Singer makes matters worse by adopting Rawls' position that any policy should be judged based on its impact on the worst off.He, not surprisingly, wrings his hands about income inequality without examining the larger issue of how people are doing in absolute terms.If one were granted one wish and, out of benevolence to one's fellow man, wished that everyone's income doubled while keeping prices stable, almost everyone would be better off and nobody would be worse off.This wish, however, would instantly double income inequality.Yet by what bizarre concept of ethics could this be construed as bad?And it would fail Singer's test for an ethical policy as it would leave those with nothing, not worse off, but in the exact same position they were in anyway.This is the bind in which modern leftism finds itself - the fact of the matter is that no governmental policies have alleviated more poverty than free market capitalism, yet that same capitalism produces vast differences in wealth that the left proceeds to cry about.Singer jumps right into this paradox, ironically in a book calling for the left to adopt a more realistic theoretical paradigm.

Further, Singer credits Marx for opening up wonderful insights that are properly explored by social scientists.Really?Like what?This leads to truly groan inducing passages, such as when Singer contrasts the nightmares of Stalin and Pol Pot with less tragic examples of applied leftism, such as the Israeli kibbutzim and Castro's Cuba.Think about this comparison.The kibbutzim is a minority lifestyle within Israel and, perhaps more important, is voluntary.Indeed, the philosopher Robert Nozick specifically used the kibbutzim as the example in his essay as to who would choose socialism.Using it as an example for society-wide policies of the left should end right there.

As for Castro's Cuba?While Cuba may not have hit the terror of Stalin or Pol Pot, it is nonetheless a nation many people are willing to risk shark infested waters on homemade rafts to escape.It says something that Singer would use this on the `not so terrible' end of his comparison.

A DARWINIAN LEFT does have some good points, though they are basically common sense for the rest of us.That there are more men than women in high level positions seems to drive feminists crazy, but it is nothing surprising to those of us who see the clear differences in how men and women respond to babies and to the desires of each sex to spend a lot of time with them.

Possibly the best aspect of the book is Singer's focus on Darwinian theory as promoting cooperation between people rather than simply competition, and recognizing that a society functions best with a Tit-for-Tat manner of interacting.Under Tit-for-Tat, one responds to another based on that other person's behavior, i.e. if that person cooperates, one reciprocates cooperation.If the other does not cooperate, one does not cooperate with that person.This strengthens cooperation through reward.

Yet even Tit-for-Tat would have a serious drawback in practice, and one particularly troublesome for the left.Research has demonstrated that not all identifiable cultural groups are equal in their willingness to perform favors or act cooperatively.Tit-for-Tat would therefore have a negative disparate impact on some groups.Are we to expect that the left, which yells racism when any cultural difference becomes manifest if that discrepancy flows in a negative direction against non-whites, would refrain from such howls when such results came to fruition?No, we should not.

The big problems with A DARWINIAN LEFT are the same as those with Singer's other writings.Despite his attempts to draw the left towards a more accurate theory of human nature and behavior, his own philosophy itself remains riddled with inconsistencies and assumptions about human nature that run straight into the brick wall of reality.It makes Singer an interesting philosopher to read, if only to see how misguided ideas can be applied to real world situations and to also see how many people would hop right on board.

Disappointing
"A Darwinian Left" is an attempt to reconcile the apparent brutality of natural selection with progressive compassion. I enjoyed reading the book, but was hoping for a bit more substance.

Singer argued that humans naturally act altruistically and cooperatively, but he did not spend time talking about political changes that could promote this kind of behavior. The essay is unfinished. The book does not deliver on its promise.

I respect Peter Singer as a philosopher, but "A Darwinian Left" is disappointing.

Marx versus Darwin?
In this book, the controversial Peter Singer does two very interesting things. First, he explains why the Left has historically been wrong concerning human nature. Second, he proposes an alternative view: a leftist approach compatible with what Darwin teaches regarding our behavior.

I think the book is worth reading for the first part alone (which is actually most of the book). Singer's analysis of Marxism, and of the modern politically correct liberals who dislike Darwinism, is first rate. This is why I give the book such a high rating. But I cannot give it the highest rating because I cannot agree with the second part, since I do not think the government has the right to do the sorts of things that leftists like Singer believe it should do.

