SothroughoutthisbookIhavereliedonrationalargument.
Unless you can refute the central argument of this book, you
should now recognize that speciesism is wrong, and this
meansthat,ifyoutakemoralityseriously,youshouldtryto
eliminatespeciesistpracticesfromyourownlife,andoppose
themelsewhere.Otherwisenobasisremainsfromwhichyou
can, without hypocrisy, criticize racism or sexism.
Ihavegenerallyavoidedarguingthatweoughttobekindto
animalsbecausecrueltytoanimalsleadstocrueltytohuman
beings.Perhapsitistruethatkindnesstohumanbeingsandto
otheranimals oftengotogether;but whetherornot this is
true,to say,as Aquinasand Kantdid, thatthis is thereal
reasonwhyweoughttobekindtoanimalsisathoroughly
speciesist position. We ought to consider the interests of
animalsbecausetheyhaveinterestsanditisunjustifiableto
excludethemfromthesphereofmoralconcern;tomakethis
considerationdependonbeneficialconsequencesforhuman
beingsistoaccepttheimplicationthattheinterestsofanimals
do not warrant consideration for their own sakes.
Similarly,Ihaveavoidedanextensivediscussionofwhether
avegetariandietishealthierthanadietthatincludesanimal
flesh.Agooddealofevidencesuggeststhatitis,butIhave
contentedmyselfwithshowingthatavegetariancanexpectto
beatleastashealthyasonewhoeatsmeat.Onceonegoes
beyondthisitisdifficulttoavoidgivingtheimpressionthatif
further studies should show that a diet containingflesh is
acceptablefromthepointofviewofhealth,thenthecasefor
becoming a vegetarian collapses. From the standpoint of
AnimalLiberation,however,solongaswecanlivewithout
inflictingmiserablelivesonanimals,thatiswhatweoughtto
do.