Wish they could have given the interviewer some advice before going on air, he clearly isn't qualified to follow any basic reasoning. If he says he is a consequentialist, then stop saying "it's just wrong, it's just wrong..." come up with an argument.
Similarly, I can drink a bottle of vodka and decide to drive home. I can't say for certain I won't crash, but given what we understand, the risk factor of causing harm is large.
In that respect we need to base our laws on a risk assessment, balancing both freedom and harm prevention.
The more information we have, the more fairly we can engage, but when talking about enhancing/balancing freedom and wellbeing I can't imagine a more robust strategy.
@lanceawatt Yep, it's a pretty difficult question. I can't really say I agree that we should criminalize something because of how high the chances of negative consequences are, because I'm really not sure "how much" is really enough, or where we should really draw the line.
What a stupid quiestion, asking him to endorse pedophilia if it turns out there are no long term consequences. Thats like asking to endorse lighting someone on fire if there are no negative consequences. Well sure, but its pretty fucking obvious that there are.
this guy is nuts. this is the trend ==> No God => no religion => we are animals => hence we should not eat animals => paedophilia, beastiality, canibalism, killing infants, homosexuality.
Do anyone see this trend. Our society is getting fucked. God exists and these people want to turn it upside down. They are satanists and you can hear from their own mouth. Shouldnt he be arrested?
@DogsneedpIeasuretoo I have answered this question too many times,am tired. type the question in google and see what comes up. I will answer any other question after that.
@DogsneedpIeasuretoo I dont believe in god, I believe in God, witha a capital "G". This God is beyond time and laws of nature. The Bible says He is eternal, from infinity to infinity. He is the Jewish God. He is the one who made the universe and all that is in it. He created man in His own image and He gave him laws which man broke and curse came upon man and his decendants. He has given us a chance to repent and be saved before He destroys this world and make a new one.
You said: "God exists"←Where is the scientific logical evidence of that assertion?
You say god exist, so you must have evidence to prove it.
Believing in something, doesn't make it real, I can imagine and believe that invisible pink unicorns exist in a parallel dimension, that doesn't mean they really exist. You can believe in God as much as you want, that doesn't prove he exist. IF you are going to claim God exist, please provide evidence of that.
@DogsneedpIeasuretoo I have come to understand that every atheist believes that God exists, but they just want a reason not to believe in Him. You can say that you dont believe in God, but you know you do. I have not see an atom or electron before but I believe they exist. Nor have I seen gravity before but I know it exist. I dont know if you have seen an electron or atom before? or gravity?
2-You can SEE subatomic particles using different instruments created by humans that proves their existence.
3-You can FEEL gravity.
You claim God exist, so there must be a way perceive him, anything that exist can be perceived by the eyes, though, smell, taste, ears, or by instruments created by humans that helps to enhance those senses.
Maybe you should stop saying "GOD exist" and start saying "I believe God exist" one is correct even if you have no evidence.
@DogsneedpIeasuretoo so what are you then? Unfortunately God ceases to be God, if you can see Him or use your 5 senses to detect Him. The Bible says we cannot see God and live because our bodies rea not holy. If you look at the qualities of God, you should not ask me to prove Him. I know God exists because I have prayed to Him and He answered in various situations. If I believe that prayer works and I get results everytime i pray,how will you explain that.is it by chance?
"I know God exists because I have prayed to Him and He answered in various situations."←If he answers you, you would be death as you said he can be sensed and would kill anyone that sense him. So you can't know he exist.
Cut yourself a finger and pray so it grows back, lets see if that works, in 2000 years not a single amputees has growth a lost member, no matter how hard they pray or how hard their relatives pray for them, praying doesn't work.
@swandike : absolutely not, and you would not "come to understand" what you're saying if you actually spoke with (and respected the statements of) atheists. Look, it's very simple. There are HUNDREDS of other gods revered by humans on this planet. What do you think about those gods? What would you think if I told you that you don't "really" believe that Zeus doesn't exist; you just don't "want" to believe in Him? The only difference between you and me is I believe in one less god than you do.
And @swandike : while we're truthin' here, I don't believe in your god any more than I do any other deity on the planet, but I 100% accept that you BELIEVE in your god. You, on the other hand, can not afford me the same dignity and respect. You would like to believe that this is because you are right and I am wrong, or that your stubbornness is a proof of your religious devotion, but it's not. It's just bigotry, weak-mindedness, and lack of respect for those who don't agree with you.
@suzbailey23 perhaps his religious doctrine compels him evangelically. So while he respects you as a person he is compelled to spread the message of his religion in the hopes of gaining converts. Respecting someone is not synonymous with accepting their beliefs (I am somewhat reluctant to use the word accepting here); I respect pedophiles as human beings but I do not accept their actions/"beliefs". The only bigotry occurs in ad hominem attacks which are committed by atheists and theists equally.
@suzbailey23 Who said Zeus did not exist? Zeus was mentioned in the Bible. ACTS 14.12. The Bible accounts for all these lesser gods. The fallen angels came here with their powers and has deceived man since then. You also heard about UFO and aliens.they are demons, they will do anything to deceive man to hell. So there are not hundreds but trillion trillions. since satan deceived a third of the angles.
I know that atheists believe in God but deny it. an excuse to commit immorality
@vjohn82 I dont think you understand that passage. read the whole Acts 14. They healed a man who was crippled from birth. So the people of Lystra saw these wonders and called Barnabas, Zeus, and Paul, Hermes. They were worshipping these gods and they thought noone could do such thing except these gods. So the Bible documents zeus and other gods, like hermes, baal,amon,aphrodite,ishtar,ashtoreth,horus, etc etc. All these gods are mere fallen angels who are deceiving people.
@swandike I do understand the passage; you intimated that Zeus existed. But there is no, nor ever has been, any empirical evidence for Zeus. He seems to have gone away of late too. Where has he gone? I can't believe you're believing a book, written by fallible men, to be anything other than flawed. Incredulous!
@vjohn82 I see where you are coming from. You think Zeus is like the glowing man in movies. lol. Movies make gods visible, does not mean in real life they are. They are spirits, invisible. Think outside TV for once. gods can make also themselve visible to us. In science, I will say they are in a different dimension but they can appear in our dimension.God is the Creator of all things. these lesser gods are fallen angels in Genesis 6 from Heaven.They use their powers to decieve people.
The stunning thing about Singer is that he can remain so rational and objective, and so confident in his opinions, despite the (in many ways) unfounded criticism he has to deal with.
Singer says that we should make the choices that will most avoid suffering. I assume he means physical suffering ie. a disabled baby have a natural death, dying slowly rather than being killed. But what about mental or emotional suffering? The mother of that child will in the majority of cases be mentally scarred from the decision that they made to allow the murder of their own child. Can you imagine the shame in this? I would argue that emotional suffering is worse than physical suffering.
Singer says that we should make the choices that will most avoid suffering. I assume he means physical suffering ie. a disabled baby have a natural death, dying slowly rather than being killed. But what about mental or emotional suffering? The mother of that child will in the majority of cases be mentally scarred from the decision that they made to allow the murder of their own child. Can you imagine the shame in this? I would argue that emotional suffering is worse than psychical suffering.
and the emotional suffering of the mother having watched her child suffer immensely, both physically and emotionally, for 4,5,6+ years before dying a painful death?
I'm not sure whether your scenario would be worse. For some it may be. I guess the only people who could have any idea at all would be the Mother - since she knows herself better than anyone.
I don't think Singer restricts suffering to physical suffering BTW.
Murder? That's with the view we have atm but what he's saying is that instead of it being murder it should be seen as a method to reduce suffering. The mother wouldn't choose to murder her baby but she may choose to prevent it from having a bad life. Well, it should be the parents because well, a baby takes two people to make. I can see the main, emotional problem for the parents being "Did I really do it for the baby or was I just being selfish?"
"If it didn't harm the child.." What kind of absurd hypothetical is this? It's like saying, "If stabbing a person in the face did not hurt or disfigure them, would it be wrong to do so?" It's a bullshit question. Why? Because stabbing a person in the face DOES hurt and disfigure. Likewise, pedophilia traumatizes children. Period. You can't say, "If pedophilia were not pedophilia, would it still be wrong?" It's a non-question. It's meaningless and has no bearing on reality.
"If stabbing a person in the face did not hurt or disfigure them, would it be wrong to do so?"←Well if it didn't it wouldn't be nothing wrong with it.
