Peter Singer on Morality in the Era of Bernie Madoff

[xtremetom180]

some sweet info here

[shellybirdy]

some really good stuff here

[kyleisahall]

That seems like a pretty rational argument... not exactly emotionally appealing, but that's not the point of philosophy now is it. A child with no long-term prospects for quality of life, who only can be kept alive at enormous societal expense, and has little or no likelihood of being a healthy and contributing member of our social economy provides very little equity.

[peteface24]

If we're fair to the people who go around slandering Singer as a Nazi, at least he has views which are much more like the Nazis than most of the people who get called Nazis by trolls on here!

[sssandhu78]

Awesome ...

[sukka113]

Peter singer is a Utilitarianist. A fallacious modern ethical theory that says the ethically correct decision is the one that creates the most pleasure.

This lacks an ontology and a metaphysical basis.

It cannot account for what a pleasurable outcome is.

lullzz

[lanceawatt]

@sukka113

1) Peter Singer is a leading advocate of preference utilitarianism, e.g. right thing to do is the act that maximises the satisfaction or preferences of all involved. This deals with the issues of act utilitarianism.

2)The theory is normative and therefore doesn't require an ontological or metaphysical basis in order to put it into practice.

Therefore, your claims seem to lose validity.

[Pomme843]

@sukka113 Modern? It has roots in ancient Greek philosophy - Democritus, for instance.

Certainly, everyone is free to define and denote pleasure, happiness or utility for themselves. No need to get too technical and intellectually acrobatic about it. People are able to tell what the feel to be pleasurable or unpleasurable.

[fleuvio123]

@Pomme843 "Modern" lol. Get them Pomme843. People think just because they can write they have to comment on everything.

[Pomme843]

@fleuvio123 Oh, the irony.

[peteface24]

@Pomme843 Utilitarianism *is* a characteristically modern theory, any philosopher will tell you that. Democritus was not a utilitarian. The first utilitarian we know of was actually Bishop George Berkeley, which is a surprise to many people who think it is inherently atheistic.

[Pomme843]

@peteface24 Thanks for the intel, I was unaware.

[Drgamedood]

@peteface24 I thought Jeremy Bentham was the first utilitarian.

[peteface24]

@Drgamedood He was the first philosopher to publicise Act Utilitarianism- in the late C18th. But Berkeley wrote a little about his view of Rule Utilitarianism in the early C18th. Unlike Bentham it was not a central part of his philosophy and he didn't publicise the view. (Though the terminology of Act vs. Rule Utilitarianism was only first used in the mid C20th by Harsanyi and Rawls.)

[Beeffyviolin]

Peter is wrong. Little does he know it, but HE is greedy too. Not for money... but maybe for knowledge or respect. You are greedy for the values you hold. He holds knowledge and intellect up as high values and has an ambition (or greed) to attain more of it.

[t1mel1ne]

@Beeffyviolin greed is really a pejoritive term, being greedy for something implies you want more than is necessary. wanting more knowledge is something I would think can be described better as 'hunger'.

[metal87power]

He IS NOT a philosopher!

[lanceawatt]

@metal87power yes, he is.

[hartenskim]

@metal87power how is this a real comment? what does this even mean?

[nahaymath]

Peter Singer is an international hero. The number of practical instances where humans have to choose between the horror of life imprisoned in a non-working body versus a painless death and are able to do something about it - except for the law/judges/lawyers/police interfering - is so miniscule compared to the trillions of times humans could make the right choice to go vegan instead of eating meat that ANY criticisms of Dr Singer for his stance on euthanasia are insignificant.

[nahaymath]

@nahaymath Contrast that to the massive good Dr Singer is doing, stopped only by the 99% of the population who chooses not to go vegan.

Of course, Dr Singer's stance on euthanasia is good, too, but, for those of you who oppose euthanasia, you can't argue that the good Dr Singer does for animal rights is infinitely greater than any good you think you're doing by extending torture and slavery taking care of suffering people.

[tothemax01]

Is it just me or did he not really say anything?

[MrUltitrader]

you can start by putting a bullet through you fucked up head before somebody have to that for you.

[PhilosopherSY]

I love this man. To him belongs the shining white robe of the moral philosopher. Of all the modern thinkers of our age, he is the most analogous to Bertrand Russell and writes wonderfully.

[nahaymath]

@PhilosopherSY Great comparison! Glad you mentioned Bertrand Russell!

[centurion180ad]

Professor Singer ought to look into his terminology, for it is the root of his bewilderment and the sole source of the smoke screen that leaves him guessing as to the motives of Madoff criminals. Irredeemable debt currency sieved through a fractional reserve system is not money. Psychopath Madoff would not have been able to BEGIN his scam, if Americans were still using money for their transactions.

[DutchmanNL1988]

This is going to my favorites..

[nahaymath]

Players X & Y Alternatives A, B, C, D Utility functions (X,Y) = (30,2), (20,-8) (3,-60) (15,40) X+Y: 32, 12, -57, 55. Pick D. Ex. X=human Y=cow A=X eats Y (1, -7000) X+Y=-6999 B=X eats soyburger (-2, 3) X+Y=1 Choose B: i.e. human's inconvenience to eat soyburger is trivial compared to suffering of cow. More complicated situations obviously require more detailed algorithms (than "pure" utilitarianism) to come up with a unique decision. But, practically, Singer is right.