One final point: in the introduction, Singer defines "the Left" as being simply those people who care about pain and suffering, and who want to do something about it. That's just a blatant falsehood. There are plenty of people on the Left who couldn't care less about the suffering of others and plenty of people on the Right who do. My advice to the reader is to ignore nonsense like that and go on to the rest of the book. It's worthwhile in spite of such flaws.

Facing the reality of human nature.
This is an excellent short book. It encapsulates clearly the importance for the left to acknowledge Darwinism and learn from it.
The 'right' may believe that we can do nothing about our nature and that those who fall by the wayside are inevitable casualties. But the left is still on the side of the weak, poor, oppressed etc and an understanding of our evolved nature gives us more of a realistic prospect of making social changes that will actually be of benefit.

Singer argues against the Marx and Engels' historical materialism view that the mode of production creates human consciousness. He also argues against their separation of humans from all the evolution that preceded them or affects other animals.
To focus on the mode of production as the creator of human nature is 'like looking at the differences in military tactics as weapons have changed over the centuries without ever asking why nations go to war'.

Singer only touches on possible ways forward as we give proper consideration to self-interest as well as how we might be more successful in fostering cooperation and altruism.

This is a clear, succinct and realistic view from the left and potentially a good foundation on which to build realistic visions of what we, as humans, might become. ... Read more

Product Description
For vegetarians seeking the historical roots of vegetarianism, for animal rights activists and the environmentally concerned, and for those questioning their consumption of meat, here's a book that provides a deep understanding of vegetarianism as more than just a dietary decision.

This is the first comprehensive collection of primary source material on vegetarianism as a moral choice and includes the writings of Carol Adams, Bernard de Mandeville, Mohandas Gandhi, Oliver Goldsmith, Anna Kingsford, Frances Moore Lappe, Porphyry, Pythagoras, Tom Regan, Albert Schweitzer, Seneca, Peter Singer, Leo Tolstoy, and Richard Wagner, among others. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (21)

This is a keeper!
This is one of the best books I've read on vegetarianism. It's a wonderful collection that will give you a lot of insight as to why people are ethical vegetarians. I love this book and it is one that will remain on my shelf for many years to come. Great to also use as reference when needing some good info in a conversation!

A much needed resource
Any body who has read more than two or three books on veganism and vegetarianism runs across references to Pythagoras, Henry Salt, Francis Moore Lappe, Leo Tolstoy, etc. etc. as people who wrote important works on vegetarianism.But their books are hard to find.This book steps in and presents the central writings of these and many other people who have defended the notion that diet is a moral moatter.Very helpful, very well organized.

An organized variety of ethical reasons to stop eating meat
As the title implies, various philosophers through the ages have come to the conclusion that meat eating is neither necessary nor ethical. Here, in Ethical Vegetarianism, their most articulate arguments are organized sequentially for the common reader. A great book and a bargain nonetheless.

A Good Place To Start--
--on the road to vegetarianism.This book supplies centuries of moral wisdom by persons who refused to kill animals to satisfy their palates.I've given copies to several of my relatives.I'm not sure why the authors included their nonvegetarian appendix at the back of the book.Maybe in the interest of fairness; but the pro-vegetarian choices are top notch, especially the ones from the ancient world.

Interesting Overview
I'm not a vegetarian and I doubt I'll become one.But I found this collection interesting because I've always thought of vegetarians as nice but sorta flakey tree huggers.The essays here are written by people who offer strong arguments for their beliefs.(Usually, that is.The one by Harriet Schlieffer is over the top).But sorry folks.My appetite over-rules my head in this case. ... Read more

Product Description

Committed to Excellence. This edition continues the evolution of Raven & Johnson’s Biology. The author team is committed to continually improving the text, keeping the student and learning foremost. We have integrated new pedagogical features to guide the student through the learning process. This latest edition of the text maintains the clear, accessible, and engaging writing style of past editions with the solid framework of pedagogy that highlights an emphasis on evolution and scientific inquiry that have made this a leading textbook for students majoring in biology. This emphasis on the organizing power of evolution is combined with an integration of the importance of cellular, molecular biology and genomics to offer our readers a text that is student friendly and current.

