Peter Singer does not support the Zeitgeist Movement and he never would. Why wouldn't he? Well, here is something the shit-for-brains leader of the movement, Peter Joseph, said in a lecture he gave on November 15th, 2009: "Morality is an empty idea that has no empirical referent." They are a cult that preach technocratic salvation.
I think that's an unfair comment about Peter. What he says about morality is that it can have many definitions. I know he values morality, but his comment is to point out that, this word is completely dependent on interpretation.
Example: I say "I'm a moral person." This can mean many things to many people. Often they can be diametrically opposed depending on what two people you compare.
TZM, and myself are in advocation of elevating all people's lives.
"Morality is an empty idea that has no empirical referent."
How is saying this valuing morality? It certainly doesn't leave room for the idea that it has many definitions.
Just because people can have opposing views on a subject doesn't mean that the subject itself is 'empty' or that there are no right and wrong answers. NB. That this runs parallel with the rest of the movement's agenda. Eg. Politics? People have opposing views. Let's do away with it completely. This is irresponsible.
Alfred Hitchcock cameo at 6:59!!!
robleng 3 months ago
I love how he can just walk around NY and no one realizes how AWESOME this guy is.
robleng 3 months ago
I am a bit curious. When does a person's moral obligation become a broader social obligation?
aphonseya1 10 months ago
thank you for this.
diogotomediogo 1 year ago
Excellent video, Peter Singer is great.
Thanks for uploading this!
danielfact 1 year ago 5
Peter Singer does not support the Zeitgeist Movement and he never would. Why wouldn't he? Well, here is something the shit-for-brains leader of the movement, Peter Joseph, said in a lecture he gave on November 15th, 2009: "Morality is an empty idea that has no empirical referent." They are a cult that preach technocratic salvation.
Jason011987 2 years ago
I think that's an unfair comment about Peter. What he says about morality is that it can have many definitions. I know he values morality, but his comment is to point out that, this word is completely dependent on interpretation.
Example: I say "I'm a moral person." This can mean many things to many people. Often they can be diametrically opposed depending on what two people you compare.
TZM, and myself are in advocation of elevating all people's lives.
And I thank you for your comment.
paradigm667 2 years ago
"Morality is an empty idea that has no empirical referent."
How is saying this valuing morality? It certainly doesn't leave room for the idea that it has many definitions.
Just because people can have opposing views on a subject doesn't mean that the subject itself is 'empty' or that there are no right and wrong answers. NB. That this runs parallel with the rest of the movement's agenda. Eg. Politics? People have opposing views. Let's do away with it completely. This is irresponsible.
Jason011987 2 years ago
I think you need some assistance. Here's another example of why "morality" has no empirical referent:
"We ought to raise kids with good values."
I think if you asked each individual person in the world if they support this statement, they would say YES.
But when everyone has different definitions, and one's definition AFFECTS other people in negative ways, it is time to address this.
Peter's point, is that since morality is RELATIVE, we need to come to agree on it AS A SPECIES.
paradigm667 2 years ago 2
Very interesting, thanks for putting this up and posting it on 30BaD. ^^
UniversalTruths 2 years ago