I am calling on all animal rights supporters to please tweet
"#AnimalsJustWantFreedomSoGoVegetarian" on the coming weekend of February 11th & 12th. Please share this news and tweet it as much as you can on the weekend. It would be brilliant if we got it trending :) thanks.
By the way, if he were a logic machine, he would spread his seed across the world and horde his money to help that seed spread further.. Singer don't....
I may not agree with him on all points, but I think it's foolish to reject him because he "supports infanticide." What he supports is mercy killing. If at any point you become hideously burned and you live in constant agony, wouldn't you want the option to off yourself? Since we could logically foresee a horrible life for the baby (its probability more weighty than the baby growing up and living a normal life), it's better to end it's life in a humane manner.
I disagree with most of Singer's ideas. But the thing is - he is one of those philosophers that I still respect very much. His views are self consistent, brought up in a civilized manner and he is open to critizism. He is a true gentleman.
William Crawley is a idiot. He sits there with Peter Singer and doesnt have better questions than " How much should a person give from his salery in order to be decent?" He tries to make singer look like a selfish moralizer.
PART 3 - As far as I can see in Singer's writings, has nowhere, in a philosophical adequate manner, drawn a hard and fast distinction between humans and other animals, such that would impose upon us the moral obligation to respect animals to this degree.
the point is, that this moral obligation is not "imposed upon us", but should - and I think, does with every sane human being - occur from your own mind. it is simply a matter of having the ability to identify with other beings and being able to sense their feelings (e.g. of pain). To your second point: For Singer, it's a huge difference whether you find yourself in a struggle for survival or having choices what to eat - we are cable of avoiding unnessary pain. I
@lourak Yes he does. When people criticize him for this his response is telling the objector that they are confusing moral agents and moral patients. Obviously you need a certain cognitive capacity to discern ethical laws and practices (moral agent), but not having that capacity doesn't make you a non-recipient of moral concern (moral patient). It's the same reason why we give ethical consideration to infants and the severely disabled even though they don't return the favor.
PART 2 - (2) His argument for animal rights which holds that humans have no right to exploit animals for selfish aims, is also poorly formulated. From a purely naturalistic word view, by virtue of what philosophical position does Singer derive this notion? In the animal world (of which we are a part), killing across species is more the rule than the exception.
@lourak lol at "Peter Singer" and "poorly formulated [argument]". Peter Singer=pretty much the most logical man alive. Everything he says/writes is thought out to a crazy degree. Even if Singer's arguments have aspects that may be slightly debatable, there is no way you could defend urself saying that any argument of his is 'poorly formulated'. Particularly when ur own 'Part 3' doesn't actually make sense. Then again it's 3am in my home country so perhaps I'm misreading it. Read Practical Ethics
@blueimposter I certainly don't mind chatting with you about this but I need something substantive and relative to my comment if you'd like me to respond. Thanks!
@slowerthanjordans seriously dude, he is nothing like hitler. He doesnt even tell people to kill their babies, he says they can have the "choice" to. That doesnt sound very evil to me? If people think they cant cope with looking after a disabled child. Then surely it is better for both lives if the baby is not allowed to continue.
And the reason you can save animals and not humans is because animals can be people too. and not all humans are people. Rights should be for people no humans.
PART 1 - Just 2 decisive errors in Singer's reasoning: 1) Singer presumes that in merely bringing into question the issue of personhood (what is a person?), he thereby bolsters the argument in favor of infanticide. The logical conclusion, in the face of this uncertainty, should be to err on the side of affirming personhood for the ill and infirm. - this should be the default position, and we should seek to enhance supports, in our society, for those who would care for the unwanted.
Speciesm IS natural... All species are speciests in other to survive, even herbivores are agressive to other species... Ofcourse that in other to keep our civilization running, we should limit natural selection as much as possible, and help the week when nessesary in other to shape our society... but say "abolish" speciesm.. thats ridiculous.. We'r part of the nature, we'r not outside of it... deal with it..
whether or not specieism is natural is just irrelevent. & peter singer does not make the bold claim that we should "abolish" specieism altogether. but rather, that we just NOT torture animals who are capable of feeling pain and who suffer...
XxxNuMbxxX0301, plainly a misunderstanding of the definition "rational." a rocket scientist can be just as irrational as a lunatic or criminal. intelligence has little to do with whether one acts rationally or not.
the una-bomber was quite intelligent, a prestigious university professor and yet most would call his actions irrational.
you're using rational in a different way than singer. He uses rational to mean able to use reason (even poor reason) while you're using rational to mean able to use reason guided by proper logic.
I'm sorry, but he completely discredited himself when he said that chimpanzees are more rational than human beings. Has a chimpanzee ever put a satellite into space, or any other similar accomplishment?
No, because a chimpanzee is incapable of even conceiving of an airplane, let alone build one and fly it into a building.
And I detected the implication that you are attempting to convey (that chimpanzees are somehow more peaceful and disinclined to violence than humans). In fact, chimps are notoriously territiorial and aggressive in the wild.
You are cherry picking his words and taking his quote out of context.
He says that chimps are more rational than children born with disabilities (such as "WITHOUT A BRAIN"). Watch the last two minutes of the first part of this interview.
Chimps are "are far more self aware, rational and capable of emotionally connecting to beings" than disabled children.
So Singer is asking: why should a brain-dead child with no possible future be considered more sacred than a fully functioning chimp?
In this context, severely disabled babies who may or may not live very long and are surely going to endure a great deal of pain and suffering, he's talking about OUT of the womb. 28 days AFTER birth. This is why they're saying infanticide. That being said, doctors routinely allow babies like this (open spine and other complications, etc.) to die of their own, Singer just believes the family should be able to painlessly end their suffering if they choose.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Peter Singer is not the authority on this issues. He is saying things on what he thinks is right. We need to go to someone who has the authority on this issue. And that is the BIBLE!