Customer Reviews (11)

satisfied customer
The product arrived in a timely manner. The only problem I had is that this was a brand new book, and there were some scratches in the cover. All in all a good buy, a lot cheaper than purchasing at a college book store!

Very Poor Service
Ordered on August 10th. Got a confirmation from the seller on the same day, August 10th, and I quote from their e-mail "Your book will be sent out tomorrow and should arrive near the middle of next week." As of August 31st still no book.Numerous attempts to contact the seller-all remain unanswered.Our credit card has been charged.So we are out the money our credit card was charged, no book, and now we will spend another $150.00 at the college bookstore so my daughter will not get behind in college. Avoid this seller at all costs.We will be filing a claim as soon as Amazon will allow us to do so and will pursue this mattter by all legal means possible.What a nightmare!

DO NOT BUY FROM Abe Books
I bought this book from Abe Books through Amazon, they said the book was new! I got the book, it was used and the code to gain online access which is part of the book had been removed ( probably from the previous user from this NOT NEW book, so I send them an email and here is what I say how they respond,

Me:I bought this through you on Amazon, it said the condition is new, its missing its online registration code for my online class. I am going to make an online review if this is not sorted out ASAP. I need that code right now.

Abe Books:Hello,

Thank you for contacting AbeBooks Customer Support. I'm sorry to hear that you are having issues with your Amazon order. Unfortunately, we can not assist you with this order as it was not purchases through the Abebooks website. Please contact Amazon directly for further assistance. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Rosalyn M.
AbeBooks Customer Support

Student Review
Used it to pass entrance test at Jr. college to get into A&P w/o taking BIO 101. Used chapters 1-25.I passed!

Biology
This book is well written and organized.It is useful for the course which I am currently taking at our local community college ... Read more

Product Description
'Peter Singer is the most influential living philosopher. We need people like him to keep us honest, make us think and help us to be better than we presently are.' IndependentLove him or hate him, you certainly can't ignore him. A passionate founder of the modern animal rights movement, Singer challenges our most closely held beliefs about infanticide, euthanasia, the legal rights and moral obligations of all species, and much more, with arguments that intrigue as often and as powerfully as they incite.Writings on an Ethical Life presents a comprehensive collection of Singer's best and most provocative writing, as chosen by Singer himself. After a successful publication in its first edition, this acclaimed collection draws together Singer's best and most provocative writing for a wider audience. ... Read more

Product Description
Eleven black students form a singing group and tour the world in an attempt to save their college from financial ruin. Includes a history of the Jubilee Singers, including photographs, song sheets, concert posters, and programs. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (1)

Chariot in the Sky
Although this book is written in an easy narrative, it is an amazing story of life after the Civil War, for all parties. A must-read for all as it brings us together in our search for education and freedom. Everyone should know the courageous story of the Jubilee Singers. ... Read more

Product Description
This is the first book devoted to the work of Peter Singer, one of the leaders of the practical ethics movement, and one of the most influential philosophers of the twentieth century. Singer's metaethical views, his normative theory and his substantive positions on such matters as the moral status of animals, the sanctity of human life and famine relief are all subjected to scrutiny. The volume contains new essays by leading philosophers from three continents. Singer's reply to his critics importantly supplements what he has previously written and will be essential reading for anyone who wants to fully understand his views. ... Read more

Product Description
Take a New Look at Raven!

BIOLOGY is an authoritative majors textbook focusing on evolution as a unifying theme. In revising the text, McGraw-Hill consulted with numerous users, noted experts and professors in the field.Biology is distinguished from other texts by its strong emphasis on natural selection and the evolutionary process that explains biodiversity.The new 8th edition continues that tradition and advances into modern biology by featuring the latest in cutting edge content reflective of the rapid advances in biology.That same modern perspective was brought into the completely new art program offering readers a dynamic, realistic, and accurate, visual program.

To view a sample chapter, go to www.ravenbiology.com ... Read more

Customer Reviews (23)

Received very quickly!
We were required to purshase this for our Bio class. It came very quickly, so great customer service. Unfortunately, I easily could of gotten away with not buying a book at all. I learned to wait to see if books are really necessary for certain classes! Seemed like a good book though!

Overkill for "Intro" to biology courses
I just stumbled across this textbook today as I was reorganizing my stuff, and I it gave me some bad flashbacks! This is a very, very comprehensive book, but that can be a problem in certain situations.

