Thanks for watching my latest episode. Let me know your thoughts and opinions down below in a comment. If you like my content and want to support me, consider becoming a paying member of the Coleman Unfiltered Community here --> bit.ly/3B1GAlS

@honaybear5286

10 ай бұрын

Israel does not have America on their side/corner! America is against Israel! Israel is on their own they only have The GOD Of The BIBLE on their side!

Great episode. I acknowledge Coleman for taking philosophy out of the ivory tower and into living mainstream internet discourse. So glad you’re here Coleman!

Singer is so based. His willingness to take modern philosophy to it's logical and unavailable conclusions illistrates it's utter depravity. He sacrifices his very soul so that those with even a modicum of decency can recoil in disgust. Thanks man!

@NicholasWongCQ

10 ай бұрын

He's basically a parody of atheistic philosophy.

@fancyhitchpin8675

10 ай бұрын

@@NicholasWongCQ it's not parody, it's mask off.

@twoshea749

10 ай бұрын

😂 - that was an awesome comment!

@CovocNexus

9 ай бұрын

It was never a parody. This is just premises taken to their logical conclusion.

Coleman you are an excellent interviewer. You listen and process and you don't interrupt your guests like so many hosts do. Thank you from Austin, Texas !

I loved bringing up Peter Singer's arguments in my philosophy classes. He pursues his line of reasoning so wildly far that generally even the staunch abortion supporters would squirm a bit.

It's always good to hear from Peter Singer! Such a clear, logical and persuasive thinker! He's one of the great moral reformers of our age, pushing us to be better people.

Thanks to both of you beautiful persons, and all who contributed to this!

It is acceptable to abort if the fetus can’t feel pain @26:00 what about someone who has been knocked out for surgery. Is it acceptable to kill them if they can’t feel the pain?

@bentray1908

10 ай бұрын

Maybe yes. I was thinking about an AGI that might vaporize humans to reduce suffering. We choose to treat others as if they have inherent value and dignity but this belief is not derived by logic. Some cultures don’t have it. It enables a high trust society. You don’t have to constantly waste cycles calculating your safety and defending against attacks.

@liberality

10 ай бұрын

​@@bentray1908 No such thing as artificial intelligence. I hope for the sake of humanity you are never in charge of building a vaporising machine.

@Godocker

10 ай бұрын

I wonder if he'd be fine with animal farms just as long as the animals couldn't feel the pain.

@petyrbaelish1216

10 ай бұрын

I don't think pain is relevant in the abortion arguments. Like what was mentioned in the video, there are people, do to genetic disorders who will never feel physically pain but no one would say it is ethical to kill them for that reason.

@uncoiledfish2561

2 ай бұрын

@@Godocker It would have to go beyond just removing pain. But yes, I think he would be fine with it.

Great discussion and thank you for editing the mouth sounds 😊

As long as the child is sacrificed to Baal or Moloch it's PC.

@JonathanMWeiss

10 ай бұрын

I prefer Zuul.

The moment someone presents a Malthusian argument, their foundational premises fail in my opinion, and I loose nearly all respect for what they have to say thereafter. The belief that more humans (the creatures with the most conscious awareness on the planet) are somehow an existential danger to the planet, but the person positing the argument is not a part of that problem (since they believe their life is worth the danger it poses to our existence, or they would have ended it), is a foundationally flawed one.

Good to see this discussion. The way a person treats animals says a lot about the person as a whole

@justafan9665

Ай бұрын

Similar to how a person who is willing to end the development of an unborn human being in their own womb tells us a whole lot about that person.

Thank you Coleman for your recent comments on The Fifth Column podcast. I was in a similar situation as you, as I was mandated to get boosted to Baruch classes. The only difference is that I’m still feelings the consequences of it mire than a year later after getting shoulder bursitis and thus having surgery.

So, let me get this straight, Peter Singer is a vegan because he believes in animal liberation, and thinks it is unethical to kill an animal that MAY or MAY NOT (based on his own words) be able to feel pain, but has absolutely no qualms what-so-ever killing a child in the womb who may or may not be able to feel pain. That's some serious anti-human logic at play.

