This was a fascinating look at how we treat animals. It really gave me a lot to think about. I recommend it.

This book was so emotional and at times disturbing because of what is happening to the ecosystem and animals on a global scale. This is one of the other reasons I became vegan. This is well written and a very current issue that effects the whole planet. A very much recommended read.

Thanks to Netgalley, Martha C Nussbaum and SImon & Schuster for an advanced copy in exchange for an honest review.

This book is an excellent philosophical discussion about the treatment of non-human animals by humans. Nussbaum's scholarly work digs into the centuries long belief that animals can be treated like automata, and how this belief has informed history, culture, and policy. Thought-provoking and timely.

As a life long vegan and advocate for all animals I was dismayed to find out this author does not practice veganism and looks upon animals as property to be exploited. I was disappointed in her heartless beliefs and found myself unable to finish the book. Her beliefs about animals are not for the betterment of animals . Its distressing that during this time where we know the horiffic damages of factory farming to millions of animals that the author is not better educated in advocacy. If your looking for a book that is in line with your beliefs of animal advocacy this is not the author for you.

It’s hard to believe that a book titled Justice for Animals: Our Collective Responsibility would be written by an author who does not adamantly support – nay actively rebuffs – veganism, but here we are. So let’s get into it. Martha C. Nussbaum is a philosopher whose repertoire includes titles like From Disgust to Humanity: Sexual Orientation and Constitutional Law and Cultivating Humanity: A Classical Defense of Reform in Liberal Education. Nussbaum purports her political philosophy to be that of “liberal revisionism”. In other words, and as evidenced by Justice for Animals, Nussbaum noticeably shies away from revolutionary action in favor of a watered down, non-confrontational approach to animal justice.

Nussbaum argues for a new theoretical approach to animal justice, one which emphasizes the need for animals to live fulfilling lives. At its core, the theory not only suggests that animals have a right to exist, but also that they have a fundamental right to function and generate valuable outcomes. For example, a well-cared for ape at the zoo may, by many standards, live a fine life. However, confinement itself is a condition which prevents the ape from living a fulfilling life; one in which they have apparent freedom. Nussbaum’s intent is clear. However, Justice for Animals is weakened by contradictions and a failure to truly support revolutionary thought.

Like other liberal thinkers, as opposed to leftists, Nussbaum only supports animal rights on the condition that new policies, thought practice, and cultural shifts do not interfere with the status quo of the bourgeois. In one revealing passage, Nussbaum argues in favor of medical insurance for companion animals. But what about universal healthcare? Wouldn’t a truly revolutionary change be not only the introduction of universal healthcare to all humans, but also to nonhuman animals? In this way, Nussbaum emphasizes her desire to operate within fundamentally racist, classist, colonial power structures, rather than advocate for a new, equitable way of life for all. Yet, the greatest flaw of this work is Nussbaum’s views of veganism.

Nussbaum is not a vegan. Nussbaum is not a vegetarian. In fact, Justice for Animals contains a few sweeping generalizations about veganism that make it clear Nussbaum fundamentally lacks an understanding of veganism or the many different practices, beliefs, and subcultures among the vegan community. This dismissal of veganism is tinged with a tone that most vegans will recognize: one of a person who knows that their morality and eating are incongruent. Nussbaum’s sections on veganism are noticeably vague and brief. In one passage Nussbaum admits that, though she believes eating fish may be morally wrong, she does so for protein, as her stomach cannot handle beans or lentils. Similarly, she eats yogurt for calcium. It is fascinating to me that someone capable of developing an entire philosophical theory on animal justice simultaneously believes that plant-based protein only comes from beans and lentils; that calcium only comes from cow’s milk. Nussbaum’s lazy criticisms of veganism have already been debunked ad nauseum and, frankly, aren’t worth engaging with.

As someone who has not previously read Nussbaum’s work, I was excited to dive into this text. My excitement quickly dissipated. Despite a few truly fascinating asides, such as Nussbuam’s take on the concept of “the wild” in Romantic literature, Justice for Animals is overshadowed by Nussbaum’s painfully liberal belief that political establishments act in good faith. Then again, Nussbaum also believes that cow’s milk is good for you.