A couple years ago, I decided to make a drastic career change that required me to take a lot of prerequisite courses. The first class I took was Intro to Cell/ Molecular Biology. Many students in the class were taking this course as one of their first science courses.

To get straight to the point: This book is way, way, way overkill for an "intro" class. First of all, it's much too big and expensive. There's no way a class will ever get through the entire thing in one semester. It's just too big and expensive for the purposes of intro Biology.

One undeniable thing about this book is that it contains A LOT of information and A LOT of detail. BUT, here's the thing: It's just too much detail for an intro course. I ended up learning a lot, but it was a lot harder than it needed to be. Since then, I've take several higher level courses. That's how I know that the book isn't well suited for intro classes.

The MAIN problem I have with this book is the language. The verbiage is as clear as mud. There's little attempt at simplifying concepts and language. It seems as if these authors went out of their way to sound really, really smart! I fancy myself as having good reading comprehension, but reading this book was like torture to me.

I'm not sure who the intended audience was supposed to be for this textbook, but the language seems to be geared more towards higher level students. The language is not conducive to learning for someone who has little background. I've read a lot of textbooks, and this was the only one that actually made me feel stupid!

Very Pleased
I was very pleased with the condition that my book was in and on the timely mannor of arrival.

Horrible Service from a Horrible Company
Don't shop with this company they mislist books and don't care about customers' needs.They intentionally will ship you the wrong book with a revised invioce to convince you it was your mistake, thankfully since amazon logs the transaction as well you will be able to prove yourself but they aren't going to care.I ordered an 8th ed Biology txtbook by Raven, etc, this company sent me the a Biology with Physiology Life on Earth txtbook.I understand mistakes happen but the company sent me an invoice with package stating that was the book I ordered thankfully I ordered through them from Amazon and the original invoice was saved by Amazon.What this tells me is that someone didn't just ship me the wrong product by mistake they shipped it to me and tried to make it look like it wasn't the wrong product.When I contacted the company they refused to do anything until I returned the book, so I did nothing wrong, they already have my money but I have no product and now they want me to pay more to ship them their item back even though they can already see and admitted I ordered the right book and received the wrong one from the invoices.When I told the company that was unacceptable, they immediately shifted the blame to amazon stating that Amazon listed the wrong product and still refused to do anything.I had to call Amazon and explain all of this to them only to get my money back without spending anymore to do so.

Great Service
We needed the text right away and they worked with us to get it here on time. ... Read more

Product Description
In 2003, South African writer J. M. Coetzee was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature for his riveting portrayals of racial repression, sexual politics, the guises of reason, and the hypocrisy of human beings toward animals and nature. Coetzee was credited with being "a scrupulous doubter, ruthless in his criticism of the cruel rationalism and cosmetic morality of western civilization." The film of his novelDisgrace, starring John Malkovich, brought his challenging ideas to a new audience.Anton Leist and Peter Singer have assembled an outstanding group of contributors who probe deeply into Coetzee's extensive and extraordinary corpus. They explore his approach to ethical theory and philosophy and pay particular attention to his representation of the human-animal relationship. They also confront Coetzee's depiction of the elementary conditions of life, the origins of morality, the recognition of value in others, the sexual dynamics between men and women, the normality of suppression, and the possibility of equality in postcolonial society.With its wide-ranging consideration of philosophical issues, especially in relation to fiction, this volume stands alone in its extraordinary exchange of ethical and literary inquiry. ... Read more

Product Description
This book treats the Atiyah-Singer index theorem using the heat equation, which gives a local formula for the index of any elliptic complex. Heat equation methods are also used to discuss Lefschetz fixed point formulas, the Gauss-Bonnet theorem for a manifold with smooth boundary, and the geometrical theorem for a manifold with smooth boundary. The author uses invariance theory to identify the integrand of the index theorem for classical elliptic complexes with the invariants of the heat equation. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (1)

Readable Philosophy
This book is a short, lucid essay on the implications of sociobiology for ethical philosophy.Every part is interestingbut the high points include: (a) the discussion of why the fact/value dichotomy makes it impossible to derive ethical rules from the results of sociobiology; (b) the description of how the give-and-take of ethical argumentation leads to the adoption of an impartial point of view and, eventually, to a utilitarian ethics that encompasses all of humanity (the "expanding circle" of altruism to which the title refers); and (c) the analysis of why an impartial utilitarian ethic, to be effective, must be embodied in specific, inevitably-partial social rules that harness the realities of biological human nature.It's not too glib to say that Singer begins with Edward Wilson and ends with Edmund Burke.

