One of the best books on the subject... without the heir of condescension that many books on the topic have. Incredibly informative, compassionate, and full of stories and accounts...(sometimes overly-wordy or dramatic, but for the most part, beautifully written.)

"Let us just call things what they are. When a man's love of finery clouds his moral judgment, that is vanity. When he lets his demanding palate make his moral choices, that is gluttony. When he ascribes the divine will to his own whims, that is pride. And when he gets angry at being reminded of animal suffering that his own daily choices might help avoid, that is moral cowardice."

Who could sum it up more beautifully?

a wealth of information for humane treatment for any. A 4 for some good info and great resource. A 3 for how much I actually read. Too much to read carefully but great resource to refer back to. Great for conservatives who perhsps are resistant because of exttremisrs like peta. Balance and challenging and written By a moderate-conservative.

This book took me forever to read for two reasons: (1) I was afraid it would persuade me to change my life, and I'm afraid of that; (2) though superbly well-written line by line and paragraph by paragraph, it can be repetitive and could have been cut by at least a third. To expound on (2), there is a wonderful penultimate chapter ("Nature and Nature's God") that discusses the fundamental philosophical moral framework on which the author's argument hangs, but it goes on for about ten pages about Peter Singer and how wrong he is. I'm guessing that was done because Singer's Animal Liberation is such a big book in this area, but nowadays (2017) it seems dated. Anyway, back to (1), it's time for me to make some changes, starting with eating only meat that I know was not factory-farmed. Maybe I should become vegetarian; this book goes a long way toward making a case that "dominion" is no excuse for cruelty.

This book is brilliant but disturbing. It really makes you think about how we treat animals and what's really important. It makes a clear argument that it doesn't matter if they can think or talk, but that they can feel. They are sentient and using them as a means to an end is unacceptable.

Quotes:
"If we buy and eat factory-farmed meat, we are left without any rational reply. With every new proposal to curtail or abolish one or another form of cruelty, opponents may simply point to our modern farms and ask why we do not favor abolishing those, too. 'Leave us to our whale,” as the whalers say, “and we will leave you to your McDonald’s and pork chops.' They have a point. If you can have your favorite treats from the factory farm, why on earth can’t others have their whale meat, or others their 'racks' or ivory or fur coats or macaque brains or whatever? By what moral standard may we condemn any practice?"

"If we are defined by reason and morality, then reason and morality must define our choices, even where animals are concerned. When people say, for example, that they like their veal or hot dogs just too much to ever give them up, and yeah it’s sad about the farms but that’s just the way it is, reason hears in that the voice of gluttony. We can say that here what makes a human being human is precisely the ability to understand that the suffering of an animal is more important than the taste of a treat."

"The tame animal is in a sense the most natural of all, displaying qualities hidden within his or her own nature that only human kindness can elicit."

"Missing above all is love, which the theorists mistake for utility. Love for animals, like our own love for one another, comes in seeing the worth and beauty of others apart from us, in understanding that the creatures need not be our equals to be our humble brothers in suffering and sadness and the story of life."

Excellent book. Well researched.

Scully writes concisely and poignantly, and while his argument is more or less within a Judeo-Christian context (an angle I don't subscribe to), I still find common ground and can appreciate and respect this approach, especially since, as an advocate/believer of animal rights, I must be familiar with this type of thinking, especially when you hear "God put animals here for us to eat" from certain people, and that mode of thinking operates their morality. It's helpful to be familiar with that mindset, and to have a book you can recommend to that kind of person. His political chops (former speech writer for George W. Bush, Dan Quayle, and Dick Cheney) further acts as a contrasting appeal.

This is… very Christian. If you want to see an argument for veganism that has a Christian interpretation, here it is. I myself found it a bit uncomfortable because of that and I don’t think I would recommend this to anyone who comes to me interested in veganism, primarily because of the strong Christian bent. It could put off some people who aren’t interested in Christianity or are uncomfortable with it and I wouldn’t want to do that. However, if you or someone you are recommending books to is interested in Christian philosophy being applied to animal rights and veganism I actually would recommend this book. It’s not bad, but it is a bit restricted in just how many people it could reach. That being said, Christianity is probably the largest religion in the world at this moment, so it’s not like there isn’t an audience for it. I just didn’t quite anticipate how focused it was on that philosophy, and a lot of my friends are either non religious or of other faiths, myself included.

An account of animals from a religious more than a philosophical perspective, Scully, like Foer, struggles in the abstract and theoretical, but shines when the narrative breaks down into the simplicity of stories. Scully's stories are made all the more fascinating by his perspective and position as a Republican thinker and former speech writer to Bush jr. No way to say if his politics helped him get close to Schwarzkopf and Bush at a Safari Club gathering, obtain personal tours of factory farm operations in North Carolina, and get candid interviews at the International Whaling Commission, but one has to suspect it did not hurt. His interview subjects seem less guarded, and the result seems to be several steps before the polished rhetoric of known combatants that dominate similar efforts. The Christian foundation of Scully's views may be a turn off to some, but seems to be a calculated effort to address his audience, who is more right (or even centrist) than what I take to be the normal audience of animal welfare and rights writings.

After spending the past few weeks reading theory on animal rights and our moral obligations (or lack thereof) I thought I was immune to pretty much anything any activist could throw at me. Yet, here is a conservative Christian who has managed to create a compelling work that a) neatly sums up most of what I've read on the subject and b) proposes reasons for mercy and morality towards animals that is less abrasive than Singer and more, well, realistic than most.