"Likewise, pedophilia traumatizes children. Period. "←Not always true, in places where there was no social stigma attached to pedophilia, it didn't hurt the children. For example, there was a tribe where it was normal to have sex with minors, the minors group up fine unharmed in anyway.
@DogsneedpIeasuretoo Ultimately you can argue, philosophically, that nothing (and I mean NOTHING) is wrong. But philosophy is not reality, especially not our reality. Humans have developed, over time, a threshold of right and wrong based on accumulated experience and human commonalities. In other words, we've seen the development of "human normalcy" - not excluding individual differences. Bestiality IS sick and wrong.
@DogsneedpIeasuretoo Umm...see the comment that I left.Technically, every standard of morality is a human construct for someone not dictated by religion.I'll just assume you are not religious. Human constructs are subjective.However, "humans have developed, over time, a threshold of right and wrong based on accumulated experience and human commonalities. In other words, we've seen the development of "human normalcy" - not excluding individual differences." E.g. determinations of right and wrong
That "human normalcy" is a fiction of your imagination, it does not exists.
1000 years ago slavery was normal and moral, it was a human normalcy, look how it is now. In 1000 years, bestiality could be the new human normalcy. (unlikely but you get my point)
What you call "human normalcy" we call it morality, and , from any point of view, morality is 100% subjective.
@DogsneedpIeasuretoo Human normalcy is one factor amongst many and it exists in the present day - and we argue about the present day; morality is a socially developmental progression by the human race - progression forward; morality is certainly subjective and if you believe anything can be right/wrong then there is no use even talking to you...
@DogsneedpIeasuretoo OH MY GOD! Hypocrite! It is SO easy to justify slavery with your belief system! You claim everything is subjective. You say universal/popular beliefs don't matter. Yet, you develop a completely subjective opinion regarding slavery? bahaha now i really now that i cannot talk to you. if you don't draw the line somewhere with immoral acts (like hmm, murder, rape, bestiality) it becomes pretty easy to argue for all of them...
"It is SO easy to justify slavery with your belief system!"←Really? Explain to me how.
"You claim everything is subjective"←Liar, I never claimed that, I claimed that morality is subjective. I never said "everything"
"You say universal/popular beliefs don't matter"←Only when it comes to judging people with morality, you shouldn't use something that is subjective to judge others.
@DogsneedpIeasuretoo , you are sick! You should be banned from You Tube, if you want to see a channel that believes it's normal to have sex with animals check out "dogsneedpleasuretoo" I am trying to have him banned from You Tube for making comments of a sexual nature in relation to a video I posted of our much loved pet dog, if you can please go to his channel and flag him!
@Silenus6 I was molested repeatedly by an uncle when I was 9 years old. After 36 additional years of life experience, I've come to the conclusion that the damage I suffered from the ordeal was almost entirely caused by being branded by my culture as a "victim of pedophilia", as if it's the worst thing that could happen to a person. It's not- not by a LONG shot. You know what's worse? Leukemia. Being orphaned. Spending your life with your secret label "pedo victim", and hiding it from the world.
@suzbailey23 And I want to add--demonstratively--that I am well aware of how fortunate I am in my own particular circumstance, that I was not coerced into actual intercourse (which most certainly would physically harm a child) or otherwise brutalized or terrorized. I didn't have to find out the hard way where babies come from and have my family torn apart by scandal and shame. I was damned lucky and I know it.
It's interesting how someone like Crawley arguing against pedophilia by saying "it's just wrong" can't actually give reasons for their absolutist claim, whereas someone like Singer (perhaps not necessarily consequentialist, but rationalist at least), who rejects calling pedophilia "just wrong" can give very good reasons for why it is wrong based on the evidenced harm it causes.
It seems those most open to hearing the other side are those better equipped to refute their claims if warranted.
Singer makes so much sense it's hard for me to wrap my head around people not understanding such basic moral principles. We all have these moral intuitions, we somehow shut them down in lieu of imaginary paraphernalia.
@Bowdeni I disagree. I think the interviewer was correct to agrue that somethings are "just worng" not because it's rational but because it's the way people view some acts. It's Singer who's suggesting a different way of judging the morality of acts and I think he defeats the interviewers (and the public's) reasoning perfectly.
Absolutely. Anyone who says something is "just wrong" without thinking is a victim of their culture. These are the people who sat by and were OK with slavery for hundreds of years. We need better reasoning in the 21st century people! How else can we converge on a global morality that we so desperately need?
Saying "it's just wrong" is the attitude of a religious fundamentalist who just knows they're right and can't contribute to the world in any helpful way.
One could argue that 10 year olds are not mentally developed enough, on principle, (possibly true) even if they do consent, and even if we have a small percentage that will not be harmed in an emotional way, there remains a high probability that a child will be harmed, and we have not the neccessary information to make a determination.
We can also say that paedophilia on principle causes great suffering, so any form of legitimaite promotion will cause negative concequences.
@lanceawatt I can't say I disagree with you, but I don't think this particular argument is valid.
If we are to make something a crime, we should have proof that t causes harm. Otherwise it's like saying "if we can't prove God doesn't exist, therefore we should assume he does", or if you can't prove a is True, we should assume it's False.
@termi892 I see what you mean, and its a difficult question. But the analogy with Gods existence isn't so fitting I think. Determining Gods existence is based on philosophical speculation, and no information to go by other than deducing from existence itself, which doesn't get us any further.
But we have grounds to believe paedophilic relations cause harm in many instances, even in extreme cases of consent. (continued)
Peter Singer admits that pedophilia is NOT WRONG. It's around 6:00 minutes in!! What a SICK moron. I wouldn't let this man around my kids. It IS a "moral failing" on his part. William Crawley has got that right.
@pmsou No, he doesn't. He just says we shouldn't go with our gut feelings; we should consider the physical and mental well-being -present and future- of those involved, and from that, reach our conclusions.
A perfectly reasonable position if you are not dogmatic and afraid to discuss these issues.
@elgransick What makes you think his position is "reasonable"? I am discussing these issues. Bestiality and pedophilia are immoral under every circumstance. We only agree on one issue: infanticide and abortion are the same. Most liberals are a little squeamish about murdering children BORN full term with disabilities but Singer believes fetus's are children too. He see's nothing wrong with infanticide. Do you still think he's "reasonable"?
@pmsou You are not discussing the issues, you are merely stating your conclusions without explaining how you reached them. If you presented your premises they could be criticised, THAT would be a discussion. What you are doing is sticking with your first reaction without rationally and logically analysing WHY or IF they have a foundation. He's not saying paedophilia or bestiality are ethically correct, he's only saying we should not do precisely what you are doing. That's being reasonable.
Wow, I just checked out Dogsneedpleasuretoo's channel, and all I can say is WEIRD!!!! Even if there is no inherent moral taboo about bestiality, it still seems to attract people who have really odd behavioral, and social instincts. Bestiality is not an evolutionary norm. In other words, it is a disorder at best, and a perversion at worst. Oh well, whatever floats your boat, I suppose, but I would not feel comfortable hanging out with this guy and his dog lover.
Just because people claim to accept abortion doesn't make it right. The act of suffering isn't good (technically it's a physical evil), but outcomes can be good. These people in poverty he's talking about, they're suffering too. Wouldn't you think, from his views that we should just get rid of them because we think they're suffering? No. It contradicts. If we ARE all equal, one can't say the same for a (possibly) disabled person too. They're capable of love & happiness like humans or animals.
animals do not have the reasoning capabilities of PEOPLE. Therefore they cannot CONSENT to sex. People are on a higher intellectual level than animals. Singer has NO argument against this because it is the TRUTH.
animals and children are not as smart adults. If you rub a clitoris long enough...it might feel good, even to a child BUT SHOULD YOU????????? NO!!!!! You people are sick sick sick. Give me a break! Animals need protected and CHILDREN need protected. There is no such thing as "consenting" sex with a child or animal because HOPEFULLY "grown ups" KNOW BETTER. You can't justify this crap. It's just wrong. The person who KNOWS BETTER is the violator and a "manipulator" of the circumstances.
Bestiality seems wrong to the extent that the two beings could never be on a level intellectual playing field and thus couldn't really share the same things with one another but I suppose sex and romance/connection are nearly two different things in modern society.
did he just say at the end "keeping children alive or in some cases allowing them to die which is something that we often do with these cases , we allow them to die slowly and painfully , um , i think can , in some cases cause suffering to those children"
NO SHIT SHERLOC! LOL
not trying to dis the guy , but danm i thought that was funny , lol.........