He keeps on saying "I think or i guess" and people believe him.
you said the bible is the authority we should all live by...if you believe that you clealry would never agree with a philosopher who questions life and doesnt blindly follow others.
my god, you all are defending him because he teaches at princeton. It doesn't matter that he sees nothing wrong with BESTIALITY, NECROPHILIA and INFANTICIDE..now I know how hitler murdered 6 million jews.
he explicitly stated in the previous section that he did not think he had any particular right or ability to define what a valuable life is. furthermore, his argument doesn't rely upon any definition of 'LIFE', but upon the recognition that life per se is not something to be preserved at all costs, in the face of hideous suffering. you don't have to agree with him, but try and formulate a coherent criticism before yelling 'MORON'. it doesn't reflect well on your intelligence.
Let's grant your God exists: it seems that She has the authority to to define, by decree, what life is.
If I were to create a God in my image, I would create one that has the Knowledge to discern the facts: "Might makes right" may signal an SOB tyrant!
Given the above two choices, the moron Peter Singer would be much closer to the God I said that I would create: I don't fear him and he does not impose on me by threatening me; his most lethal weapon is reason. I love my God; he is a moron
"Look more toward ourselves and our families more than we really should" Who is anyone to tell anyone else how much he should spend on himself, or how much he is going to spend on his family? I respect his points and they all sound logical, but I feel on this he is off
He's a philosopher, not a judicator. He's not telling anyone how to live their life, merely informing others on -how- to live it with complete and unbiased morality in his eyes. Everything falls upon the personal philosophy of the individual.
have to say that eventhough i don't agree with Singer, i respect his views... if you look at it from a objective side, it all sounds so logical... in my eyes this man is amazing...
I'm an Australian and have seen this guy many times on TV. He says things SO much worse than this. On a panel show with people from the left and right he was the laughed at by all. When he's debated he shows his true horrors; he doesn't stop at infanticide! Study history, Singer shares the values that Hitler promoted, no matter how 'sound' his 'logic' may appear. Why is he for the killing of infants but against the killing of animals. is SAVE THE INFANTS a twisted world view?
Are you experiencing difficulty grasping the difference between logic and morality? If not, shut up about Hitler. Seriously. Possessing a strong moral compass has very little to do with logic. The two are not mutually dependent.
Your question is easily answered through observation alone. When was any animal species a real threat to the welfare of this planet? Where are animals dying of overpopulation because they just can't seem to stop fucking? Please, enlighten me.
@Trumpetz81 sound logic? where's his proof for acting morally in the first place? I like the guy, he seems honest enough. But his Practical Ethics is a bit wishy washy
@SvenWolfbane12 I never made any assertion that it's correct. All I said is that a little a utilization of logic can allow a person to easily arrive at the conclusion that Singer is objectively more moral than most of those howling in opposition to his views.
I like that Singer is honest about how much he actually spends on himself and his own moral shortcomings. People can be critical of him, but he's not a religious figure claiming to be a pope or saint. Now, when we find inconsistencies in religious figured, such as Ted Hagard, this is a different story as they claim much more righteousness than Peter Singer does as a philosopher.
i agree with him. on ALL issues, actually. that guy's just too fucking smart to the people of the world in this century. maybe in a couple of hundred years, people will pick up his ideas and say that it is a brilliant idea - and then it will be put to life. (of course, if there is a world at all, in 200 years.)
yes. i totally agree with everything you say. that peter singer is just "born before his time", to put it that way. he is a genius. people just aren't ready for his brilliance yet. you know, most people are primitive and conservative people. they stick with what their ancestors used to mean and say and do - for a very long time.
until a man like peter singer shows up and gives us a glimpse into what will be a part of our future - if, of course, there still is an earth and the homo sapiens sapiens still exist.
Hitler practiced eugenics! Hitler was pro-animal welfare and pro-infanticide. Hitler was a vegetarian. Hitler encouraged the euthanasia of the disabled. OMG Osama has nothing on this guy.
@Kiefer89 how do you know in 200 years you would not be deemed to die?
Who draws the line? He may be saying that up to 28 days the baby can be killed of or up to a year or what about up to 2 years? Where do you draw the line? Does the government decide? what if somebody like Hilter comes to power?
Did you know that the nazis said same things about themselves?
If society doesn't accept someone's ideas it doesn't mean that he's a genius (although it could be the case) but it could mean that he's a total lunatic or fanatic.
Still, I don't claim that he's not intelligent - he is indeed.
@chaboki92 I agree - it is as cheap as saying that someone is extremely smart because his ideas aren't widely recognized. The only fact why I mentioned nazis is to show that not being understood by others doesn't mean that someone is a genius. It could but it doesn't have to. In fact such statements are quasi-religious and are of no substantial and logical value.
perhaps i'm not reading into this well, he seems to value animals quality of lives, but not pre language infants. doesnt it seem like many animals he defends are as lacking in self awareness as the pre language infant?
Singer's overarching point in this regard is that there is not a good measure of discrimination between non-human animals and infants. He is not calling for a genocide of all mentally deficient individuals, so much as he is advocating animal rights.
Yeah, you're slightly mistaken. The reason he's willing to have the pre-self-awareness infant euthanized is the same reason he's willing to have nonhuman animals killed painlessly.
With nonhuman animals, he's opposed to the suffering we cause them (which is horrible, like keeping hundreds of millions of hens in cages so small that they have their sensitive beaks sliced off with hot blades to prevent them from pecking each other to death under the stress, etc.)
