Peter Singer - The Genius of Darwin: The Uncut Interviews - Richard Dawkins

Both Singer and Dawkins overlook the evolutionary development of EMPATHY, as a source of ethical instincts. It is not simple reason, nor is it a misfiring. It is the ability to put oneself in the others' shoes. In life, it allows us to anticipate that the mammoth will take this path rather than that one. But it also causes us to realize the value of others, or rather, the fact that we are not more special.

Empathy leads to the golden rule, the beginning of all morality.

If we can take into consideration the wishes of a person who has died, then we should equally be able to take into consideration the possible wishes of a person yet to be born but is in fact already alive.

I believe Singer and Dawkins are far too quick to jump to conclusions that are convenient for the decision makers, and not what's truly moral or ethical for all parties involved.

"If we can take into consideration the wishes of a person who has died, then we should equally be able to take into consideration the possible wishes of a person yet to be born"

gotta say, I've never heard this before, and I like it. I am going to try to think it over and perhaps apply it in my conversations from now on, although I must say i dont know yet if I agree or not.

Jenglis, I know replying to this video with religious arguments won't gain any traction. So it's important to me for people like me who disagree with the conclusions drawn to be able to argue against these points with logic. Remember, just because Dawkins repeatedly states that Singer is completely logically consistent, doesn't mean that he is. It's important to be able to argue with these points on the level of logic and reason.

We can also see that a man or woman with Down syndrome or another disability that is commonly aborted for, may be able to enjoy and experience life's pleasures and that it would be wrong to deny them this opportunity simply because they don't yet have the capacity as a small infant or fetus to object to being killed.

If we can, as human beings, project into the future, we can also see that there are many advances which will help disabled children and babies to have a much higher quality of life than they did in the past.

I can follow the logic they're using but I just don't agree with the conclusions they come to. I really do think that it's important, as a society, to make a distinction between human beings and animals in order to protect human beings. While these two men can comfortably discuss such things as cannibalism, abortion, and infanticide, they need to think about how their arguments will sound to others who may act on them. Many things here could easily be understood in ways they can't seem to see.

It's not the logical consistency that people have a problem with. It's the conclusions that are drawn that people have a problem with. It's not so much a "yuck factor" that is the problem either. It's just the fact that Singer and Dawkins are abusing logic to come to conclusions that are completely immoral. There are also holes in some of their reasoning. For example, our very ability to see into the future should preclude our thinking in a strictly utilitarian, in-the-moment mode.

@LUKEJAMESBARRETT indeed.