He says it will only cause suffering in some cases for two reasons. The first is that children who are not self aware will not suffer and the second is to bring up the point (omitted in your quote from Singer's same sentence) that family's will suffer with their children. A lot of people have a lot of problems with Singer, but the problem is not his, it's theirs. Think about what he's saying longer than a few seconds and you'll realise that.
It seems like the interviewer held a neutral position for nearly the whole interview, but then he made the classic mistake of revealing his own bias in the last few minutes, and thereby showed that he hasn't really absorbed any of Peter Singers points.
I sort of agree. However, I think the interviewer expressed some degree of hostility in other parts of the interviewer -- but you are right, he just got belligerent here towards the end with the pedophilia bit. Singer held his own.
I Agree completely, I also agree with singer but the interviewer seemed to have the Instant 'Yuk!' biological reaction, But failed to validate his points. Its very difficult to separate bestiality from paedophilia from a completely unbiassed point of view.
It isn't. Paedophilia is wrong because it is destructive to kids, it causes trauma. Zoophilia doesn't. If the animal is an adult, it is as sexually capable and willing as an adult human being.
no, it's not. Animals do not have the reasoning capabilities as consenting HUMANS. Do they drive cars? Do they have jobs? NO?? Then it is our responsibility to PROTECT THEM...not violate them. the only way to have sex with a "consenting" animal is for you to TEACH the animal behavior that is not NATURAL TO THE ANIMAL. It's called MANIPULATION and PERVERSION...yeah I said it PERVERSION. Sick.
I don't think you're in a position to speak anyway. Answer the following question: if a cow could choose between getting f*cked in the ass by a person and being killed and cut to pieces for food, which one do you think it would choose?
Surely not the one you put into practice, hypocrite.
That someone or something is stupid doesn't allow you to ignore their interests. I don't think you oblivious person are so superior to a cow, or know so much more than her what is best for her. She certainly doesn't think it's good to be killed for your whim for meat. Maybe you should try listening to the point of view of others for a change. It might actually make you a better person in deeds, not just in words.
Good interview. I think the interviewer, while does an adequate job does shoot himself in the foot with 'it's just wrong'. I would have expected him to have read Singer's material, and while I don't expect him to necessarily subscribe to Singer's views, could have at least been in a position to avoid saying such an ignorant statement to provide a moral absolute with no rataionale behind it.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The word you are searching for is "rebuttal," not rebuke. If you are going to be sarcastic, please know how to do so properly, or you will sound like one of those dim-witted chimpanzees you so idolize.
Singer says that animals are sentient because they react to pain and have observable emotions. Because of this, killing animals and consuming them for food = murder.
Severely disabled children and the indigent elderly whose lives have little or no legal status according to Singer, QUALIFY for sentience under Singers own definition. Humans are animals, but a different standard should be applied you than a chicken? ...and thats just on of his many innumerable logical fallacies.
I have a Political Science BA and am a law student, and I never claimed to be an authority on modern philosophy. You and your fellows can have a circle-jerk all over the place debating which school of incoherent bullshit Singers views are correctly classified within. And you have a lot to learn about argumentation if you think that premises and conclusions can be dismissed with one-word answers. Ill examine just one of his key arguments. Animal sentience.
"jesus types"??? THANKS!!! If singer doesn't consider bestiality, necrophilia and infanticide wrong.... he's an idiot. right is right and wrong is wrong. How could you support him??
@pmsou Where is right defined as right and wrong as wrong? You can't make vast moral assumptions without a valid argument and expect people to agree with you. I would never condone bestiality or pedophilia but if I were to attack them I would still need a valid argument.
lol do you need a valid argument against murder too? Give me a break. Sometimes people can be sooooo smart that they become stupid. I'm not calling you stupid but any argument condoning bestiality and pedophilia is STUPID. Hence, Peter Singer.....
1. It is a morally indefensible crime to slaughter and eat a pig, but it is humane (and preferable) to murder a baby with Downs syndrome.
2. Pedophilia and bestiality are natural extensions of human sexuality. (Nuff said.)
3. You are an immoral person if you spend more money than the bare subsistence of what it takes to survive. Dont save for retirement or place your family before foreign strangers.
And the guy's a fucking hypocrite. Oh well, self-indulgent relativists have a new king.
He doesn't say that bestiality is natural or very good for a human being - he simply uses it as an example for this immediate YUK - response, derivated from the moral standards in our society --> we have to thing carefully about the arguments. what's concerning paedophilia: he says that paedophilia certainly always does harm to the children, but he objects to SIMPLY SAYING SOMETHIN IS WRONG, as does the interviewer. But doing severe harm to the children, it is immoral.
To point 3: he doesn't say that. He argues that giving 10% of your (US average) income is already a good moral basis. Nevertheless, he mentions an ideal - that unnecessary luxury should be avoided, but he admits this is not that easy. But if you are giving nothing, having enough money, you probably don't lead a very moral life.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I'm university-educated, I'm an Atheist, I believe in evolution and the key tenants of natural selection. And it is quite clear to me that Peter Singer is a complete wackjob with a value system akin to that of Nazis like Mengele and Goebbels. I support his 1st Amendment right to say and write whatever he likes, but his arguments are pseudo-intellectual horseshit. Heres what he says:
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Peter Singer's "wisdom" was not tolerated in AUSTRIA...but LIBERALS embrace him. He was almost kicked out of Cornell University for authoring pornographic stories. He's a sick twisted soul.
well then, if none of my views are interesting..quit commenting on them. Peter Singer sees nothing wrong with bestiality, necrophilia, INFANTICIDE...I'm embarrassed for anyone who supports this nut.
Absolutely Angk0rwat, I think that his view is clear.. that reliable science says even CONSENTING intergenerational sex harms children. And he did actually say that he didn't think it was "just wrong." He couldn't be clearer about his position without providing out of context fodder.
"We need to go to someone who has the authority. And that is the BIBLE!" Which one? -Vedas -Torah -Koran Book of Mormon -Book of shadows -Tripitaka -Pearl of Great Price -Hubbard's personal writings (Scientology) -The Egyptian Book of the Dead -Kojiki (Shinto) -King James Version New International Version Revised Standard Version Which one is the correct one? (Asuming you read them all for you assertion validity's sake)
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
There is a gulf between humans and animals. What a peta loving moron...He would run over a mentally retarded child to save a whale..YOU CAN'T TELL ME THERE ISN'T SOMETHING FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE. He needs to live with the apes and be with his own kind.
Typing EVERY SECOND word in CAPITALS makes you look like a WINGNUT IDIOT. Just so you know.
By the way, you're not going to convince anyone to agree with you by calling them names. "Oh no that wingnut on youtube called me a sheeple! Now I better believe everything he says!" I guess you must be one of Ted Nugent's sheeple.
I love the irony that it's always the hairy knuckle primates that hate animal liberation the most.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"wingnut idiot" and ;"hairy knuckle primate" is NAME CALLING. You need to practice what you type. I have no desire what soever to "convince" you or anyone else what I believe. lol The TRUTH can stand all by itself and all I am doing is telling the truth.
I am practising what I type - I said name calling wouldn't convince anyone. I was right. Then I made fun of you for my own amusement. I don't see a contradiction here. Think of the wingnut idiot comment as helpful advice. Have a nice day
If you had even a fleeting understanding of Singer's ideas you would realize that he would not "run over a retarded person to save a whale" unless by "retarded" you mean "devoid of consciousness." But I know you don't have an understanding because you're not genuinely interested in his discussion of ethics.
Peter Singer gives logical in depth arguments for his opinions and then you turn around and misrepresent them and say hes wrong without any justification at all.
It seems to me that you have obviously not understood what he has said or actually read any of his work. You appear to be extremely uneducated and not very capable of critical thinking. It sickens me that you gave this video a 1 star and have listened to nothing hes said.
The bible is someone's (or rather, a few persons) work and ideas.
Further, how does one single out a single religion out of the whole ocean of ideas, and say that every ne of them, no matter how sound and reasonable, is incorrect if not identical to the one you chose?
to all of the "educated" people out there who want to euthanize the elderly and mentally handicapped .because they are not real "PEOPLE"......THANK GOD I AM NOT LIKE YOU!!!!!