Peter Singer's views are entirely consistent with how he handled his mother's situation. He does not say all beings who are non-self-aware ought to be killed, he argues those responsible for these beings should be allowed the option of ending their lives. Singer also suggests a cut-off time of 28 days for this option to be permissible--to avoid a growing attachment to the non-self-aware being. His mother's was certainly older than 28 days, so the attachment was already there.
Serfdom, how can you say Singer is consistent with his views in the situation with his mother? The criticism is about him not giving the money away that he spent on keeping his mother alive. This money could have done a lot more good somewhere else. Not to mention he says he pleads guilt to those criticisms at 3:15.
There were numerous criticisms. The one you raise stems from the first. Even so, the justification for spending that money on his mother is, even though she's no longer self-aware, she once was. And during this time she created numerous emotional attachments to numerous persons. She then differs from a being to whom persons have no previous attachments (a handicapped new-born)
I agree that the mother has formed bonds or emotional attachments with people. This is not what I am arguing. I am talking about the utility of the money spent to keep her alive. You cannot justify spending the money on her if you are a utilitarian, because the maximum good or happiness is not being produced. Also, as I said in my last post, Singer pleads guilty. So, you have to argue with Singer and tell him he should not have admitted his faults.
I'm an utilitarist, still I must say that Singer himself commented upon how classic utilitarism could permit the pain of one slave being weighed out by ten happy rich people, indeed... though Singer answers that this would be unmoral, as this would classify people; and all people have the same rights. SInger is preference utalitarist, which means e.g. that not one preference (as strong as the will to live) may be sacrificed for the good of others.
No, preference utilitarianism is the branch of utilitarianism which defines happiness as the satisfaction of preferences. Singer would have meant that classify people leads to situations in which individuals are not treated as they should be.
Yes. Like killing Hitler. Don't you think utilitarianism would INSIST on it?? Hitler wouldn't be very happy though, would he?... you can't maximise EVERYBODY's happiness at the same time... It's the sum total you're interested in.. Anyway that's if you're a utilitarian. Which as I said in the first place, I don't really think he is...Anyway this thread is getting very old and slightly repetitive now.. :/
No, a utilitarian would not insist on killing hitler, there's no reason to kill him. Perhaps imprison him and his followers so they can not do harm to anyone else, but there's never a utilitarian reason to kill someone, really. There may be practical reasons it's not morally culpable, but probably not ethically correct.
Actually, not, benjy. This "utilitarianism promotes slavery!" comes from a misunderstanding of preferential utilitarianism (which first tries to alleviate suffering and then addresses increasing happiness, generally... which removes slavery as a good possibility) and a general lack of empathy by overestimating how much happiness "slave owners" would gain versus the suffering of being a slave.
I don't see Singer as a utilitarian. Doesn't utilitarianism famously permit slavery? In his critique of factory farming he asserts (-as I remember-) that it is ethically comparable to slavery, & therefore totally unacceptable..You undermine his work by trying to make this a lofty academic debate. People like Singer and Richard Dawkins do credit to humanity by being inclusive & talking to the people, not just bandying "isms" around for academics to show off with.. Still I'm glad you're watching.
he's actually a consequentialist to be more precise... maybe you should read his literature before you knock off a controversial yet intelligent philosopher.
Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism. To say that Peter Singer is a consequentialist is less precise than saying he is a utilitarian. If you wish to be even more precise, Peter Singer is a preference utilitarianist.
ya, thats actually true. Utilitarianism deals with maximizing happiness and part of the broader theory of Consequentialism. He stresses his stronger argument (not sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance) in his writing a lot more than he does in this interview. In fact, I'd say he lives by his weaker version.
(1st post of 4) He gets himself in trouble with the family and friends thing: he accepts that it's "normal and natural and not something we should reject" that people show favoritism towards family and friends and help them most. However "there is a stronger obligation to be impartial" Well where do we draw the line?
How much favoritism is justified towards family and friends? And just how many of the people in our lives can be considered "friends" and are thus allegeable for a disproportionately large amount of help from us? It seems that wherever he draws the line here will be arbitrary. This is also something that would be massively difficult for a government to practically enforce. (When you fill out your tax forms you choose ten tax deductible helper friends?)
The fact that he hypocritically acted against his own philosophy does not give us reason to reject his views -it does however draw attention to the unrealistic nature of "Singer's demands." If the man himself ignores the views that doesn't bode well for enforcing them in general society.
Theoretically, from a utilitarian point of view favoritism could be justified because it could be argued that the erosion of familial bonds on a worldwide scale is something worth avoiding at even a very large cost. But again it's difficult to know where to draw the line in an attempt to balance egalitarianism with nurturing familial bonds. What's the formula here for the greatest happiness?
Thats crap that all other animals are equal to us. Fact is, humans are superior to other animals, thats how we climbed to the top of the food chain and got into a position where we can control other animals. Of course I'm against cruelty to animals but humans are superior, more intelligent and intelligent enough to warrant the existence of philosophy and therefore philosophers such as Peter Singer.
So should we exploit other humans who are consider inferiour to us like infants or others who are mentally handicapped? Cruelty is cruelty, suffering is suffering regardless of species.
Wow, vertigoct, you're in waaaay over your head. He doesn't think animals are equal to us. In fact, humyns aren't equal to other humyns. He DOES think animals are equal to humyns in the sense that they both have the interest in not suffering. Like interests = like rights. Also, you conveniently leave out the mentally challeneged and infants. Both aren't intelligent (at least in the sense that you speak of).
