Peter Singer: On Ethics

This was a lecture given during a 2007 CFI conference "Secular Society and its Enemies." Singer runs through various topics relating to Ethics and the talk wraps up with a few minutes of Q&A.

For more information:
www.centerforinquiry.net/nyc

Category:

Education

Tags:

• ethics
• philosophy
• singer
• peter
• petersinger
• cfi
• centerforinquiry
• center
• inquiry

[Hyardacil]

@agents1986 "...psychological harm is irrelevant. Since utilitarianism is only concerned with happiness."

Wow. I have not seen two more contradicting statements said in a supposedly serious tone for a long time. Are you sure you are not just trolling?

[ccoott]

@190xtdiesel that's nonsense. ever hear of "good for goodness sake"? So you're saying, unless I'm terrified that some celestial dictator is going to punish me, I am going to be a bad, immoral person? Absurd. I am a compassionate person because I empathize with others, I believe sentient beings should not suffer. That is morality. Religion did not create goodness. Very silly.

[MisterAdamWayne]

In summary, on the basis of popular referendum, Oregon ought to enjoy the moral autonomy to establish physician assisted suicide by law, whereas, on the basis of popular referendum, California ought not enjoy the moral autonomy to disestablish homosexual marriage by law. Thus, this loose alliance of anti-Christian moralists (self-proclaimed "secularists") oscillates on the legitimacy of democratic government according to their goals... like everyone else. His authoritative tone means nothing.

[Howsonify]

@shanio18 The psychological harm done to the tortured person would certainly be relevant, since it would be a key factor in doing the utility calculus (weighing the happiness gained over the harm caused).

Just to be sure, not all utilitarians take on a strict Benthamite form of utilitarianism, to maximize total happiness/pleasure. For example, some utilitarians take on a negative form of the ethical system, to strictly minimize pain/suffering with no regard to pleasure or happiness.

[shanio18]

@Hyardacil Utilitarianism's goal is to maximize total happiness. If one can save five people by torturing another person, then under utilitarianism he ought to. Therefore, psychological harm (to the tortured person) is irrelevant.

[CoolThisIsMyUsername]

@ccoott yours is a typical antireligious response: riddled with presuppositions, and tinged with bitter emotion. assuming you've at least tried to learn the theology you're so quick to dismiss, you might try and use some of that knowledge in argument. you say "celestial dictator in the sky," and to match that tone of voice one that's ignorant of science might respond, "i'm no gorilla": both statements are equally uninformed and equally dumb.

[Howsonify]

@empreme Actually, it's warranted this time. Since you didn't bother to look up the fallacy, here is a straight forward Wikipedia entry on it: "A tu quoque [fallacy] attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting his failure to act consistently in accordance with that position."

It's clear that was exactly what you were attempting to do in your comment.

[empreme]

@Howsonify You would be right if espoused the same set of ethics as Singer, but I do not. So your objection doesn't work.

I know you were probably dying to use that phrase somewhere. Perhaps it will be warranted next time.

[Howsonify]

@empreme Tu quoque.

Fail.

[tdevry]

I am a Christian and vegetarian and do agree with Singer on almost all issues. I do find that speaking to my fellow church goers is mostly a waste of time as the nonsense that animals are for our use is so deeply engrained. I try in my small way to influence them but ....