That's not what Peter Singer wants pmsou, you are not listening or wanting to listen to what hes saying. You are over simplifying and misrepresenting his arguments and thoughts. What you are doing over and over is called: "The straw man fallacy".
Just go away.. no one cares. If you want to be ignorant, do it by yourself. You are not coming close to convincing anyone here of anything, they all just think you're an idiot.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
This man is sooo a fall back to the starting time of life, we are and should have moved fare be on that. We aRE better then that. The Man is opening to an easy way of life and life is just not that cut and dry. Wake up you can't just take this view becasue it's easy . we are who we are not becasue it easy becasue it is heard .
Another question - if Singer's desire to reduce suffering allows the parents the freedom to destroy a baby who is not a "person". Would it then be permissible in Singer's ethics for someone living in extreme suffering and poverty to commit suicide rather having society compensate them through charity? Suicide will alleviate suffering much more easier than charity so should we allow people that option? Hmmm....
In terms of consequences - it is quite well reported that AIDs effects the gay community much more frequently than the heterosexual community. Therefore, under the consequential determination of Singer's attempt to reduce suffering - isn't homosexuality morally wrong after all?
If homosexual intercourse has a significantly higher chance of resulting in the contraction of AIDs or HIV - Under Peter Singer's reasoning, how can homosexuality not be immoral?
then it's compulsory heaven for all. Excepting perhaps Hitler, Osama and Genghis Kahn. We believe that all men should find the truth that is right for them. Reality will adapt accordingly. The universe will realign. History will alter. We believe there is no truth except the truth that there is no truth. We believe in tolerance for all. Those that disagree with our tolerance will not be tolerated.
you put hitler a man who killed 9 million people, with osama who killed 3 - 4 thousand, with genghis kahn who was a warrior in a different time. thats blood odd
We believe that everything is ok as long as you don't hurt anyone. to the best of your definition and to the best of your knowledge. Anyone can't be the unborn- they aren't anyone. We believe that adultery is fun. We believe that sodomy is normal. We believe that porn is inevitable. We believe that taboos are taboo. We believe that after death comes the Nothing. Because when you ask the dead what happens, they say Nothing. If death is not the end, if the dead have lied to us..to be cont'd..
This was so interesting! Ofcourse he doesn't agree with paedo and besti. He is so right about the whole "it's just wrong" thing, we have to be rational.
Here is the rub with paeodophilia. There is no way you can reliably say that you in your position of power over a child, by being older and trusted in that manner, that you could know for sure that they consent. There's no way. They will always see you as someone of elevated status or control. So he is right, there would be no problem with it if there were no guaranteed harm. That said, even a child who might consent somehow at 10 to sex might later realise what went on and feel awful about it.
With bestiality he's also right - if it caused no harm. He's defending a really simple position but the interviewer is drawing out people's more complex distaste for the issue.
Really we can't know whether we're harming animals because we can't communicate with them reliably. Answer given, he doesn't believe in bestiality.
He's simply against having intrinsic social taboos for no logical reason at all. He'd rather have a logical one.
But the same thing could be said about a man who dates a female co-worker who works underneath him. He can never know for sure if she is really interested or just wants to keep her job. There are always all these outside factors in any relationship.
I may not agree with what he has to say but he does a damn good job of supporting his opinions.
dshoby416 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This man gives 75% of his income to charities like OKFAM. Nobody's perfect, but he's pretty fucking amazing.
livingdeadgrl18 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This man gives 75% of his income to charities like OKFAM. Nobody's perfect, but he's pretty fucking amazing.
livingdeadgrl18 1 week ago
This man gives 75% of his income to charities like OKFAM. Nobody's perfect, but he's pretty fucking amazing.
livingdeadgrl18 1 week ago
"free to come and go as they wish"...lol! Double entendre much!
robertedge 1 month ago
6:02 "It's just wrong though, isn't it?" Lol.
Peter, I am right on the consequentialist train there with you. I hate intrinsic moral taboos!
livingdeadgrl18 1 month ago
Wish they could have given the interviewer some advice before going on air, he clearly isn't qualified to follow any basic reasoning. If he says he is a consequentialist, then stop saying "it's just wrong, it's just wrong..." come up with an argument.
fjoo 2 months ago in playlist Flere videoer fra kaods1960
Similarly, I can drink a bottle of vodka and decide to drive home. I can't say for certain I won't crash, but given what we understand, the risk factor of causing harm is large.
In that respect we need to base our laws on a risk assessment, balancing both freedom and harm prevention.
The more information we have, the more fairly we can engage, but when talking about enhancing/balancing freedom and wellbeing I can't imagine a more robust strategy.
Thanks for debate btw :)
lanceawatt 2 months ago
@lanceawatt Yep, it's a pretty difficult question. I can't really say I agree that we should criminalize something because of how high the chances of negative consequences are, because I'm really not sure "how much" is really enough, or where we should really draw the line.
termi892 2 months ago
"It's just wrong.". Totally nailed it with this one.
termi892 2 months ago
Atheist (im)morality. nice...
AtheismKills 3 months ago
What a utilitarian
MegaWYU 4 months ago
What a stupid quiestion, asking him to endorse pedophilia if it turns out there are no long term consequences. Thats like asking to endorse lighting someone on fire if there are no negative consequences. Well sure, but its pretty fucking obvious that there are.
Roenazarrek 7 months ago
this guy is nuts. this is the trend ==> No God => no religion => we are animals => hence we should not eat animals => paedophilia, beastiality, canibalism, killing infants, homosexuality.
Do anyone see this trend. Our society is getting fucked. God exists and these people want to turn it upside down. They are satanists and you can hear from their own mouth. Shouldnt he be arrested?
swandike 7 months ago
@swandike
"God exists"←Where is the scientific logical evidence of that?
DogsneedpIeasuretoo 6 months ago
@DogsneedpIeasuretoo I have answered this question too many times,am tired. type the question in google and see what comes up. I will answer any other question after that.
swandike 6 months ago
@swandike
So, you are calling god the big bang or that the universe is god?
Whats your definition of god?
DogsneedpIeasuretoo 6 months ago
@DogsneedpIeasuretoo I dont believe in god, I believe in God, witha a capital "G". This God is beyond time and laws of nature. The Bible says He is eternal, from infinity to infinity. He is the Jewish God. He is the one who made the universe and all that is in it. He created man in His own image and He gave him laws which man broke and curse came upon man and his decendants. He has given us a chance to repent and be saved before He destroys this world and make a new one.
swandike 6 months ago
@swandike
And we go back to the beginning.
You said: "God exists"←Where is the scientific logical evidence of that assertion?
You say god exist, so you must have evidence to prove it.
Believing in something, doesn't make it real, I can imagine and believe that invisible pink unicorns exist in a parallel dimension, that doesn't mean they really exist. You can believe in God as much as you want, that doesn't prove he exist. IF you are going to claim God exist, please provide evidence of that.
DogsneedpIeasuretoo 6 months ago
@DogsneedpIeasuretoo I have come to understand that every atheist believes that God exists, but they just want a reason not to believe in Him. You can say that you dont believe in God, but you know you do. I have not see an atom or electron before but I believe they exist. Nor have I seen gravity before but I know it exist. I dont know if you have seen an electron or atom before? or gravity?
swandike 6 months ago
@swandike
1-I'm not an atheists.
2-You can SEE subatomic particles using different instruments created by humans that proves their existence.
3-You can FEEL gravity.
You claim God exist, so there must be a way perceive him, anything that exist can be perceived by the eyes, though, smell, taste, ears, or by instruments created by humans that helps to enhance those senses.
Maybe you should stop saying "GOD exist" and start saying "I believe God exist" one is correct even if you have no evidence.
DogsneedpIeasuretoo 6 months ago
@DogsneedpIeasuretoo so what are you then? Unfortunately God ceases to be God, if you can see Him or use your 5 senses to detect Him. The Bible says we cannot see God and live because our bodies rea not holy. If you look at the qualities of God, you should not ask me to prove Him. I know God exists because I have prayed to Him and He answered in various situations. If I believe that prayer works and I get results everytime i pray,how will you explain that.is it by chance?
swandike 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@swandike
"I know God exists because I have prayed to Him and He answered in various situations."←If he answers you, you would be death as you said he can be sensed and would kill anyone that sense him. So you can't know he exist.