[tothemax01]

@nahaymath Is the purpose of your maths purely obscurantist? Singer is wrong. Humans favor humans. Every species favors their own - that's called life and genetic competition. A human has no reason to consider the life of a cow equal to his, anymore than a bird does to a spider.

Singers attempt to hijack the definition of 'person' is meaningless. He has inherited the word from every human before him who used it to mean 'a singular human'. Utilitarianism is communist and evil.

[nahaymath]

@tothemax01 What do you mean by "obscruantist"? Individual players have the right to favor whomever they want in a particular situation, so obviously what you say is wrong. That is a ridiculous generalization to call utilitarianism "communist" and then to equate both as being "evil", because ALL choices are utilitarian: the good outweighing bad.

My only criticism of Dr Singer is that he has not formalized his philosophies in terms of game theory, consequences, competition, cooperation.

[nahaymath]

@tothemax01 Dr Singer has the right to use the word person any way he chooses, the same way capitalists and free-marketers and all their supporters have hi-jacked the US Supreme Court which now give "personhood" to abstract entities such as corporations, which is obviously wrong.

Bottom line: don't talk in generalities. Show me the math to show how the negative to the cow of a human eating the cow is in your mind lesser in magnitude than the inconvenience to eating a soyburger.

[tothemax01]

@nahaymath No one, capitalist or otherwise should realistically consider a business collective to be a person, any more than a nation is a person, so yes it is wrong.

It is bizarre to believe that you can mathematically characterize morality. But since that is how you choose to work things out, you have omitted the weighting function. Humans (on average) consider it more moral to consume high-nutrient foods (like meats) that they find it moral for a cow not to suffer being eaten.

[nahaymath]

@tothemax01

Glad you agree on the stupidity of the legal system calling corporations persons.

Now - do something practical about: stop giving power to those who defend those laws: at every opportunity, don't vote for a Republicrat or a Demopub.

Vote Green. Vote Socialist. Even Libertarian. Even write-in your own name instead.

See my videos on species competition. I have more to add to that.

Those meat-eating humans are strongly biased.

[mphello]

@tothemax01 And outlawing the Communist Party in the USA is fascist and anti-democratic.

If you don't allow people to have the political power to make whatever laws they want,

then you've got NO right to complain about heroic events like the Oklahoma City bombing or 911 or the Arizona shooter or whoever fights for your and my freedom.

Human meat-eaters are worth less than cows and pigs. Only human vegans are superior.

[ecordy75]

Utilitarianism says nothing about how to fairly distribute the good over bad. Utilitarianism (as I see Singer interpets it, and as I see it in most practical situations) simply looks at a set of alternatives for ALL individuals affected and chooses the one with total maximum happiness.

[mclarry76]

The problem is that he doesn't limit infanticide to the terminally ill newborns. He come to the conclusion that their potential existence will degrade on collective quality of life. A pure Utilitarian looks at the good of the many, that means that it is a waste of money to acomidate the handicapped

[cornerofcoast]

that is non-sequitur, and obnoxiously off in terms of utilitarianism.

[benzodiazapines]

Hear, hear. Singer always has challenging and brilliant opinions.

[johnlen3]

This man, Peter Singer, advocates the destruction of children up to the age of 2 because he considers them non-persons SO how can I take anything he says seriously? Am I supposed to believe that because he is a college professor he has some moral authority? Let's not forget that the Nazi Doctor Mengele was a brilliant man yet so cold and cruel, too.

[yvadmil]

Mengele?!!! Dr.Singer lost three grand-parents in Nazi death camps! As for

Singer`s authentic views on euthanasia for serverely handicaped babies and "non-personhood" please check out the "William Crawley meets Peter Singer"

interviews (on you tube).

[realitas]

@yvadmil Not Dr., I think.

[SisyphusRedeemed]

1) He does not advocate killing children; that is a libelous distortion of his views.

2) Even if he did advocate the killing of children, how does that bear on his thoughts on other matters? If he has good arguments with respect to ethics and economics, his poor arguments in another field is irrelevant.

3) No serious person says that Singer is right simply because he is a college professor. To suggest that is to imply argument from authority, which Singer would denounce as fallacious.

[warfwar3]

He does not advocate the killing of children, yes. But he claims there is nothing immoral about doing so. That is pretty disgusting, from a purely emotional point of view.

[SisyphusRedeemed]

Actually, he does think there is something immoral about killing children, in most contexts at least. Since most children live lives that have, on balance, more happiness than suffering, killing children undermines maximal utility. He does think there are certain circumstances in which killing a child is moral, but anyone who disagrees with that needs to learn more about severe birth defects like anencephaly.

[vivalaleta]

Have you ever seen the child Juliana - from the Discovery channel's "Girl without a Face"? How many millions have already been spent trying, with meager results, to fix all the abnormalities she has?

