Peter Singer, Stockholm, May 29, 2008

Peter Singer. Ethical aspects of the difference between secular and religious approaches. Arranged by Swedish Humanist Association, Stockholm, May 29, 2008

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Peter
• Singer
• humanism

[ega1mann]

Singer's work goes against his christian-based morals, like anything based on clear thinking does.

[shreddedglory]

Well spoken, ega1mann. Religion is just popular superstition. Kindness is the only real ethic.

[ccoott]

@ega1mann Singer is an atheist Christian morals aren't christian. They are just morals. The only good part of christianty are basically secular humanist.

[Frohicky1]

To put it perhaps better Mthooz, supernaturalism is a hypothesis, but not a scientific one because, as you say, it's in principle unfalsifiable and very arid in content. Along with the literal interpretation of The Lord of The Rings it's logically possible (Russel's Teapot) but not to be seriously considered.

[Mthooz]

How can you even call supernaturalism a hypothesis? It can't be tested, nor can it be falsified!! It's absurd! Your hypothesis about god having the character of transcending logic makes for good fiction but is a truly crappy hypothesis! How can you falsify it or test it?!

You may as well just declare that "god makes it that way"! but we all know that if anyone were to subscribe to such a belief then they would simply be parading their ignorance!

[dianelos2]

When one makes a hypothesis, it's not like one "defines something into existence". Naturalism is a particular hypothesis about reality, and so is theism. The point is that on naturalism's hypothesis you get a lot of conceptual and practical problems related to metaethics, while on theism's hypothesis you don't. Which is one more reason to believe that theism's hypothesis is more probably true than naturalism's.

[Mthooz]

Well if you define it into existence then anything goes! IF it is indeed "instantiated in god's character" that he can make logical impossibilities exist (such as 2+2=5 or 4 sided triangles!)... then anything goes and yes I agree it is all very easy! The theology becomes very vacuous! Which is why philosophy and logic are not for everyone.

Does god have a reason to act according to his character? Or does he just act out of impulse? Eitherway god cannot be the basis for morality!

[dianelos2]

Actually, on theism an "ought" can be derived from an "is". Indeed it's trivially easy to do so. You see, on theism, reality is based on the presence of God, and what's good is instantiated in God's character. So, on theism, what's good or what one ought to do is part of the fabric of reality.

Euthyphro is a false dilemma. God does what's good because God acts according to His/Her character, and also something is good when it comports with God's character, or with His/Her word about it.

[Mthooz]

You misunderstand. deriving an "ought" cannot be LOGICALLY DEDUCED from an "is"... distinguishing between naturalism and non-naturalism doesnt get you anywhere... think about it? Theism has an easy answer yes... but it is an answer born out of ignorance and the simple mindedness of wishful thinking, no more, no less... this was demonstrated by Plato in the dialogues concerning Euthyphro.

[godlessKnowledge]

And empathy

[dianelos2]

As Peter Singer notes one cannot derive an ought from an is within naturaalism, so whether or to what degree the origin of ethical *behavior* can be explained naturalistically is irrelevant.

That we can reason ethically is a fact of the human condition. The real question is metaethics, namely *how* we manage to do this. Theism has an easy answer, not so naturalism - and he says nothing about this in this video. I wonder if somebody knows where one can find the entire lecture.

[CaptainProton]

i just read the first chapter of "practical ethics" and this video cleared some things up. very good :D