Cut yourself a finger and pray so it grows back, lets see if that works, in 2000 years not a single amputees has growth a lost member, no matter how hard they pray or how hard their relatives pray for them, praying doesn't work.
DogsneedpIeasuretoo 6 months ago
@swandike : absolutely not, and you would not "come to understand" what you're saying if you actually spoke with (and respected the statements of) atheists. Look, it's very simple. There are HUNDREDS of other gods revered by humans on this planet. What do you think about those gods? What would you think if I told you that you don't "really" believe that Zeus doesn't exist; you just don't "want" to believe in Him? The only difference between you and me is I believe in one less god than you do.
suzbailey23 6 months ago
And @swandike : while we're truthin' here, I don't believe in your god any more than I do any other deity on the planet, but I 100% accept that you BELIEVE in your god. You, on the other hand, can not afford me the same dignity and respect. You would like to believe that this is because you are right and I am wrong, or that your stubbornness is a proof of your religious devotion, but it's not. It's just bigotry, weak-mindedness, and lack of respect for those who don't agree with you.
suzbailey23 6 months ago
@suzbailey23 perhaps his religious doctrine compels him evangelically. So while he respects you as a person he is compelled to spread the message of his religion in the hopes of gaining converts. Respecting someone is not synonymous with accepting their beliefs (I am somewhat reluctant to use the word accepting here); I respect pedophiles as human beings but I do not accept their actions/"beliefs". The only bigotry occurs in ad hominem attacks which are committed by atheists and theists equally.
kobeballer 4 months ago
@suzbailey23 Who said Zeus did not exist? Zeus was mentioned in the Bible. ACTS 14.12. The Bible accounts for all these lesser gods. The fallen angels came here with their powers and has deceived man since then. You also heard about UFO and aliens.they are demons, they will do anything to deceive man to hell. So there are not hundreds but trillion trillions. since satan deceived a third of the angles.
I know that atheists believe in God but deny it. an excuse to commit immorality
swandike 6 months ago
@swandike No, no, no... you don't get away with that. The Greeks gave the human beings the names of their gods, nothing more.
vjohn82 6 months ago
@vjohn82 I dont think you understand that passage. read the whole Acts 14. They healed a man who was crippled from birth. So the people of Lystra saw these wonders and called Barnabas, Zeus, and Paul, Hermes. They were worshipping these gods and they thought noone could do such thing except these gods. So the Bible documents zeus and other gods, like hermes, baal,amon,aphrodite,ishtar,ashtoreth,horus, etc etc. All these gods are mere fallen angels who are deceiving people.
swandike 6 months ago
@swandike I do understand the passage; you intimated that Zeus existed. But there is no, nor ever has been, any empirical evidence for Zeus. He seems to have gone away of late too. Where has he gone? I can't believe you're believing a book, written by fallible men, to be anything other than flawed. Incredulous!
vjohn82 6 months ago
@vjohn82 I see where you are coming from. You think Zeus is like the glowing man in movies. lol. Movies make gods visible, does not mean in real life they are. They are spirits, invisible. Think outside TV for once. gods can make also themselve visible to us. In science, I will say they are in a different dimension but they can appear in our dimension.God is the Creator of all things. these lesser gods are fallen angels in Genesis 6 from Heaven.They use their powers to decieve people.
swandike 6 months ago
@swandike Cuckoo...
vjohn82 6 months ago
@vjohn82 well.
swandike 6 months ago
I'd love to see William Crawley's face after watching Leon
SamuelLM1990 7 months ago
The stunning thing about Singer is that he can remain so rational and objective, and so confident in his opinions, despite the (in many ways) unfounded criticism he has to deal with.
CarlMinez 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Singer says that we should make the choices that will most avoid suffering. I assume he means physical suffering ie. a disabled baby have a natural death, dying slowly rather than being killed. But what about mental or emotional suffering? The mother of that child will in the majority of cases be mentally scarred from the decision that they made to allow the murder of their own child. Can you imagine the shame in this? I would argue that emotional suffering is worse than physical suffering.
LifeinAutumn 9 months ago
Singer says that we should make the choices that will most avoid suffering. I assume he means physical suffering ie. a disabled baby have a natural death, dying slowly rather than being killed. But what about mental or emotional suffering? The mother of that child will in the majority of cases be mentally scarred from the decision that they made to allow the murder of their own child. Can you imagine the shame in this? I would argue that emotional suffering is worse than psychical suffering.
LifeinAutumn 9 months ago
@LifeinAutumn
and the emotional suffering of the mother having watched her child suffer immensely, both physically and emotionally, for 4,5,6+ years before dying a painful death?
I'm not sure whether your scenario would be worse. For some it may be. I guess the only people who could have any idea at all would be the Mother - since she knows herself better than anyone.
I don't think Singer restricts suffering to physical suffering BTW.
RPFS2008 8 months ago
@LifeinAutumn
Murder? That's with the view we have atm but what he's saying is that instead of it being murder it should be seen as a method to reduce suffering. The mother wouldn't choose to murder her baby but she may choose to prevent it from having a bad life. Well, it should be the parents because well, a baby takes two people to make. I can see the main, emotional problem for the parents being "Did I really do it for the baby or was I just being selfish?"
cZard91 8 months ago
"If it didn't harm the child.." What kind of absurd hypothetical is this? It's like saying, "If stabbing a person in the face did not hurt or disfigure them, would it be wrong to do so?" It's a bullshit question. Why? Because stabbing a person in the face DOES hurt and disfigure. Likewise, pedophilia traumatizes children. Period. You can't say, "If pedophilia were not pedophilia, would it still be wrong?" It's a non-question. It's meaningless and has no bearing on reality.
Silenus6 10 months ago
@Silenus6
"If stabbing a person in the face did not hurt or disfigure them, would it be wrong to do so?"←Well if it didn't it wouldn't be nothing wrong with it.
"Likewise, pedophilia traumatizes children. Period. "←Not always true, in places where there was no social stigma attached to pedophilia, it didn't hurt the children. For example, there was a tribe where it was normal to have sex with minors, the minors group up fine unharmed in anyway.
DogsneedpIeasuretoo 9 months ago 3
@DogsneedpIeasuretoo Ultimately you can argue, philosophically, that nothing (and I mean NOTHING) is wrong. But philosophy is not reality, especially not our reality. Humans have developed, over time, a threshold of right and wrong based on accumulated experience and human commonalities. In other words, we've seen the development of "human normalcy" - not excluding individual differences. Bestiality IS sick and wrong.
pacers3115 4 weeks ago
@pacers3115
Is reality that finding bestiality "sick and wrong" is 100% subjective to the individual.
DogsneedpIeasuretoo 3 weeks ago
@DogsneedpIeasuretoo Umm...see the comment that I left.Technically, every standard of morality is a human construct for someone not dictated by religion.I'll just assume you are not religious. Human constructs are subjective.However, "humans have developed, over time, a threshold of right and wrong based on accumulated experience and human commonalities. In other words, we've seen the development of "human normalcy" - not excluding individual differences." E.g. determinations of right and wrong
pacers3115 3 weeks ago
@pacers3115
That "human normalcy" is a fiction of your imagination, it does not exists.
1000 years ago slavery was normal and moral, it was a human normalcy, look how it is now. In 1000 years, bestiality could be the new human normalcy. (unlikely but you get my point)
What you call "human normalcy" we call it morality, and , from any point of view, morality is 100% subjective.
DogsneedpIeasuretoo 3 weeks ago
@DogsneedpIeasuretoo Human normalcy is one factor amongst many and it exists in the present day - and we argue about the present day; morality is a socially developmental progression by the human race - progression forward; morality is certainly subjective and if you believe anything can be right/wrong then there is no use even talking to you...
pacers3115 3 weeks ago
@pacers3115
WRONG, I don't use morality to judge between right and wrong.
Some things are right and some thin s are wrong, regardless of the morals of people.
Slavery is wrong, regardless of being moral by many 1000 years ago.
DogsneedpIeasuretoo 3 weeks ago
@DogsneedpIeasuretoo OH MY GOD! Hypocrite! It is SO easy to justify slavery with your belief system! You claim everything is subjective. You say universal/popular beliefs don't matter. Yet, you develop a completely subjective opinion regarding slavery? bahaha now i really now that i cannot talk to you. if you don't draw the line somewhere with immoral acts (like hmm, murder, rape, bestiality) it becomes pretty easy to argue for all of them...
pacers3115 3 weeks ago
@pacers3115
"It is SO easy to justify slavery with your belief system!"←Really? Explain to me how.