The fact that you are against cruelty to animals is a contradiction in itself. Either humyns have duties to animals or they don't. There's no in between. Humyns aren't superior to animals, they're simply anthropocentric. There's no reason to believe humyns are superior. If you disagree I would love to hear your argument.
Superior? According to who or what? A bear has superior strength. A shark is a superior swimer. A panda may be a superior mother. Humans in intelligence? Sure, but that's biased. Intelligence isn't the only measure of 'good'.
It's not about "good" it's about capacity to suffer. Strength and swimming ability in no way affect your capacity for suffering. In several ways intelligence does. For example by killing a human you subvert that human's goals for the future which is a cruelty in itself.
More intelligent species like primates also have more complex social networks and stronger emotional bonds, so killing one of these animals will cause more suffering for the family than if you kill, say, a fish. For these reasons Peter Singer accepts that killing a human is normally more wrong than killing say a cow. HOWEVER killing a cow is still wrong and depricing a human of their favourite food is less cruel than making a cow suffer and die for said meal.
Awkward silence 00:09-00:12
livingdeadgrl18 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I am calling on all animal rights supporters to please tweet
"#AnimalsJustWantFreedomSoGoVegetarian" on the coming weekend of February 11th & 12th. Please share this news and tweet it as much as you can on the weekend. It would be brilliant if we got it trending :) thanks.
AntiSpeciesistWorld 4 weeks ago
Anyone see Terry Pratchett 'choosing to die'. Highly recommended! (Its on youtube)
robertedge 1 month ago
@robertedge I saw it! It was very informative and interesting.
livingdeadgrl18 2 weeks ago
His logic is valid but his premises are wrong, he is a logic machine tho
smartspick 3 months ago
@smartspick Would you like to expand on that?
By the way, if he were a logic machine, he would spread his seed across the world and horde his money to help that seed spread further.. Singer don't....
fjoo 2 months ago in playlist Flere videoer fra kaods1960
He is soooo controversial. Yikes I would be scared to walk outside.
LLL417 4 months ago
I may not agree with him on all points, but I think it's foolish to reject him because he "supports infanticide." What he supports is mercy killing. If at any point you become hideously burned and you live in constant agony, wouldn't you want the option to off yourself? Since we could logically foresee a horrible life for the baby (its probability more weighty than the baby growing up and living a normal life), it's better to end it's life in a humane manner.
ChoujiMan 5 months ago
I disagree with most of Singer's ideas. But the thing is - he is one of those philosophers that I still respect very much. His views are self consistent, brought up in a civilized manner and he is open to critizism. He is a true gentleman.
EsWe1990 8 months ago
A very good reason to give money to charity is it makes you feel good.
RPFS2008 9 months ago
He is a quite brave man!
saintdracula1 1 year ago 3
We want Peter Singer as the next Prime Minister of Norway!!
TobiasQuintavalle 1 year ago
William Crawley is a idiot. He sits there with Peter Singer and doesnt have better questions than " How much should a person give from his salery in order to be decent?" He tries to make singer look like a selfish moralizer.
NEUHEITEN100 1 year ago
Whats the word he says at 1:28, the condition of having a brainstem but not a brain?
ismaithliombainne 1 year ago
@ismaithliombainne It sounds like he said enceply
20PantherGirl10 1 year ago
@ismaithliombainne "Anencephaly"
NEUHEITEN100 1 year ago
The problem is not that his facts are wrong or that he lacks his knowledge of the issue.... the problem is that he's demented!
retownsend 1 year ago
William Crawley did a good job, I think he acted great
diogotomediogo 1 year ago
PART 3 - As far as I can see in Singer's writings, has nowhere, in a philosophical adequate manner, drawn a hard and fast distinction between humans and other animals, such that would impose upon us the moral obligation to respect animals to this degree.
lourak 1 year ago
@lourak
the point is, that this moral obligation is not "imposed upon us", but should - and I think, does with every sane human being - occur from your own mind. it is simply a matter of having the ability to identify with other beings and being able to sense their feelings (e.g. of pain). To your second point: For Singer, it's a huge difference whether you find yourself in a struggle for survival or having choices what to eat - we are cable of avoiding unnessary pain. I
lorenzarthur91 1 year ago
@lourak Yes he does. When people criticize him for this his response is telling the objector that they are confusing moral agents and moral patients. Obviously you need a certain cognitive capacity to discern ethical laws and practices (moral agent), but not having that capacity doesn't make you a non-recipient of moral concern (moral patient). It's the same reason why we give ethical consideration to infants and the severely disabled even though they don't return the favor.
6678 1 year ago
PART 2 - (2) His argument for animal rights which holds that humans have no right to exploit animals for selfish aims, is also poorly formulated. From a purely naturalistic word view, by virtue of what philosophical position does Singer derive this notion? In the animal world (of which we are a part), killing across species is more the rule than the exception.
lourak 1 year ago
@lourak Have you read 'Animal Liberation'? He addresses this in the first chapter.
6678 1 year ago
@lourak lol at "Peter Singer" and "poorly formulated [argument]". Peter Singer=pretty much the most logical man alive. Everything he says/writes is thought out to a crazy degree. Even if Singer's arguments have aspects that may be slightly debatable, there is no way you could defend urself saying that any argument of his is 'poorly formulated'. Particularly when ur own 'Part 3' doesn't actually make sense. Then again it's 3am in my home country so perhaps I'm misreading it. Read Practical Ethics
blueimposter 1 year ago
@blueimposter I certainly don't mind chatting with you about this but I need something substantive and relative to my comment if you'd like me to respond. Thanks!
lourak 1 year ago
@blueimposter
Hitler used logic, statistics and presented himself eloquently with sounds arguments which inspired millions. Is Singer serious?
slowerthanjordans 1 year ago
@slowerthanjordans seriously dude, he is nothing like hitler. He doesnt even tell people to kill their babies, he says they can have the "choice" to. That doesnt sound very evil to me? If people think they cant cope with looking after a disabled child. Then surely it is better for both lives if the baby is not allowed to continue.
