Peter Singer (I) Speciesism & Animal Rights

[SatoriWins]

I only have one criticism of Peter Singer who really is a hero of mine and that is he doesn't take it far enough, he's very passive. We need someone, a leader that will finally recognise speciesism as wrong. Eating meat should be illegal. And with our scientific discoverys we're almost able to create meat in lab conditions. Imagine a world were innocent beings were not killed just for the pleasure of humanity.

[ThatGuyWithHippyHair]

@pleasestopblockingme

I think I know why your username is what it is. Sorry, but "please" doesn't excuse you from suffering the consequences of being a speciesist bigot.

[ThatGuyWithHippyHair]

Is the interviewer just playing devil's advocate or is he really that stupid? "Oh, well, your morality is too complicated, therefore it's wrong! We humans are too hare-brained to think through the consequences of our actions, boo-hoo!"

[pleasestopblockingme]

The suffering of a human DOES matter more 'just' because it is a human being. Everyone of you 18 morons who liked this, i hope your children get eaten by a crocodile. Why would you shed a tear, would you shed tears if your children had instead eaten the crocodile?

[GiantSandles]

@pleasestopblockingme Hold on to your horses there, Singer does believe that the life of a fully able human is more important than the life of say a crocodile, seeing as you posited the example. He just doesn't think "It's a human, therefore it's more important" is a very good argument for that.

[SatoriWins]

@pleasestopblockingme It only matters more because we are attached to our children and we care for our own which is facsism. - To fire the same question back at you, which matters more? The life of your family of the life of a stranger? Please ignore the effects of law in this hypothetical scenario - If your children were killed by a stranger would you shed a tear? If your children killed a stranger would you shed a tear? -

[SatoriWins]

@pleasestopblockingme - I'm assuming you would be more upset about the loss of your children than the loss of the stranger. But that doesn't mean universally your children are more important they are just more important to you. What people like Peter Singer try and do is look at the situation from a neutral perspective. You are not fit to make the correct ethical judgment about which being should die (your children or a stranger) because you are to emotionally attached to your children.

[pleasestopblockingme]

Peter singer, a jew, coincidence?

[ismaithliombainne]

The first video I saw of Singer was the (excellent) one with Richard Dawkins. Ive since done some reading on wikipedia and watched more videos and some other things, and while im not pefectly okay with all the ends it leads, I consider myself a consequentialist.

[Slascus]

I believe Singer has an answer to your issue in his text "All Animals Are Equal" When you're up against a choice between either a human or an animal dying, Singer would choose to kill the animal and let the human live. The reason for that would be that a human probably has plans and is aware of a future. When a dolphin has evolved a sense of ethics i believe it will also have gained a good sense of itself existing over time, thus having a moral right to survive over an animal not selfaware

[beerathon]

@Slascus That's an interesting point. I'm not overly keen on Singer's preoccupation with 'suffering'. To be histrionic - suffering will come to all sentient animals whether humans are involved or not. But I do think it is compelling when considering this issue to think what would happen were there a species that was not only our intellectual equal, but also incredibly tasty and nutritious. I know that sounds facetious, but essentially I'm asking: why eat one species and not another?

[Slascus]

@beerathon

"suffering will come to all sentient beings human or not", but does that give us the right to add to or inflict this pain (on beings prefectly capable of experiencing this) when there really is no need to? Now if there was a "species that was not only our intellectual equal, but also incredibly tasty and nutritious" they would of course also fall under the same cathegory and should not be harmed, were we to embrace Singer. Essentially I'm answering: Why eat any sentient being?

[beerathon]

@Slascus What I meant by that statement is the concept of 'rights' is inconsequential in this case. For example, if a haddock is going to die or be eaten, it makes no difference to the haddock if it is eaten by a human, a predatory fish or other species, or indeed agonizingly consumed by disease. The issue of rights is moot. As far as I can see, the problem of human involvement is problematic due to excessive consumption of meat, not consumption of meat per se.

[beerathon]

@Slascus To be even more obliquely hypothetical - allowing that some species are specifically dependent on another species as food, what would happen if both were capable of the self-awareness you describe, but the predatory species was unable (biologically/ecologically/geo­graphically) to adequately source food elsewhere?

[Slascus]

@beerathon Now this one presents more of a problem in my eyes. This question, it seems, can in essens be broken down to: Should man eat man if that is they're only mean of survival? I come to this conclusion because if both species possess these feats they would be morally equal. You could perhaps argue that humans invent and create and should therefore live. But that again would imply that it is morally right to eat a janitor instead of a rocket scientist to survive.

[Slascus]

@beerathon A sentientist would give all sensing individuals a moral status, but only humans have moral obligations. Now you're saying that if a dolphin evolves to aquire moral obligations through understanding the concept of right and wrong, an understanding of ethics and the problem which then presents itself in regards of eating other animals, it would be morally condemned due to it having to eat fish to survive?

[diogotomediogo]

a pure treasure

[beerathon]

Are obligate carnivores biologically immoral?

[eljagg01]

@beerathon Only beings with the capability of recognizing morality's existence are bound by it. Hence insanity being used as a defense for heinous crimes, for example.

[beerathon]

@eljagg01

So if lions eventually evolve higher intelligence, they'll have to stop eating gazelles?

[beerathon]

To expand my point, it is convenient for your argument that humans do not have to eat meat. Some animals biologically have no choice. I would be interested to know what argument you might use if humans were a species that required a meat based diet. Thx

[eljagg01]

@beerathon There are no nutrients or vitamins that are found in animal products alone, so I have difficulty conceptualizing...if humans had an ANATOMY better-adapted to eating meat exclusively, I would favor investment in emerging technologies which can clone tissue samples, thus providing a food source.

I see no possible way to efficiently industrialize breeding and slaughtering animals that takes into account their moral interests.

[beerathon]

@eljagg01 - Okay, let me reword my point. Dolphins are intelligent yeah? They may even be smart enough to understand vegetarian ethics now, but assuming they don't lets say that they eventually do become smart enough. They have to eat fish. They don't have the means to synthesise meat. Your moral law is universal so it applies to them nevertheless. Do you see the conflict? You are effectively condemning them for their natural state. Bad.

[eljagg01]

@beerathon Dolphins must eat fish.

What have they to do with humans?

[vjhunny66]

@beerathon - But we don't so what's the point in debating it? That's what our politicians do, try to take the focus off the real issue. Not taking the bait, sorry.

[beerathon]

@vjhunny66 You've missed my point. If you look at eljagg01's comment, there is a line of reasoning that suggests any creature that can act morally has a duty to be vegetarian. But this can obviously conflict with a creature's biological requirements. I'm not saying "therefore it's okay for humans to eat meat", merely that such a philosophy is not adequate (at least on it's own) to express why vegetarianism should be a moral obligation. Take the bait - debate is healthy! :)

[mavaddat]

Thanks for uploading this!