"You claim everything is subjective"←Liar, I never claimed that, I claimed that morality is subjective. I never said "everything"
"You say universal/popular beliefs don't matter"←Only when it comes to judging people with morality, you shouldn't use something that is subjective to judge others.
DogsneedpIeasuretoo 3 weeks ago
@DogsneedpIeasuretoo , you are sick! You should be banned from You Tube, if you want to see a channel that believes it's normal to have sex with animals check out "dogsneedpleasuretoo" I am trying to have him banned from You Tube for making comments of a sexual nature in relation to a video I posted of our much loved pet dog, if you can please go to his channel and flag him!
djc0248 5 days ago
@Silenus6 I was molested repeatedly by an uncle when I was 9 years old. After 36 additional years of life experience, I've come to the conclusion that the damage I suffered from the ordeal was almost entirely caused by being branded by my culture as a "victim of pedophilia", as if it's the worst thing that could happen to a person. It's not- not by a LONG shot. You know what's worse? Leukemia. Being orphaned. Spending your life with your secret label "pedo victim", and hiding it from the world.
suzbailey23 3 months ago 5
@suzbailey23 And I want to add--demonstratively--that I am well aware of how fortunate I am in my own particular circumstance, that I was not coerced into actual intercourse (which most certainly would physically harm a child) or otherwise brutalized or terrorized. I didn't have to find out the hard way where babies come from and have my family torn apart by scandal and shame. I was damned lucky and I know it.
suzbailey23 3 months ago
@suzbailey23 I've never heard it put that way. Very enlightening.
livingdeadgrl18 1 week ago
It's interesting how someone like Crawley arguing against pedophilia by saying "it's just wrong" can't actually give reasons for their absolutist claim, whereas someone like Singer (perhaps not necessarily consequentialist, but rationalist at least), who rejects calling pedophilia "just wrong" can give very good reasons for why it is wrong based on the evidenced harm it causes.
It seems those most open to hearing the other side are those better equipped to refute their claims if warranted.
itchynights 11 months ago 2
Singer makes so much sense it's hard for me to wrap my head around people not understanding such basic moral principles. We all have these moral intuitions, we somehow shut them down in lieu of imaginary paraphernalia.
darienCR 1 year ago 3
Great answers Peter Singer
danielfact 1 year ago 2
you don't see a cat and cow having sex.
235mona 1 year ago
@235mona
I have see cats and dogs having sex ;)
DogsneedpIeasuretoo 9 months ago
@Bowdeni I disagree. I think the interviewer was correct to agrue that somethings are "just worng" not because it's rational but because it's the way people view some acts. It's Singer who's suggesting a different way of judging the morality of acts and I think he defeats the interviewers (and the public's) reasoning perfectly.
ismaithliombainne 1 year ago
@ismaithliombainne
Absolutely. Anyone who says something is "just wrong" without thinking is a victim of their culture. These are the people who sat by and were OK with slavery for hundreds of years. We need better reasoning in the 21st century people! How else can we converge on a global morality that we so desperately need?
Saying "it's just wrong" is the attitude of a religious fundamentalist who just knows they're right and can't contribute to the world in any helpful way.
GodTheHypothesis 1 year ago 2
Antimes i listen to this man i always want to do more. be better. give more.
ismaithliombainne 1 year ago
He's a closet Nietzschean
fuckooo 1 year ago
One could argue that 10 year olds are not mentally developed enough, on principle, (possibly true) even if they do consent, and even if we have a small percentage that will not be harmed in an emotional way, there remains a high probability that a child will be harmed, and we have not the neccessary information to make a determination.
We can also say that paedophilia on principle causes great suffering, so any form of legitimaite promotion will cause negative concequences.
lanceawatt 1 year ago 3
@lanceawatt I can't say I disagree with you, but I don't think this particular argument is valid.
If we are to make something a crime, we should have proof that t causes harm. Otherwise it's like saying "if we can't prove God doesn't exist, therefore we should assume he does", or if you can't prove a is True, we should assume it's False.
termi892 2 months ago
@termi892 I see what you mean, and its a difficult question. But the analogy with Gods existence isn't so fitting I think. Determining Gods existence is based on philosophical speculation, and no information to go by other than deducing from existence itself, which doesn't get us any further.
But we have grounds to believe paedophilic relations cause harm in many instances, even in extreme cases of consent. (continued)
lanceawatt 2 months ago
@Oxydox omg...is what he said "rational"??? No. I dont' want to "rationalize" pedophilia or bestiality. That's crazy.
pmsou 1 year ago
Peter Singer admits that pedophilia is NOT WRONG. It's around 6:00 minutes in!! What a SICK moron. I wouldn't let this man around my kids. It IS a "moral failing" on his part. William Crawley has got that right.
pmsou 1 year ago
@pmsou No, he doesn't. He just says we shouldn't go with our gut feelings; we should consider the physical and mental well-being -present and future- of those involved, and from that, reach our conclusions.
A perfectly reasonable position if you are not dogmatic and afraid to discuss these issues.
elgransick 1 year ago
@elgransick What makes you think his position is "reasonable"? I am discussing these issues. Bestiality and pedophilia are immoral under every circumstance. We only agree on one issue: infanticide and abortion are the same. Most liberals are a little squeamish about murdering children BORN full term with disabilities but Singer believes fetus's are children too. He see's nothing wrong with infanticide. Do you still think he's "reasonable"?
pmsou 1 year ago
@pmsou You are not discussing the issues, you are merely stating your conclusions without explaining how you reached them. If you presented your premises they could be criticised, THAT would be a discussion. What you are doing is sticking with your first reaction without rationally and logically analysing WHY or IF they have a foundation. He's not saying paedophilia or bestiality are ethically correct, he's only saying we should not do precisely what you are doing. That's being reasonable.
elgransick 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
LOL SINGER GIVES HIS BLESSINGS TO THOSE WHO HAVE ANAL SEX WITH ANIMALS.
SophistAtheist 1 year ago
Wow, I just checked out Dogsneedpleasuretoo's channel, and all I can say is WEIRD!!!! Even if there is no inherent moral taboo about bestiality, it still seems to attract people who have really odd behavioral, and social instincts. Bestiality is not an evolutionary norm. In other words, it is a disorder at best, and a perversion at worst. Oh well, whatever floats your boat, I suppose, but I would not feel comfortable hanging out with this guy and his dog lover.
sfmike20 1 year ago
Singer has an intrinsic moral taboo about intrinsic moral taboos.
RoKozak 1 year ago
Just because people claim to accept abortion doesn't make it right. The act of suffering isn't good (technically it's a physical evil), but outcomes can be good. These people in poverty he's talking about, they're suffering too. Wouldn't you think, from his views that we should just get rid of them because we think they're suffering? No. It contradicts. If we ARE all equal, one can't say the same for a (possibly) disabled person too. They're capable of love & happiness like humans or animals.
JokerxQueen 1 year ago
animals do not have the reasoning capabilities of PEOPLE. Therefore they cannot CONSENT to sex. People are on a higher intellectual level than animals. Singer has NO argument against this because it is the TRUTH.
pmsou 2 years ago
having sex with an animal IS against the law. Are you that desperate? Will no humans have anything to do with you? I can't imagine why...
pmsou 2 years ago
You need castrated...asap.
pmsou 2 years ago
animals cannot consent. lol where the crap is your logic, reason and FACTS at??
pmsou 2 years ago
animals and children are not as smart adults. If you rub a clitoris long enough...it might feel good, even to a child BUT SHOULD YOU????????? NO!!!!! You people are sick sick sick. Give me a break! Animals need protected and CHILDREN need protected. There is no such thing as "consenting" sex with a child or animal because HOPEFULLY "grown ups" KNOW BETTER. You can't justify this crap. It's just wrong. The person who KNOWS BETTER is the violator and a "manipulator" of the circumstances.
pmsou 2 years ago
you need castrated...
pmsou 2 years ago
Bestiality seems wrong to the extent that the two beings could never be on a level intellectual playing field and thus couldn't really share the same things with one another but I suppose sex and romance/connection are nearly two different things in modern society.
ferrarif40 2 years ago
did he just say at the end "keeping children alive or in some cases allowing them to die which is something that we often do with these cases , we allow them to die slowly and painfully , um , i think can , in some cases cause suffering to those children"
NO SHIT SHERLOC! LOL
not trying to dis the guy , but danm i thought that was funny , lol.........