Readers should not pick up this book expecting to find an even-handed introduction to ethics.The argument develops Singer's own views, giving scant attention to alternative positions; one huge omission is the failure to discuss John Rawls' non-utilitarian version of the impartial point of view. That said, Singer's writing is clear and non-technical, the steps in his argument are carefully laid out, his judgments are sensible, and the issues he discusses are of perennial interest (even though sociobiology's heyday has come and gone).Popular philosophy rarely gets better than this. ... Read more

Product Description
Galen (AD 129-99), researcher and scholar, surgeon and philosopher, logician, herbalist and personal physician to the emperor Marcus Aurelius, was the most influential and multi-faceted medical author of antiquity. This is the first major selection in English of Galen's work, functioning as an essential introduction to his "medical philosophy" and including the first-ever translations of several major works. A detailed Introduction presents a vivid insight into medical practice as well as intellectual and everyday life in ancient Rome. ... Read more

Product Description
Who is Peter Singer?What does he say about issues like abortion, infanticide, euthanasia and animal rights? What does he say about Christianity? What exactly is his philosophy?"Peter Singer is probably the world's most famous or infamous contemporary philosopher," says Gordon Preece. Recently appointed as professor of bioethics at Princeton University's Center for Human Values, Singer is best known for his book on animal rights, Animal Liberation, and for his philosophical text Practical Ethics. But underneath his seemingly benign agenda lies perhaps the most radical challenge to Christian ethics proposed in recent times.In Rethinking Peter Singer four of Singer's contemporaries, fellow Australian scholars Gordon Preece, Graham Cole, Lindsay Wilson and Andrew Sloane, grapple with Singer's views respectfully but incisively. From a straightforwardly Christian perspective, they critique Singer's thought in four major areas: abortion and infanticide, euthanasia, animal rights, and Christianity.Rethinking Peter Singer is not only for those who want to understand Singer's views but also for all who want to challenge the thinking that more and more informs our society's stance on moral issues. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (3)

Are Peter's Ideas Dangerous?
Let me begin by stating I am not a born again Christian. I don't believe it is necessary to resort to religious arguments to challenge Peter Singer's ethical system.So what's so dangerous about Peter Singer?
First we should note that in Singer's Bioethic only persons have a right to life. The law protects persons. We owe persons moral consideration.Peter Singer introduces a new category called human non-persons. The concept of human-non-person draws the circle of humanity smaller than usually understood.Now if you have any historical sense an alarm should be ringing in your head.The alarm reminds you of all those occasions in our tragic past when a dominant segment of humanity defined a minority as 'subhuman' (i.e., non-persons).Singer limits his discussion to medicine, where humans become non-persons through disease and accident. In other words, non-persons lose a complete set of rights.The right-to-exist being the premier right being lost by a non-person designation.
So what is a person according to Singer? A person is autonomous, self-aware and has a capacity for having interests. What is a non-person? Any human who has lost or has not achieved the above: fetuses, infants, the mentally retarded, those suffering from dementia and Alzheimer's etc. It?s common knowledge that Peter Singer did not demand euthanasia for his mother when she slipped into the category of non-person.He loved her and had an interest in keeping her alive. But Singer must admit it could have been otherwise. Instead of being a dutiful son, he could have been a selfish one, eager to inherit his mother's estate etc. This issue of interests, I submit, is his most dangerous idea. Interests are really an issue of power. If interest holders do not wish to care for non-persons they are not obliged too. It's hard not to see this idea of 'interest' as a perversion of our innate nature to care for those in need. We are born dependent, we may become dependent at any time, and many of us will die dependent.I suppose with Singer's system one can hope one will never be dependent.And if one should becomes dependent or comatose? Well one can hope one's guardians have an interest in our continued existence.It's really odd but Singer couches his ideas on personhood and interests under the umbrella of compassion.That language masks something sinister.His ideas on personhood, in the end, undermine a basic human obligation to care for those who need caring, i.e., the weak (non-persons).To my mind, Singer's personhood theory is a form of the will-to power.It tells us that the powerful (persons) will decide when and if the less powerful (non-persons) may live. But what about the rights of the disabled and other various non-persons?Well Singer rejects the notion of rights.He imagines that moral saints, like himself, will always look at the big picture objectively and dispassionately.