This book kind of snuck up on me, affecting me in ways I didn't anticipate. It was profoundly disturbing, despite its civility (or perhaps because of). I had a hard time finishing my dinner, feeling incredibly guilty about the origins of my meal. Several times I actually set the book down and walked away, unable to deal with the cruelty of humans. Walking through the grocery store this evening, I felt the full impact of this book in the guilt I experienced even glancing at the packaged meat. Never before have I seriously even considered going vegetarian; now freeganism (or some variation) seems more appealing today than it ever has.

"Kindness to animals is not our most important duty as human beings, nor is it our least important. How we treat our fellow creatures is only one more way in which each of us, every day, writes our own epitaph--bearing into the world a message of light and life or just more darkness and death, adding to the world's joy or to its despair."

This quote, which is found on the last page, pretty much sums up, in my opinion, what the book is about. Michael Scully writes about the cruel treatment of animals, from Safari Club International's viewpoint that their trophy hunts are a form of conservation to the factory farms that hold the animals we consume in inhumane environments. Scully writes how, rather than see animals as living creatures who feel pain, they are seen as a commodity. Scully argues for having mercy on these creatures; that cows, pigs, whales, and other creatures need our kindness rather than apathy or outright vicious treatment.

The author writes vividly, which makes this a difficult read. One can't help but feel the same outrage that Scully feels when he describes wildlife ranches that breed animals soley for hunters to "harvest" trophies or pigs that are kept in metal pens, never once feeling the soil or seeing the sun. I must admit, I often found myself unable to eat anything meat related while reading this book. Even now, I'm more likely to have a vegetarian meal when I recall passages from the book.

As uncomfortable as it might be to read this book, it is only write that if one decides that they want to continue eating meat or hunting animals, that they be made full aware of the cost of their appetites, our appetites. Scully makes a convincing point; man's dominion over animals doesn't mean wanton use of these creatures however we deem. Dominion is being a steward, one who protects and is responsible of even the smallest sparrow.

Excerpt/something to consider:

"Philosophically, one can look at it this way. Broadly speaking, for as long as people have engaged in moral thought, mankind has acted upon two fundamental beliefs: (a) It is morally permissible to raise and slaughter animals for our own consumption--a material good--because doing so is necessary for our survival and well-being--a moral good. But this very claim of moral sanction attested to the belief that there was a sacrifice involved and that (b) even in livestock production we do have at least certain minimal obligations of kindness to animals--a moral good.

Whether these are direct or indirect obligations is for the moment irrelevant to the fact that they exist, that they require certain restraints on our part, and that before the age of industrial farming one could act upon both (a) and (b) at the same time. And the problem is just this simple. The moral component of (a) is gone. We have no valid claims of need anymore, only our claim to the material good of fare to which we are accustomed. Meanwhile, in a global, high-tech economy of six billion consumers--perhaps nine or ten billion by the year 2100--livestock animals simply cannot be raised under humane conditions. We are left, then, with exactly one material good and one moral good, our pleasure weighed against our duty of compassion. And these can no longer coexist. One or the other must be abandoned.

Among those who have noticed this shift in the scales is environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who writes of how, 'like other Americans, I've reconciled myself to the idea that an animal's life has been sacrificed to bring me a meal of pork or chicken. However, industrial meat production--which subjects animals to a life of torture--has escalated the karmic costs beyond reconciliation.' Mr. Kennedy, who is leading a campaign against Smithfield for environmental negligence, buys only meat raised from small farms that 'treat their animals with dignity and respect.'

I think that is a decent compromise, and it is good to hear such a prominent voice taking the side of animals. How rare to hear anyone today speak of the 'dignity' of these creatures. But this middle ground is vanishing with our small farms. More and more, consumers are left with a choice between two radical alternatives. The way I figure it, we can be radically kind or we can be radically cruel.

I know, of course, that we vegetarians are still considered an eccentric minority. It is always hard to raise the subject without feeling a little awkward, the skunk at every party and barbecue. Frankly I have felt a little uneasy just writing about the matter, forcing unpleasant details upon the reader, a task that can be mean and spiteful if done in the wrong spirit. As harsh as the process of industrial farming may be, the motive, after all, is not cruelty. It's not as if anyone wants the creatures to suffer. We would all wish it otherwise. And in a way the standard vegetarian argument that the average person eats meat, and yet could not bear to see how it was produced, actually speaks well of the average person. Imagine a world in which most people enjoyed hearing and seeing the details.

I think this is why even the most impassioned vegetarian arguments often miss the mark: Because we tend to judge ourselves by motive and intention rather than by means and result. We vegetarians, in our defense, are at least prepared to look at actual consequences and inconvenient realities, understanding that he who wills the end wills also the means. At least we have confronted the seriousness of the matter, thought about it, made a conscious and deliberate choice, and how many people can actually pinpoint some moment in their lives when they decided to eat meat? From the first bits of flesh placed on the tray of our high chairs, most people go through life never once questioning that this is natural and necessary, the way things are and must ever be. Everyone does it, so it must be right.

Here's a good question to ask yourself: Would you give up meat if you were persuaded that factory farming was cruel and unethical? Hypothetically, in other words, how difficult and inconvenient would it be to act upon your own moral concerns? Or indeed how socially embarrassing would it be, how troublesome to have to make a choice and explain and stay with it? The next question would be whether it is, in fact, the absence of moral concern that prevents the change, or the prospect of the difficulties and inconvenience.

Likewise, if you must have meat, regarding it as a right and necessary thing while viewing factory farming as a bad and unnecessary thing, do you, like Mr. Kennedy, act on that distinction by buying only meats raised by humane standards? And if not, why not? Why is industrial farming wrong by your own standards, yet not a serious enough wrong to warrant a change in your own daily choices? Think of the effect that this decision alone would have on modern agriculture, more millions of consumers making that one little effort every day to spare the creatures from needless misery."