The Lives of Animals

Peter Singer’s response is written in narrative form and depicts Peter talking with his daughter, Naomi.

Peter is reading Coetzee’s lecture when Naomi comes downstairs for breakfast. He explains the premise of the lectures, and Naomi comments that the work is postmodern, referring to it “breaking down the distinction between reality and representation” and its “self-reference” (85). Peter is uncomfortable with the fictional form of the lectures and does not know how to respond. He tells Naomi that Elizabeth has strong points regarding the limitations of science and her Holocaust analogy. He interprets the analogy as an argument for the callousness of those who hold power in contemporary society. Naomi is reminded of Peter’s frequent comparisons between speciesism and racism, but Peter disagrees and clarifies that Elizabeth’s views are more radically egalitarian than his own. Naomi refers to Peter’s chapter title, “All Animals are Equal,” to suggest he is as egalitarian. He counters that he believes animals are entitled to consideration of their relative needs and that the ethics of killing an animal depends on its mental capacity. Using their dog, Max, as an example, Peter argues that since animals cannot consider their potential futures, it is more ethical to let an animal die than a human. Naomi questions if that is the distinction he sees between humans and animals, and he agrees. Naomi says Peter’s views are speciesist. Peter disagrees and suggests that killing an animal unexpectedly and painlessly is not immoral, and Naomi is distressed by his example of killing Max and getting a new puppy.

Naomi accuses Peter of relying too much on reason and not using emotion-based thinking. Peter defends himself, saying he uses both types of thinking patterns. He replaces Max with pigs for his analogy—“For each happy pig killed, a new one is bred, who will lead an equally happy life. So killing the pig does not reduce the total amount of porcine happiness in the world. What’s wrong with it?” (89). Naomi counters that it is wrong: Pigs are as smart as dogs, and Max looks forward to walks which demonstrates his ability to think in future terms. Peter sees this as an agreement to his initial argument that the ability to consider the future determines the level of corruption involved in killing. Naomi asks if Elizabeth agrees, and he says no; Elizabeth believes every animal is a full being. Peter criticizes Coetzee’s analogy that if one can imagine themselves as fictional characters, they can imagine themselves as animals; Peter argues that people imagine themselves or others they know in place of imagining purely fictional characters. Naomi suggests they are Elizabeth’s views and not Coetzee’s; they cannot know which side of the argument Coetzee is on. She then suggests Peter use the same methods of dialogue and argument in his response to the lectures.

Doniger defines the primary themes in Coetzee’s lectures as the community between humans and animals, compassion, and refusing to kill or eat animals. Elizabeth’s arguments against O’Hearne’s second point were too weak. Doniger cites a Vedic story in which a boy went to the afterworld and saw people being eaten; some were cut up, some were screaming, and some were silently screaming. The first represented people who cut and burned trees, the second were people who cooked animals, and the third were those who ate barley and rice. To avoid these violent fates in the afterlife, one must pay homage to the gods—a position introduced by Wunderlich during the dinner. Doniger shares another myth that depicts humans as having thick skin which then then swapped with cows, so cows could endure pests and inclement weather. In return, the humans could eat cows and use their skin for clothing. Doniger cites ancient Hindu legal texts which posit that sacrificial killing is beneficial rather than corrupt.

Doniger’s response is divided into five sections which build upon Elizabeth’s call for animal rights before ending with an epilogue. Doniger argues that people can have compassion for animals without eating them, and, vice versa, someone can kill without eating what they have killed. She demonstrates that many people are vegetarian to save their souls or because of a belief in reincarnation: “Do not kill an animal, for it might be your grandmother, or your grandchild, or you” (97). She extends Elizabeth’s desire for salvation to her claim that the West needs to “atone” for developing industrial animal processing. In a discussion of animals being “nonother,” Doniger points to religions that view eating animals as a type of cannibalism and those that view humans as an animal rather than viewing animals as humanlike. Doniger explores animal consciousness, praising Elizabeth’s response to Nagel’s essay on bat-being. She believes that Coetzee has successfully imagined himself as being other animals, such as Sultan the ape, which is why his writing feels believable. She feels the argument could have been extended to the displays of empathy animals show to one another, which suggests they feel compassion. On the topic of language, Doniger disagrees with Elizabeth and declares that animals do speak but humans do not listen. She feels that language barriers separate humans and animals but can be overcome. Doniger shares a personal experience in a brief epilogue: An animal activist she met once told her that the most ethical path would be to neuter all domestic animals so their populations would eventually die out, but Doniger does not agree with the concept and thinks people can “do better” for the animals with whom we share community. 

Smuts dissects O’Hearne’s claim that humans and animals cannot share community with one another. She questions why Elizabeth’s cats are only briefly alluded to by John and why they do not factor into Elizabeth’s discussions. Smuts takes Elizabeth’s advice and uses sympathy-based thinking. She shares her personal experience with nonhuman animals, including her time spent with gorillas, chimpanzees, and baboons. She studied such animals by observing them and translating her observations into scientific data. Her attention was divided between her observations and the physical demands of living alongside them, and she learned how to navigate the wilderness by relying on the animals she studied—“Thus I became (or, rather, regained my ancestral right to be) an animal, moving instinctively through a world that felt (because it was) my ancient home” (109). Smuts also learned to communicate with animals, and she describes her relationship with a troop of baboons which remembered her after years of separation. Her prior experience with various primates, such as an encounter with a gorilla named Pandora, helps Smuts relate to Elizabeth’s claims that animals are “full of being” (110).

After returning home, Smuts missed her nonhuman friends and adopted a dog, Safi. She developed a close bond with Safi, which developed into a nontraditional human-pet relationship. She did not train Safi, but rather treated her as an equal and developed communication styles that helped them to understand each other. Smuts does not suggest all dogs are capable of such intellect but uses Safi’s example to demonstrate that humans and animals can commune with one another. She ends her response with a call to action, asking readers “to befriend a nonhuman person” (120).