Fatal Misunderstanding
Many of the critiques of Peter Singer's books that somehow make it onto this website as "reviews" are riddled with logical flaws or a fatal misunderstanding (deliberate misrepresentation?) of Singer's arguments.

The review below states that Singer somehow failed to live up to his own ethical system by not euthanasing his mother (who suffers from Alzheimer's Disease). Not only does this overlook Singer's oft-repeated, clearly outlined distinctions between voluntary and non-voluntary euthanasia, but it overlooks a fundamental part of his arguments about the treatment of non-persons.

Persons who become non-persons (through disease, accident, etc.), i.e. lose their self-awareness, autonomy, self-consciousness, use of their cerebral coretex, etc., lose their capacity for having interests (as Singer argues that interests are a factor of self-awareness, autonomy, etc.). However, and this is what many deliberately overlook, persons may have in interest in the welfare and survival of non-persons. Singer obviously had a desire to keep his mother, whom he loved, alive. Parents who give birth to severely mentally or physically handicapped children can have an interest or desire for that child to continue to live. So the ad hominem attack on Singer that his failure to ethuanase his mother is somehow ethically inconsistent shows a significant misreading of his work.

Check out Rethinking Life And Death, Practical Ethics or Unsanctifying Human Life.

Hero or Herod
"Since neither a newborn human infant nor a fish is a person, the wrongness of killing such beings is not as great as the wrongness of killing a person."

"...regarding a newborn infant as not having the same right to life as a person, the cultures that practiced infanticide were on solid ground."

These are two of four quotes from philosopher Peter Singer that were featured in a quarter-page ad in the Australian newspaper during the 1996 federal election. The Australian Family Association took out the ad because Peter Singer was running as a Green Senate candidate. Fortunately for the unborn, the newborn, the elderly and many other "non-persons", Singer received only a tiny fraction of the vote.

He now teaches at Princeton University, after a long career at Melbourne's Monash University. He has written over twenty books, and is regarded as a leading contemporary philosopher and bioethicist. He is famous for his advocacy of animal liberation, as well as for his callous view of human life.

This new book, edited by an ethicist at Melbourne's Ridley College, contains five important articles offering a critical assessment of Singer's philosophy and writings.

After an incisive introduction, Preece offers a close look at the man and his work in chapter one. While recognising the relative consistency throughout his writings, he points out the well-known inconsistency of his regard for his mother has she wrestled with Alzheimer's disease. He rightly notes that on the basis of Singer's utilitarian and consequentialist outlook, he should have bumped off his own mother. But fortunately for his mother, "Singer is a better son and person than ethicist".

He shows how his univeralised utility calculations are really a secualrised version of the parable of the good Samaritan. But without the moral and theological framework which underlies the parable of Jesus, his system is not sustainable. Indeed, because Singer makes personhood a "special prize, not a humanly universal gift," he is unable to properly enact the parable, which recognises that every person is my neighbor.

Andrew Sloane's article looks at one especially nasty aspect of Singer's philosophy - his support of infanticide. Sloane argues that his case for infanticide is only successful if his ethical theory (preference utilitarianism) is successful. But he argues that it is not, but is in fact incoherent and inconsistent. It is "an impoverished, reductionistic theory" which denies any "ultimate meaning to the universe and human life".

In such a cold world, the argument for infanticide may make sense. After all, the newborn do not contribute anything to society, and are therefore expendable. The newborn may not have any utilitarian value, according to his own theory, but he has not successfully argued that his theory should be accepted and others rejected.

Graham Cole argues that Singer's critiques of Christianity are misguided, as they are based on caricature and straw men. He picks and chooses those portions of the biblical account that he finds offensive, but does not appeal to other passages which may act as a corrective or balance.