iamLI3 2 years ago
He says it will only cause suffering in some cases for two reasons. The first is that children who are not self aware will not suffer and the second is to bring up the point (omitted in your quote from Singer's same sentence) that family's will suffer with their children. A lot of people have a lot of problems with Singer, but the problem is not his, it's theirs. Think about what he's saying longer than a few seconds and you'll realise that.
toomity 2 years ago
Animals cannot consent!!! Sex with animals is rape. Crawley should have pressed this point. I would have been intersted to see what resulted.
zappa3837 2 years ago
I can't believe you have 3 thumbs down!!!!! Holy crap! What kind of world do we live in??
pmsou 2 years ago
I think Singer is incredibly consistent, and one of few who is prepared to speak out against moral taboos.
oOoPIANOoOo 2 years ago 8
no he doesn't really, i guess i consider it a mistake cause i agree much more with peter singer!!!!
michaelisitsa 2 years ago
It seems like the interviewer held a neutral position for nearly the whole interview, but then he made the classic mistake of revealing his own bias in the last few minutes, and thereby showed that he hasn't really absorbed any of Peter Singers points.
michaelisitsa 2 years ago
I sort of agree. However, I think the interviewer expressed some degree of hostility in other parts of the interviewer -- but you are right, he just got belligerent here towards the end with the pedophilia bit. Singer held his own.
knicoal 2 years ago 3
@michaelisitsa
I Agree completely, I also agree with singer but the interviewer seemed to have the Instant 'Yuk!' biological reaction, But failed to validate his points. Its very difficult to separate bestiality from paedophilia from a completely unbiassed point of view.
Shimmy3Shammy 2 years ago
It isn't. Paedophilia is wrong because it is destructive to kids, it causes trauma. Zoophilia doesn't. If the animal is an adult, it is as sexually capable and willing as an adult human being.
mischachiaro 2 years ago
no, it's not. Animals do not have the reasoning capabilities as consenting HUMANS. Do they drive cars? Do they have jobs? NO?? Then it is our responsibility to PROTECT THEM...not violate them. the only way to have sex with a "consenting" animal is for you to TEACH the animal behavior that is not NATURAL TO THE ANIMAL. It's called MANIPULATION and PERVERSION...yeah I said it PERVERSION. Sick.
pmsou 2 years ago
I don't think you're in a position to speak anyway. Answer the following question: if a cow could choose between getting f*cked in the ass by a person and being killed and cut to pieces for food, which one do you think it would choose?
Surely not the one you put into practice, hypocrite.
mischachiaro 2 years ago 3
Comment removed
pmsou 2 years ago
That someone or something is stupid doesn't allow you to ignore their interests. I don't think you oblivious person are so superior to a cow, or know so much more than her what is best for her. She certainly doesn't think it's good to be killed for your whim for meat. Maybe you should try listening to the point of view of others for a change. It might actually make you a better person in deeds, not just in words.
mischachiaro 2 years ago
"Their" interest???? hahahaha That's an interesting THEORY.
pmsou 2 years ago
@pmsou Think about it this way. Why should any human being take into account your interest ?
SophistAtheist 1 year ago
@SophistAtheist yeah.."do what thou wilt" philosophy! We are under no obligation to do the RIGHT thing. Let anarchy rule.
pmsou 1 year ago
Good interview. I think the interviewer, while does an adequate job does shoot himself in the foot with 'it's just wrong'. I would have expected him to have read Singer's material, and while I don't expect him to necessarily subscribe to Singer's views, could have at least been in a position to avoid saying such an ignorant statement to provide a moral absolute with no rataionale behind it.
Bowdeni 2 years ago 40
@Bowdeni uhm..I've read singer's material. It's pornographic.
pmsou 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I wouldn't be surprised if Singer has fondled a little boy or sucked off a polar bear.
XxxNuMbxxX0301 2 years ago
What an excellent rebuke to his arguments.
BaileysBeads 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The word you are searching for is "rebuttal," not rebuke. If you are going to be sarcastic, please know how to do so properly, or you will sound like one of those dim-witted chimpanzees you so idolize.
XxxNuMbxxX0301 2 years ago
What an excellent 'rebuttal' to his arguments.
BaileysBeads 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Thank you for recognizing your stupidity.
XxxNuMbxxX0301 2 years ago
Singer says that animals are sentient because they react to pain and have observable emotions. Because of this, killing animals and consuming them for food = murder.
Severely disabled children and the indigent elderly whose lives have little or no legal status according to Singer, QUALIFY for sentience under Singers own definition. Humans are animals, but a different standard should be applied you than a chicken? ...and thats just on of his many innumerable logical fallacies.
StrikeFire1983 2 years ago
re-watch, re-read. you're insensitivity to nuance is disgraceful.
cornerofcoast 2 years ago
I have a Political Science BA and am a law student, and I never claimed to be an authority on modern philosophy. You and your fellows can have a circle-jerk all over the place debating which school of incoherent bullshit Singers views are correctly classified within. And you have a lot to learn about argumentation if you think that premises and conclusions can be dismissed with one-word answers. Ill examine just one of his key arguments. Animal sentience.
StrikeFire1983 2 years ago
"jesus types"??? THANKS!!! If singer doesn't consider bestiality, necrophilia and infanticide wrong.... he's an idiot. right is right and wrong is wrong. How could you support him??
pmsou 2 years ago
@pmsou Where is right defined as right and wrong as wrong? You can't make vast moral assumptions without a valid argument and expect people to agree with you. I would never condone bestiality or pedophilia but if I were to attack them I would still need a valid argument.
ferrarif40 2 years ago
lol do you need a valid argument against murder too? Give me a break. Sometimes people can be sooooo smart that they become stupid. I'm not calling you stupid but any argument condoning bestiality and pedophilia is STUPID. Hence, Peter Singer.....
pmsou 2 years ago
1. It is a morally indefensible crime to slaughter and eat a pig, but it is humane (and preferable) to murder a baby with Downs syndrome.
2. Pedophilia and bestiality are natural extensions of human sexuality. (Nuff said.)
3. You are an immoral person if you spend more money than the bare subsistence of what it takes to survive. Dont save for retirement or place your family before foreign strangers.
And the guy's a fucking hypocrite. Oh well, self-indulgent relativists have a new king.
StrikeFire1983 2 years ago
this has nothing to do with relativism. relativism is incompatible with his position or any that makes normative demands across own's own culture.
cornerofcoast 2 years ago
*across other cultures.
cornerofcoast 2 years ago
@StrikeFire1983
He doesn't say that bestiality is natural or very good for a human being - he simply uses it as an example for this immediate YUK - response, derivated from the moral standards in our society --> we have to thing carefully about the arguments. what's concerning paedophilia: he says that paedophilia certainly always does harm to the children, but he objects to SIMPLY SAYING SOMETHIN IS WRONG, as does the interviewer. But doing severe harm to the children, it is immoral.
lorenzarthur91 1 year ago
@StrikeFire1983
To point 3: he doesn't say that. He argues that giving 10% of your (US average) income is already a good moral basis. Nevertheless, he mentions an ideal - that unnecessary luxury should be avoided, but he admits this is not that easy. But if you are giving nothing, having enough money, you probably don't lead a very moral life.
lorenzarthur91 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I'm university-educated, I'm an Atheist, I believe in evolution and the key tenants of natural selection. And it is quite clear to me that Peter Singer is a complete wackjob with a value system akin to that of Nazis like Mengele and Goebbels. I support his 1st Amendment right to say and write whatever he likes, but his arguments are pseudo-intellectual horseshit. Heres what he says:
StrikeFire1983 2 years ago
Oh God, I love you!!!! Thanks!
pmsou 2 years ago
@StrikeFire1983 Dude, are you retarded?
You didn't watch the whole thing, right? Surely, you couldn't have, otherwise you wouldn't be writing that nonsense.
1. Who said "preferable"? Singer also said he struggles with the question of where to draw the line.
2. He never even suggested that. He said quite the opposite, because we haven't evolved sexual urges towards animals or children.