And the reason you can save animals and not humans is because animals can be people too. and not all humans are people. Rights should be for people no humans.
TheEdwardAlston 1 year ago 3
PART 1 - Just 2 decisive errors in Singer's reasoning: 1) Singer presumes that in merely bringing into question the issue of personhood (what is a person?), he thereby bolsters the argument in favor of infanticide. The logical conclusion, in the face of this uncertainty, should be to err on the side of affirming personhood for the ill and infirm. - this should be the default position, and we should seek to enhance supports, in our society, for those who would care for the unwanted.
lourak 1 year ago
Speciesm IS natural... All species are speciests in other to survive, even herbivores are agressive to other species... Ofcourse that in other to keep our civilization running, we should limit natural selection as much as possible, and help the week when nessesary in other to shape our society... but say "abolish" speciesm.. thats ridiculous.. We'r part of the nature, we'r not outside of it... deal with it..
Deadleader555 2 years ago
@deadleader555
whether or not specieism is natural is just irrelevent. & peter singer does not make the bold claim that we should "abolish" specieism altogether. but rather, that we just NOT torture animals who are capable of feeling pain and who suffer...
soultorment27 2 years ago
7:42 "ahhh . . . . yes . . . I do have second home, in a sense."
Not criticising Singer for that. He's not a hyprocrite for having a second home. It's just funny to hear him confess to it.
bshantonu 2 years ago 2
I think he works in Princeton and Melbourne at different times of the year so he could be referring to his homes in the US and Australia.
James3940 2 years ago
XxxNuMbxxX0301, plainly a misunderstanding of the definition "rational." a rocket scientist can be just as irrational as a lunatic or criminal. intelligence has little to do with whether one acts rationally or not.
the una-bomber was quite intelligent, a prestigious university professor and yet most would call his actions irrational.
PersecutedCitizen 2 years ago
you're using rational in a different way than singer. He uses rational to mean able to use reason (even poor reason) while you're using rational to mean able to use reason guided by proper logic.
ivanmikhailov 2 years ago
Is there such a thing as" poor reason"? That's like saying that "poor intelligence is to be considered. Doesn't make sense as far as I can tell.
smokeybiut 2 years ago
I guess it would've been better worded as "to use reason poorly"
ivanmikhailov 2 years ago
I'm sorry, but he completely discredited himself when he said that chimpanzees are more rational than human beings. Has a chimpanzee ever put a satellite into space, or any other similar accomplishment?
XxxNuMbxxX0301 2 years ago
has a chimpanzee ever flown an airplane in a building because his imaginary sky-daddy told him so?
BaileysBeads 2 years ago
No, because a chimpanzee is incapable of even conceiving of an airplane, let alone build one and fly it into a building.
And I detected the implication that you are attempting to convey (that chimpanzees are somehow more peaceful and disinclined to violence than humans). In fact, chimps are notoriously territiorial and aggressive in the wild.
XxxNuMbxxX0301 2 years ago
You are cherry picking his words and taking his quote out of context.
He says that chimps are more rational than children born with disabilities (such as "WITHOUT A BRAIN"). Watch the last two minutes of the first part of this interview.
Chimps are "are far more self aware, rational and capable of emotionally connecting to beings" than disabled children.
So Singer is asking: why should a brain-dead child with no possible future be considered more sacred than a fully functioning chimp?
brightsuperstition 2 years ago
he was relating a Chimpanzees' rationality to a human that has the specific condition he was referring to, not all human beings.
redscooby 2 years ago
He said that some chimpanzees can be more rational than some humans.
ivanmikhailov 2 years ago
25 days in the womb, or out of the womb?!
mbro96 2 years ago
In this context, severely disabled babies who may or may not live very long and are surely going to endure a great deal of pain and suffering, he's talking about OUT of the womb. 28 days AFTER birth. This is why they're saying infanticide. That being said, doctors routinely allow babies like this (open spine and other complications, etc.) to die of their own, Singer just believes the family should be able to painlessly end their suffering if they choose.
dan46and2 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Peter Singer is not the authority on this issues. He is saying things on what he thinks is right. We need to go to someone who has the authority on this issue. And that is the BIBLE!
He keeps on saying "I think or i guess" and people believe him.
jheraldcasipit 2 years ago
you said the bible is the authority we should all live by...if you believe that you clealry would never agree with a philosopher who questions life and doesnt blindly follow others.
nafif88 2 years ago
The Bible's "authority" is assigned to it by men who believe the parts of it they like to believe. It replaces critical thinking in a terrible way.
dan46and2 2 years ago
my god, you all are defending him because he teaches at princeton. It doesn't matter that he sees nothing wrong with BESTIALITY, NECROPHILIA and INFANTICIDE..now I know how hitler murdered 6 million jews.
pmsou 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
so Peter Singer is GOD and has the final authority on what "LIFE" is??? this guy is a MORON.
pmsou 2 years ago
he explicitly stated in the previous section that he did not think he had any particular right or ability to define what a valuable life is. furthermore, his argument doesn't rely upon any definition of 'LIFE', but upon the recognition that life per se is not something to be preserved at all costs, in the face of hideous suffering. you don't have to agree with him, but try and formulate a coherent criticism before yelling 'MORON'. it doesn't reflect well on your intelligence.
kitsune9t 2 years ago 2
HE IS DEFINING WHAT LIFE IS BY HIS FREAKING "PHILOSOPHIES"...weren't you paying attention??
pmsou 2 years ago
loud and right are not synonyms.
kitsune9t 2 years ago 2
hahaha I am right. I wasn't shouting anyway..I was EMPHASIZING. Now be a good little sheep and listen to your wise godless leader.
pmsou 2 years ago
Let's grant your God exists: it seems that She has the authority to to define, by decree, what life is.