In a chapter on personhood and Singer's view on animals, Lindsay Wilson argues that Singer, while offering some helpful contributions to the debate, in fact can not compete with the biblical picture of animals and their worth. Singer's critique of "speciesism" - the idea that humans wrongly (in his view) consider themselves better than animals - is based on the idea that sentience (the ability to feel pleasure and pain) is what unites humans and animals. Because both humans and animals suffer, Singer says we should treat both respectfully, and not give special preference to humans, based on outdated concepts of personhood and human dignity.

Wilson argues that Singer's views on animals have major philosophical shortcomings, and that the biblical picture, rightly understood, offers a better framework in which to respect (but not worship) the rest of the created order.

Preece then offers a concluding chapter on Singer's view on life and death issues, especially that of euthanasia. Singer has long argued that sanctity of life ethics should be replaced with quality of life ethics. The former, Singer rightly recognises, is bound up with the Judeo-Christian worldview, while the other is not. As an atheist, Singer prefers the latter viewpoint, arguing that the former can no longer stand up in a scientific age.

Two consequences flow from this. First, the biblical concept of responsibility is replaced with the secular concept of autonomy. That is, instead of seeing life as a gift, which we are entrusted with and expected to be good stewards of, life is seen as something people earn and can forfeit. Secondly, instead of seeing humans as ends in themselves, they are treated as means to an end. Instead of having inherent dignity and worth, we acquire this by our social utility and functionality.

Thus instead of considering all lives as worthwhile and important, Singer considers many to be worthless and expendable, based upon his own criteria of what it means to be a person. In the end his views of personhood are reductionistic and demeaning. Which is why disabled groups usually protest when he speaks, or why German audiences are less than thrilled when he shows up. They have been there and done that.

While all the chapters of this book are quite helpful, those by Preece and Sloane are especially strong. But every author (each one associated with Ridley College) helps to build an impressive case against Singer. This is an excellent collection of essays offering a biblical and philosophical assessment of one of our most noted and notorious thinkers. ... Read more

Product Description
Examensarbeit aus dem Jahr 2003 im Fachbereich Theologie - Systematische Theologie, Note: 1, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main (Fachbereich Kath. Theologie), Sprache: Deutsch, Abstract: 1989 war Peter Singer, ein australischer Philosoph und Bioethiker, nach Marburg eingeladen, um auf einem europäischen Symposium zum Thema „Biotechnologie, Ethik und geistige Behinderung" einen Vortrag zu halten. In Verbindung dazu hatte er auf Anfrage zugesagt, auch an der Universität Dortmund zum Thema „Haben schwerstbehinderte Neugeborene ein Recht auf Leben?" zu sprechen. Doch kurz vor der Eröffnung des Symposiums wurde die Einladung zurückgezogen und zwar aufgrund von massiven Protesten von Behindertenorganisationen, denen sich auch einige anderen Gruppen angeschlossen hatten. Auch in Dortmund konnte er nicht sprechen. Später in Saarbrücken war es ihm erst möglich, einen Vortrag zu halten, nachdem der einladende Professor eine Gruppe, die ihn durch Trillerpfeifkonzerte am Sprechen hinderte, überreden konnte, die Störung abzubrechen.1In dieser Examensarbeit, eingereicht am Fachbereich Katholische Theologie der Universität Frankfurt / Main im Sommer 2003, geht es um die Darstellung und die kritische Auseinandersetzung mit Peter Singers Buch „Praktische Ethik"2, das im wesentlichen für die Aufregung und die sogenannte „Singer-Debatte" im deutschsprachigen Raum gesorgt hat. Ich habe mich bei der Darstellung der Position des Autors im wesentlichen auf die Kapitel zum Thema Abtreibung und Euthanasie beschränkt, da dort aus meiner Sicht die Thesen Singers, die die größte Aufregung erzeugten, am deutlichsten und drastischsten greifbar sind.Im Anschluss an die Darstellung werde ich mich kritisch, auch anhand von Sekundärliteratur, mit dem zuvor Erarbeiteten auseinandersetzen, um am Ende zu einem Schlussfazit contra Singer zu gelangen.Dabei will ich zuvor auch die aktuelle Gesetzgebung und Handhabung (Stand: August 2003) in Fällen von Abtreibung und Euthanasie in ... Read more