3. No. Where did he say anything like that? Please, do tell.
4. You're retarded.
5. See #4.
magnusjsolberg 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Peter Singer's "wisdom" was not tolerated in AUSTRIA...but LIBERALS embrace him. He was almost kicked out of Cornell University for authoring pornographic stories. He's a sick twisted soul.
pmsou 2 years ago
well then, if none of my views are interesting..quit commenting on them. Peter Singer sees nothing wrong with bestiality, necrophilia, INFANTICIDE...I'm embarrassed for anyone who supports this nut.
pmsou 2 years ago
Absolutely Angk0rwat, I think that his view is clear.. that reliable science says even CONSENTING intergenerational sex harms children. And he did actually say that he didn't think it was "just wrong." He couldn't be clearer about his position without providing out of context fodder.
dan46and2 2 years ago
Crow512 2 years ago
bible. the king james version preferrable.
pmsou 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Peter Singer is not the authority on this issues. We need to go to someone who has the authority. And that is the BIBLE!
jheraldcasipit 2 years ago
Comment removed
pmsou 2 years ago
You better watch what you say about Peta. When people start eating gibbon pies you're gonna need their help
rocknfuckenroll 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
There is a gulf between humans and animals. What a peta loving moron...He would run over a mentally retarded child to save a whale..YOU CAN'T TELL ME THERE ISN'T SOMETHING FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE. He needs to live with the apes and be with his own kind.
pmsou 2 years ago
Then I guess you better watch out for his car
rocknfuckenroll 2 years ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
go join the kkk because i am positive they have their own definition of what a PERSON is too. Peter Singer and his SHEEPLE are no better.
pmsou 2 years ago
Typing EVERY SECOND word in CAPITALS makes you look like a WINGNUT IDIOT. Just so you know.
By the way, you're not going to convince anyone to agree with you by calling them names. "Oh no that wingnut on youtube called me a sheeple! Now I better believe everything he says!" I guess you must be one of Ted Nugent's sheeple.
I love the irony that it's always the hairy knuckle primates that hate animal liberation the most.
rocknfuckenroll 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
pmsou 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"wingnut idiot" and ;"hairy knuckle primate" is NAME CALLING. You need to practice what you type. I have no desire what soever to "convince" you or anyone else what I believe. lol The TRUTH can stand all by itself and all I am doing is telling the truth.
pmsou 2 years ago
I am practising what I type - I said name calling wouldn't convince anyone. I was right. Then I made fun of you for my own amusement. I don't see a contradiction here. Think of the wingnut idiot comment as helpful advice. Have a nice day
rocknfuckenroll 2 years ago
If you had even a fleeting understanding of Singer's ideas you would realize that he would not "run over a retarded person to save a whale" unless by "retarded" you mean "devoid of consciousness." But I know you don't have an understanding because you're not genuinely interested in his discussion of ethics.
dan46and2 2 years ago
@pmsou
Your ignorance astounds me.
Peter Singer gives logical in depth arguments for his opinions and then you turn around and misrepresent them and say hes wrong without any justification at all.
It seems to me that you have obviously not understood what he has said or actually read any of his work. You appear to be extremely uneducated and not very capable of critical thinking. It sickens me that you gave this video a 1 star and have listened to nothing hes said.
moyga 2 years ago 2
Again the only authority is the Bible not someone's work or idea.
jheraldcasipit 2 years ago
The bible is someone's (or rather, a few persons) work and ideas.
Further, how does one single out a single religion out of the whole ocean of ideas, and say that every ne of them, no matter how sound and reasonable, is incorrect if not identical to the one you chose?
puffaliaz 2 years ago
to all of the "educated" people out there who want to euthanize the elderly and mentally handicapped .because they are not real "PEOPLE"......THANK GOD I AM NOT LIKE YOU!!!!!
pmsou 2 years ago
That's not what Peter Singer wants pmsou, you are not listening or wanting to listen to what hes saying. You are over simplifying and misrepresenting his arguments and thoughts. What you are doing over and over is called: "The straw man fallacy".
Just go away.. no one cares. If you want to be ignorant, do it by yourself. You are not coming close to convincing anyone here of anything, they all just think you're an idiot.
You are wasting your time here.
moyga 2 years ago
the interviewer did well until this section and then bam, flat on his face
regalkidney 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This man is sooo a fall back to the starting time of life, we are and should have moved fare be on that. We aRE better then that. The Man is opening to an easy way of life and life is just not that cut and dry. Wake up you can't just take this view becasue it's easy . we are who we are not becasue it easy becasue it is heard .
Kdawg270 2 years ago
LOL, Peter is so consistent and on-track until he gets to intergenerational sex. Then he fumbles and avoids the issue. Smooth, dude, real smooth.
cotss2012 2 years ago
Another question - if Singer's desire to reduce suffering allows the parents the freedom to destroy a baby who is not a "person". Would it then be permissible in Singer's ethics for someone living in extreme suffering and poverty to commit suicide rather having society compensate them through charity? Suicide will alleviate suffering much more easier than charity so should we allow people that option? Hmmm....
thejobloshow 3 years ago
That's assuming no value to the human life which is suffering.
There is a solution to this problem at the time which would preserve life and cause less suffering.
That means that offing poor people isn't the least-harm solution.
Utilitarianism is problematic only because no person could ever suss out all the details to any given situation.
That said, you usually get the impression of whether it's wrong or not from instinct. This just asks we think about why.
Nakashii 3 years ago
Every person should be allowed to commit suicide for any reason. Your life is your own and nobody else's.
cotss2012 2 years ago
In terms of consequences - it is quite well reported that AIDs effects the gay community much more frequently than the heterosexual community. Therefore, under the consequential determination of Singer's attempt to reduce suffering - isn't homosexuality morally wrong after all?
thejobloshow 3 years ago
That's bullshit. Most people with AIDS are straight.
cotss2012 2 years ago
The gay community has a higher ratio of HIV/AIDs victims.
thejobloshow 2 years ago
And what does that have to do with anything?
dan46and2 2 years ago
If homosexual intercourse has a significantly higher chance of resulting in the contraction of AIDs or HIV - Under Peter Singer's reasoning, how can homosexuality not be immoral?
thejobloshow 2 years ago
Who cares about the long-term consequences of pedophilia? You can't justify it in the SHORT term! And I should know!
PerianArdocyl 3 years ago
Were you molested?
thejobloshow 3 years ago
Unfortunately, yes.
PerianArdocyl 3 years ago
then it's compulsory heaven for all. Excepting perhaps Hitler, Osama and Genghis Kahn. We believe that all men should find the truth that is right for them. Reality will adapt accordingly. The universe will realign. History will alter. We believe there is no truth except the truth that there is no truth. We believe in tolerance for all. Those that disagree with our tolerance will not be tolerated.
annelisefrench 3 years ago
you put hitler a man who killed 9 million people, with osama who killed 3 - 4 thousand, with genghis kahn who was a warrior in a different time. thats blood odd
ahabthewhaler 3 years ago
We believe that everything is ok as long as you don't hurt anyone. to the best of your definition and to the best of your knowledge. Anyone can't be the unborn- they aren't anyone. We believe that adultery is fun. We believe that sodomy is normal. We believe that porn is inevitable. We believe that taboos are taboo. We believe that after death comes the Nothing. Because when you ask the dead what happens, they say Nothing. If death is not the end, if the dead have lied to us..to be cont'd..
annelisefrench 3 years ago
We believe in Hollywoodfreudanddarwin
annelisefrench 3 years ago
This was so interesting! Ofcourse he doesn't agree with paedo and besti. He is so right about the whole "it's just wrong" thing, we have to be rational.
veroronnieronron 3 years ago
Here is the rub with paeodophilia. There is no way you can reliably say that you in your position of power over a child, by being older and trusted in that manner, that you could know for sure that they consent. There's no way. They will always see you as someone of elevated status or control. So he is right, there would be no problem with it if there were no guaranteed harm. That said, even a child who might consent somehow at 10 to sex might later realise what went on and feel awful about it.
Nakashii 3 years ago 3
With bestiality he's also right - if it caused no harm. He's defending a really simple position but the interviewer is drawing out people's more complex distaste for the issue.
Really we can't know whether we're harming animals because we can't communicate with them reliably. Answer given, he doesn't believe in bestiality.
He's simply against having intrinsic social taboos for no logical reason at all. He'd rather have a logical one.
Nakashii 3 years ago 5
Comment removed
dagarbos 2 years ago
But the same thing could be said about a man who dates a female co-worker who works underneath him. He can never know for sure if she is really interested or just wants to keep her job. There are always all these outside factors in any relationship.
vikingaprinsessan 3 years ago