If I were to create a God in my image, I would create one that has the Knowledge to discern the facts: "Might makes right" may signal an SOB tyrant!
Given the above two choices, the moron Peter Singer would be much closer to the God I said that I would create: I don't fear him and he does not impose on me by threatening me; his most lethal weapon is reason. I love my God; he is a moron
profjnunez 2 years ago 2
what do you mean "IF I WERE TO CREATE A GOD"???? Trust me, you have created a God in your own image..but's it's not the real god
pmsou 2 years ago
I don't pretend to agree with him on everything, but the guy rocks. What a mind.
CitizenCindy 2 years ago 7
"Look more toward ourselves and our families more than we really should" Who is anyone to tell anyone else how much he should spend on himself, or how much he is going to spend on his family? I respect his points and they all sound logical, but I feel on this he is off
whitemandeluxe 2 years ago
He's a philosopher, not a judicator. He's not telling anyone how to live their life, merely informing others on -how- to live it with complete and unbiased morality in his eyes. Everything falls upon the personal philosophy of the individual.
SepherSerado 2 years ago
have to say that eventhough i don't agree with Singer, i respect his views... if you look at it from a objective side, it all sounds so logical... in my eyes this man is amazing...
stineable 2 years ago 5
This has been flagged as spam show
Calling Singer a depraved lunatic is being way too kind to this sad excuse for a human being.
grimreaper1729 2 years ago
ahhhhhhh too bad he wasn't aborted
gunnarnizzler 2 years ago
You're an idiot. Everything he says is arrived at by sound logic.
You may not agree with him, but you'd be hard-pressed to refute anything this man says through the utilization of logic alone.
Go ahead, try it. Moron.
Trumpetz81 2 years ago 30
@Trumpetz81
I'm an Australian and have seen this guy many times on TV. He says things SO much worse than this. On a panel show with people from the left and right he was the laughed at by all. When he's debated he shows his true horrors; he doesn't stop at infanticide! Study history, Singer shares the values that Hitler promoted, no matter how 'sound' his 'logic' may appear. Why is he for the killing of infants but against the killing of animals. is SAVE THE INFANTS a twisted world view?
slowerthanjordans 1 year ago
@slowerthanjordans
Are you experiencing difficulty grasping the difference between logic and morality? If not, shut up about Hitler. Seriously. Possessing a strong moral compass has very little to do with logic. The two are not mutually dependent.
Your question is easily answered through observation alone. When was any animal species a real threat to the welfare of this planet? Where are animals dying of overpopulation because they just can't seem to stop fucking? Please, enlighten me.
Trumpetz81 1 year ago
@Trumpetz81
morally i think that people should not have a second home while others are dying
yes i do have a second home that i share with others
so im not going to criticize that.
ja118 1 year ago
@Trumpetz81 sound logic? where's his proof for acting morally in the first place? I like the guy, he seems honest enough. But his Practical Ethics is a bit wishy washy
SamuelLM1990 7 months ago
@Trumpetz81 your statement works on the assumption that utilitarian is the 'correct' moral philosophy... which in itself is fallacious.
SvenWolfbane12 6 months ago
@SvenWolfbane12 I never made any assertion that it's correct. All I said is that a little a utilization of logic can allow a person to easily arrive at the conclusion that Singer is objectively more moral than most of those howling in opposition to his views.
Trumpetz81 6 months ago
I like that Singer is honest about how much he actually spends on himself and his own moral shortcomings. People can be critical of him, but he's not a religious figure claiming to be a pope or saint. Now, when we find inconsistencies in religious figured, such as Ted Hagard, this is a different story as they claim much more righteousness than Peter Singer does as a philosopher.
1DangerMouse1 3 years ago
i agree with him. on ALL issues, actually. that guy's just too fucking smart to the people of the world in this century. maybe in a couple of hundred years, people will pick up his ideas and say that it is a brilliant idea - and then it will be put to life. (of course, if there is a world at all, in 200 years.)
Kiefer89 3 years ago 21
i agree! he is one of those great minds misunderstood in his lifetime, but will be revered in the next, assuming we dont fuck up the planet
idiley 3 years ago 6
yes. i totally agree with everything you say. that peter singer is just "born before his time", to put it that way. he is a genius. people just aren't ready for his brilliance yet. you know, most people are primitive and conservative people. they stick with what their ancestors used to mean and say and do - for a very long time.
Kiefer89 3 years ago 5
until a man like peter singer shows up and gives us a glimpse into what will be a part of our future - if, of course, there still is an earth and the homo sapiens sapiens still exist.
Kiefer89 3 years ago 4
oh, you know the cost of everything, my friend, but the value of nothing.
MacaPallares 3 years ago
I noticed you failed to reference what you are perhaps trying to pass off as some kind of witty observation of your own, but the full quote is:
"What is a cynic? A man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.
- Oscar Wilde
moyga 2 years ago
@Kiefer89
Hitler practiced eugenics! Hitler was pro-animal welfare and pro-infanticide. Hitler was a vegetarian. Hitler encouraged the euthanasia of the disabled. OMG Osama has nothing on this guy.
I am so ashamed to be an Australian!!!
slowerthanjordans 1 year ago
@Kiefer89 how do you know in 200 years you would not be deemed to die?
