Peter Singer on Personhood

From Up with Chris Hayes 11/06/2011

Category:

Education

[kissfan7]

Also, should "OK" be capitalized? Now that I typed it twice in a row it looks like I'm yelling randomly. This is clearly the most important question of all.

What was I saying? Oh yeah...

My moral judgements are based on one sentence: "Suffering is bad and should be avoided." National socialism causes much unnecessary suffering, and thus is immoral.

I do not believe in gods, but if they do exist and are all-powerful and all-knowing, they are either careless or cruel, not just.

[PMEWhite]

@kissfan7 Again, the atheist worldview is the total rejection of God, no matter what the evidence says.

You bring up a very good point, If you believe morality is subjective, than how can you claim the Nazis to be evil? They're simply going by their own morality, which would equal to yours. As for lying, yes, it is a sin, but it must also be made into the right context. Is the lying done for selfish reasons?, or for a selfless purpose? Do you believe in a Just and Righteous God?

[kissfan7]

@PMEWhite "[T]he atheist worldview [...]sees morality as a subjective notion[...]"

Atheist only says that there is no evidence that gods exist. No more, no less.

But even if you're a theist, how can you say morality isn't subjective? Lying is usually wrong, but if you're in Poland in 1943 and a man in a nice-looking uniform knocks on your door and says, "Good morning. Sunny day, isn't it? By the way, any Jews around here?" not only would lying be OK, but it would be immoral not to.

[dan46and2]

@Nulono That's a longer discussion than can be had in YouTube comments, I would suggest you read Singer's work on the subject. I just wanted to point out that he wasn't giving an opinion on whether the law should/shouldn't do something, just that it doesn't necessarily need to reflect person-hood.

[Nulono]

@dan46and2 *anything;

[Nulono]

@dan46and2 Then why not have it protect the unborn?

[dan46and2]

@Nulono He didn't say the law should do anything, he just said that the law doesn't necessarily have to be 100% lock-step with person-hood.

[dan46and2]

@blanderm1 He absolutely does understand. God is imaginary, and he knows it.

[blanderm1]

This person sounds like a nut job. He obviously has no idea who God is

[PMEWhite]

@Nulono Again, New Atheism blurring the definitions of atheism and agnosticism. if one "lacks belief", he/she is not an atheist but is an agnostic. If one is 'lacking belief' they are lacking the information, yet maintain it is possible for God to exist, atheism on the other hand says no, it is impossible, for God to exist. This is how New Atheism uses the popular 'Shifting the Burden Of Proof'.