[mphello]

@vivalaleta BRAVO! All the anti-euthanasia folks LOVE to force OTHERS to spend THEIR hard-earned money to take care of severely deformed - or injured - people (adults or children).

Yet, one NEVER hears the conservatards / conservaturds protest an end to their taxes, taxes, taxes being wasted on efforts that only prolong agony for everyone.

[seanstrnad]

@SisyphusRedeemed I have heard him argue that some infants up to 28 days old should be euthanized.... ehhhh.

[SisyphusRedeemed]

@seanstrnad He thinks euthanasia should have no age limitation at all. If someone's life consists of nothing but suffering then they should have a right to die. But to qualify as euthanasia it has to be done for the good of the one being killed. So he's not talking about killing kids just because we don't want them.

[seanstrnad]

@SisyphusRedeemed Of course, I didn't mean to imply that.. but I'm still a bit troubled by the idea of euthanizing disabled infants... I mean who should really determine whether the quality of life for a person will be worth living--not only when this human being is unable to make the decision themself (I can support this, like the Schiavo case), BUT ALSO when the human is still an infant and hasn't been given a chance to beat the odds (Ph.d's do make mistakes). That makes me nervous...

[tooclassy4most]

read one of his books, weigh his arguments, make your ethical decisions accordingly.

[psycropticunt]

Good response, Tooclassy4most. Singer himself says its important to seek out all of the information ourselves and draws our own conclusion rather than just be told

[knicoal]

It's 28 DAYS, not 2 yrs. Get your facts straight. And its people like you that actually make that sort of idea implausible, since YOU DO NOT LISTEN. He is not supporting genocide, he is a utilitarian. And from a utilitarian perspective, the costs of supporting a handicapped child outweigh the benefits. He is NOT arguing that all handicapped ppl should be round up and shot - he is saying that it should be left to the discretion of those people that will be forced to care for the infant.

[LexPhilogus]

" He is NOT arguing that all handicapped ppl should be round up and shot "

But if the state of care for handicapped people is analogous with care for infants then he must not object to euthanasia for handicapped people, by their caretakers.

[GregGirardin]

"Handicapped" is not a particularly useful adjective here. Not much more useful than "black", "rich" , "short" or "Canadian".

His moral agenda is reducing suffering not eliminating handicaps. Indeed, he would oppose the suffering of certain animals which could be thought of as the moral equivalent of a handicapped human.

He (probably) would not oppose euthanasia of any particular person if they were suffering, or if there was no consciousness present in that person.

[LexPhilogus]

Probably is a good word because maybe what were talking about is probability. What is the probability that most fetuses will be fully functional productive humans? Then we are destroying not only the fetuses future utility but the societal utility derived from the productive aspects of the full development of a fetus.

We should think of pregnancy as a Futures marke for social utility. The moral decision is thus a function of the probability of gain. But how do we measure these gains?

[LexPhilogus]

Since there is no deontological case for a right to life, a mass genocide of many of the people in the third world, particularly places like Ethiopia could conceivably reduce dis-utility. The problem here is how do we measure the utility they gain from living while suffering? Otherwise theyd commit suicide.

[LexPhilogus]

A hypothetical Family, Ill call Family Doe, takes care of a disabled person, both conscious and capable of suffering, but family costs out weigh monetary and non monetary benefits. Assume that no other family or unit has any interest in taking care of said disabled person. Would euthanasia then be morally permissible? Are the specific conditions of suffering and consciousness rendered moot?

[MassiveJungle]

lol u have the reading comprehension of a 2 year old

[fomastephanovitch]

Altruism is just as pervasive a force within our culture: people have to accept this if we're ever going to be able to truly enjoy personal freedom.

[CosgroveAlexander]

fomastephanovitch:

Acceptance as in changing one's own values in order to conform to culture? I don't understand how that increases personal freedoms; merely accepting collective values takes away one's right to choose. Therefore, it is irrational and contradictory to neglect one's personal values to accommodate cultural trends.

[killerbandit]

Obsessive compulsive wealth accumulation. We actually encourage greed in our culture. We are encouraging these people to spread their disease.

Some Aboriginal Americans called this Wetiko. "Cannibalism, or, figuratively, the consumption of humans for profit, slavery."

It is a European disorder that is bread into our population.

[togio100]

well, I do agree to some extent

But the concept of property and owning property transpires Western culture. Mercantilism evolved in the Far East, in Mesoamerica, and in Saharan Africa without the influence of modern Europeans

I think it's a universal want to covet material things. Our desire for money is not different than a chimp's desire to want a piece of meat or some ripe fruit to eat, or the softest leaves for its nightly nest.

[killerbandit]

There distinction between a healthy need for trade and property rights and what is practiced by the super rich.

The desire for material things is not a shameful thing in the least, but there is a point at which this desire becomes unhealthy and destructive.

[creten69]

so if global child nuetering was established and people simply atrophied away,then there would'nt be hardly any problems left to solve.thanks old dude!;~^

[deliciousonionsoup]

That would be child abuse. Global adult neutering by conscious choice would be better - no abuse.