Who draws the line? He may be saying that up to 28 days the baby can be killed of or up to a year or what about up to 2 years? Where do you draw the line? Does the government decide? what if somebody like Hilter comes to power?
235mona 1 year ago
@Kiefer89
Did you know that the nazis said same things about themselves?
If society doesn't accept someone's ideas it doesn't mean that he's a genius (although it could be the case) but it could mean that he's a total lunatic or fanatic.
Still, I don't claim that he's not intelligent - he is indeed.
klusekpl 1 year ago
@klusekpl don't use nazi's. it's a cheap trick.
chaboki92 1 year ago
@chaboki92 I agree - it is as cheap as saying that someone is extremely smart because his ideas aren't widely recognized. The only fact why I mentioned nazis is to show that not being understood by others doesn't mean that someone is a genius. It could but it doesn't have to. In fact such statements are quasi-religious and are of no substantial and logical value.
klusekpl 1 year ago
@klusekpl it's like the rhombus and the square. i was just saying... ya know
chaboki92 1 year ago
this guys smart..for a person, lol..im serious
shinydestruction 3 years ago 2
LOL! beautifully point!
idiley 3 years ago 2
he dont mean language...he means being able to communicate with other humans && make relationships...i dont agree wiv it doe...
Chipmunkaamna 3 years ago
perhaps i'm not reading into this well, he seems to value animals quality of lives, but not pre language infants. doesnt it seem like many animals he defends are as lacking in self awareness as the pre language infant?
michaelcapponi2 3 years ago
Singer's overarching point in this regard is that there is not a good measure of discrimination between non-human animals and infants. He is not calling for a genocide of all mentally deficient individuals, so much as he is advocating animal rights.
Blackbolt4prez 3 years ago 6
Yeah, you're slightly mistaken. The reason he's willing to have the pre-self-awareness infant euthanized is the same reason he's willing to have nonhuman animals killed painlessly.
With nonhuman animals, he's opposed to the suffering we cause them (which is horrible, like keeping hundreds of millions of hens in cages so small that they have their sensitive beaks sliced off with hot blades to prevent them from pecking each other to death under the stress, etc.)
See PETA's MeetYourMeat . com
MichaelDavisISTC 3 years ago
Peter Singer's views are entirely consistent with how he handled his mother's situation. He does not say all beings who are non-self-aware ought to be killed, he argues those responsible for these beings should be allowed the option of ending their lives. Singer also suggests a cut-off time of 28 days for this option to be permissible--to avoid a growing attachment to the non-self-aware being. His mother's was certainly older than 28 days, so the attachment was already there.
serfdomthwart 3 years ago
Serfdom, how can you say Singer is consistent with his views in the situation with his mother? The criticism is about him not giving the money away that he spent on keeping his mother alive. This money could have done a lot more good somewhere else. Not to mention he says he pleads guilt to those criticisms at 3:15.
Minnesnowtakid 3 years ago
There were numerous criticisms. The one you raise stems from the first. Even so, the justification for spending that money on his mother is, even though she's no longer self-aware, she once was. And during this time she created numerous emotional attachments to numerous persons. She then differs from a being to whom persons have no previous attachments (a handicapped new-born)
serfdomthwart 3 years ago
I agree that the mother has formed bonds or emotional attachments with people. This is not what I am arguing. I am talking about the utility of the money spent to keep her alive. You cannot justify spending the money on her if you are a utilitarian, because the maximum good or happiness is not being produced. Also, as I said in my last post, Singer pleads guilty. So, you have to argue with Singer and tell him he should not have admitted his faults.
Minnesnowtakid 3 years ago
Even if Singer admits faults, one could still discuss the issue. Singer's faults are true under utilitarianism. Under egoism, they're justified.
serfdomthwart 3 years ago
Is Singer a utilitarian or an egoist?
Minnesnowtakid 3 years ago
utilitarian
Kaiman620 3 years ago
I'm an utilitarist, still I must say that Singer himself commented upon how classic utilitarism could permit the pain of one slave being weighed out by ten happy rich people, indeed... though Singer answers that this would be unmoral, as this would classify people; and all people have the same rights. SInger is preference utalitarist, which means e.g. that not one preference (as strong as the will to live) may be sacrificed for the good of others.
cheetah5619 4 years ago
Where are you instruments? Your empathometers and your emotiographs? I have never seen one?
AnouMawi 3 years ago
Thanks. Someone else who has a clue what they're saying at last!
benjy1975 3 years ago
No, preference utilitarianism is the branch of utilitarianism which defines happiness as the satisfaction of preferences. Singer would have meant that classify people leads to situations in which individuals are not treated as they should be.
DanielALomax 3 years ago
benjy, obviously you don't know two shits about utilitarianism. It does not favor slavery, since slavery causes much more pain than pleasure.
EncryptedSoldier 4 years ago
good comment
mattsaer1 4 years ago
One very unhappy slave making 10 fat "owners" incredibly happy= 10 times more happiness than pain...
benjy1975 4 years ago
I thought Utilitarianism was the idea that you always go for the greater good?
