Roger Scruton, the George Will of England, offers up a lively book review essay of Why Animal Suffering Matters by Andrew Linzey.

Scruton agrees with Linzey that animal suffering is a significant ethical concern: “Linzey does not really tell us why animal suffering matters; nor does he need to – it matters because it is suffering.”

But Scruton points out that Linzey offers no ground for the moral question of animal suffering:

“For Linzey there are moral absolutes which cannot be qualified by calculation…But whence comes this absolute force? Linzey does not tell us. Like [Peter] Singer, he has no clear metaphysical position concerning the nature of human beings and the distinction between moral agents and others.”

Scruton thinks Linzey fails to live up to promise of answering the “why” of animal suffering. Furthermore, as Linzey pushes forward his concern for animals without having a metaphysical grounding, the practical outworking of his concerns become confusing and oppressive. Scruton writes:

“…when you keep a domestic ca, which is very likely to kill mice and birds…in both cases, a human is responsible for animal suffering. But it is another question whether this responsibility imputes any measure of moral guilt.”

Scruton concludes:

“He [Linzey] is right to want to protect animals from people. But people also need to be protected from people, not least from the prigs and puritans who dislike their way of life.”

Animal rights issues are a recurring topic of conversation in our modern life. Roger Scruton’s review brings clarity to the topic.