philosophersofthe1960sandearly1970shadsaidaboutthe
moralstatusofnonhumananimals.Theresultswerenottothe
credit of philosophy.
Philosophy ought to questionthebasicassumptions of the
age.Thinkingthrough,criticallyandcarefully,whatmostof
ustakeforgrantedis,Ibelieve,thechieftaskofphilosophy,
and the task that makesphilosophy a worthwhile activity.
Regrettably,philosophydoesnotalwaysliveuptoitshistoric
role. Aristotle’sdefense of slaverywill always stand as a
reminderthatphilosophersarehumanbeingsandaresubject
toallthepreconceptionsofthesocietytowhichtheybelong.
Sometimes theysucceed inbreaking freeof theprevailing
ideology; more often they become its most sophisticated
defenders.
Soitwaswiththephilosophersoftheperiodjustbeforethe
first editionof thisbook appeared.Theydid not challenge
anyone’s preconceptions about our relations with other
species. By their writings, most philosophers who tackled
problemsthattouchedupontheissuerevealedthattheymade
the same unquestioned assumptions as most other human
beings,andwhattheysaidtendedtoconfirmreadersintheir
comfortable speciesist habits.
Atthattime,discussionsofequalityandrightsinmoraland
political philosophy were almost always formulated as
problemsofhumanequalityandhumanrights.Theeffectof
this was that the issue of the equality of animals never
confronted philosophers or their students as an issue in
itself—alreadyanindicationofthefailureofphilosophyupto
thattimetoprobeacceptedbeliefs.Yetphilosophersfoundit
difficulttodiscusstheissueofhumanequalitywithoutraising