CybernautZero 3 years ago
Yes. Like killing Hitler. Don't you think utilitarianism would INSIST on it?? Hitler wouldn't be very happy though, would he?... you can't maximise EVERYBODY's happiness at the same time... It's the sum total you're interested in.. Anyway that's if you're a utilitarian. Which as I said in the first place, I don't really think he is...Anyway this thread is getting very old and slightly repetitive now.. :/
benjy1975 3 years ago
No, a utilitarian would not insist on killing hitler, there's no reason to kill him. Perhaps imprison him and his followers so they can not do harm to anyone else, but there's never a utilitarian reason to kill someone, really. There may be practical reasons it's not morally culpable, but probably not ethically correct.
dan46and2 2 years ago
Actually, not, benjy. This "utilitarianism promotes slavery!" comes from a misunderstanding of preferential utilitarianism (which first tries to alleviate suffering and then addresses increasing happiness, generally... which removes slavery as a good possibility) and a general lack of empathy by overestimating how much happiness "slave owners" would gain versus the suffering of being a slave.
dan46and2 2 years ago
I don't see Singer as a utilitarian. Doesn't utilitarianism famously permit slavery? In his critique of factory farming he asserts (-as I remember-) that it is ethically comparable to slavery, & therefore totally unacceptable..You undermine his work by trying to make this a lofty academic debate. People like Singer and Richard Dawkins do credit to humanity by being inclusive & talking to the people, not just bandying "isms" around for academics to show off with.. Still I'm glad you're watching.
benjy1975 4 years ago
since when did utilitarianism permit slavery?surely consequentialism promotes happieness??
mattsaer1 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This guy is joking, right!!! What a piece of work this utilitarian contradiction is.
heart4dominican 4 years ago
he's actually a consequentialist to be more precise... maybe you should read his literature before you knock off a controversial yet intelligent philosopher.
busboybud 4 years ago 2
Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism. To say that Peter Singer is a consequentialist is less precise than saying he is a utilitarian. If you wish to be even more precise, Peter Singer is a preference utilitarianist.
PseudoAdministrator 4 years ago
ya, thats actually true. Utilitarianism deals with maximizing happiness and part of the broader theory of Consequentialism. He stresses his stronger argument (not sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance) in his writing a lot more than he does in this interview. In fact, I'd say he lives by his weaker version.
busboybud 4 years ago
(1st post of 4) He gets himself in trouble with the family and friends thing: he accepts that it's "normal and natural and not something we should reject" that people show favoritism towards family and friends and help them most. However "there is a stronger obligation to be impartial" Well where do we draw the line?
Ciaranmch 4 years ago
How much favoritism is justified towards family and friends? And just how many of the people in our lives can be considered "friends" and are thus allegeable for a disproportionately large amount of help from us? It seems that wherever he draws the line here will be arbitrary. This is also something that would be massively difficult for a government to practically enforce. (When you fill out your tax forms you choose ten tax deductible helper friends?)
Ciaranmch 4 years ago
The fact that he hypocritically acted against his own philosophy does not give us reason to reject his views -it does however draw attention to the unrealistic nature of "Singer's demands." If the man himself ignores the views that doesn't bode well for enforcing them in general society.
Ciaranmch 4 years ago
Theoretically, from a utilitarian point of view favoritism could be justified because it could be argued that the erosion of familial bonds on a worldwide scale is something worth avoiding at even a very large cost. But again it's difficult to know where to draw the line in an attempt to balance egalitarianism with nurturing familial bonds. What's the formula here for the greatest happiness?
Ciaranmch 4 years ago
He he he he nice try.
"The war on the erosion of family values."
Stop trying so hard mate!
benjy1975 4 years ago
He's not the greatest speaker. Is he? Not that I am either.
PrometheusLiver 4 years ago
Thats crap that all other animals are equal to us. Fact is, humans are superior to other animals, thats how we climbed to the top of the food chain and got into a position where we can control other animals. Of course I'm against cruelty to animals but humans are superior, more intelligent and intelligent enough to warrant the existence of philosophy and therefore philosophers such as Peter Singer.
vertigoct 4 years ago
So should we exploit other humans who are consider inferiour to us like infants or others who are mentally handicapped? Cruelty is cruelty, suffering is suffering regardless of species.
goingemoguy 4 years ago
Wow, vertigoct, you're in waaaay over your head. He doesn't think animals are equal to us. In fact, humyns aren't equal to other humyns. He DOES think animals are equal to humyns in the sense that they both have the interest in not suffering. Like interests = like rights. Also, you conveniently leave out the mentally challeneged and infants. Both aren't intelligent (at least in the sense that you speak of).
CarolX2 4 years ago
The fact that you are against cruelty to animals is a contradiction in itself. Either humyns have duties to animals or they don't. There's no in between. Humyns aren't superior to animals, they're simply anthropocentric. There's no reason to believe humyns are superior. If you disagree I would love to hear your argument.
CarolX2 4 years ago
well, white bitches are inferior, does that mean that their fathers have the right to have sex with them?
calatuba 4 years ago
Superior? According to who or what? A bear has superior strength. A shark is a superior swimer. A panda may be a superior mother. Humans in intelligence? Sure, but that's biased. Intelligence isn't the only measure of 'good'.
PrometheusLiver 4 years ago
It's not about "good" it's about capacity to suffer. Strength and swimming ability in no way affect your capacity for suffering. In several ways intelligence does. For example by killing a human you subvert that human's goals for the future which is a cruelty in itself.
Ciaranmch 4 years ago
More intelligent species like primates also have more complex social networks and stronger emotional bonds, so killing one of these animals will cause more suffering for the family than if you kill, say, a fish. For these reasons Peter Singer accepts that killing a human is normally more wrong than killing say a cow. HOWEVER killing a cow is still wrong and depricing a human of their favourite food is less cruel than making a cow suffer and die for said meal.
Ciaranmch 4 years ago
Do species "climb" to the top of food chains?
I asked my friend who is a Great White Shark and said he got there by swimming.
benjy1975 4 years ago
amazing
lildivarose333 4 years ago
Thanks for this, brilliant.
ratismeatforthemass 4 years ago
Thanks for posting this.
barkis06 4 years ago