@NicholasWongCQ

10 ай бұрын

Not only that, he has no qualms about killing infants either.

@synthesizerneil

10 ай бұрын

Welcome to veganism. And the worst part is that there are so many followers of Coleman who think this guy is cool apparently. I'm so glad I stopped listening to Sam Harris and realized years ago where his ideas end up

@janewest2845

10 ай бұрын

Fetuses cant feel pain until 25 weeks at the earliest, most abortions happen in the first trimester. In 2019, nearly 80 percent of the procedures reported to the CDC were performed before the 10th week of pregnancy. Almost 93 percent were performed before the 13th week.

@NicholasWongCQ

10 ай бұрын

@@janewest2845 It doesn't take much thinking to see the absurdity of using the ability to feel pain as the criteria to judge whether a killing should be allowed or not.

@dipdo7675

10 ай бұрын

@janewest2845 Tuff luck for the unlucky 7%!!

Love the notion that abortion is done by a licensed healthcare professional, as if you can't abort one without government approved death. And to use the term "remove the embryo or fetus" --- but, officer, I didn't murder my wife, I just removed her from living in her environment.

It’s disappointing to hear such a brief and unfeeling yes/no surface and simple conversation about abortion. There is so much nuance and I feel it immoral not to discuss the physical and mental health implications on the mother herself. Specifically what care and knowledge is available to her. If it’s about choices, let’s have transparency and information to make informed ones. The baby is not separate from the mother yet do not we have moral obligation to both?

@synthesizerneil

10 ай бұрын

You need to get out of atheist circles if this bothers you. This ghastly anti human trash is the logical conclusion of atheism

I am yet to hear some economical explanation as how would "everybody donates what they have extra" work. It's always only philosophical. If You have one prosperous and one poor country and You shift "all extras" to the poor one, eventually there would be 2 poor countries as the economy would collapse.

There are some people that don't have pain sensors, and if they didn't have "normal" emotions, would it be OK to kill them?

Look at all the Ethiopians that were born in poverty and extremely hard conditions. Look at them and how successful they are in America now.

Another great conversation, and really like this studio format.

Spartan infanticide, chattel slavery, 20th century eugenics, Peter Singer; all disciples of utilitarianism.

@user-vy9ss7gm5k

Ай бұрын

another jew nazi hiding beind the "it's for your sAFETY'

Fantastic one. Not a minute wasted!

I was hoping that you would press Singer more on economics. I don’t think there’s any doubt at this point that global capitalism is responsible for pulling over 1 billion people out of poverty the last 50 years. Trade and economic growth have done orders of magnitude more good for reducing poverty then all of the aid ever put together. Bono figured this out in the 1980s and 90s. In fact you can make an excellent argument that by reducing your consumption and directly giving aid is actually worse for people than buying stuff. It seems counterintuitive, but history has really borne that out. If he’s going to be a consequentialist, then he has to be a consequentialist. It’s one thing for him to hold his view 50 years ago, and it’s another thing to hold it now. More than just global capitalism has made that possible, however. The international order created after Bretton Woods allowed direct access to the US economy, which is almost insatiable. China’s economic growth really never took off until it was given access to the US markets. Even in the developed world, the export-based economies would be in deep trouble without access to the American market. And the global stability particularly keeping open sea lanes of communication for free trade, and also ensuring free trade in energy products (oil), as well as other economic inputs has had a huge global benefit, at the expense of the US taxpayer and military. Unfortunately, it seems like the era of United States being willing to spend blood and treasure on that he waning. As you can tell, I am not a fan of consequentialist ethics. For example, you can easily make a consequentialist argument, supporting maximum intervention around the world and colonialism. Love your podcasts!

I'm always interested in the seemingly reasonable arguments Singer makes, and then I start listening to him and inevitably he starts 55:00 going all "oh by the way wouldn't it be like so cool if surgeons could secretly kill their patients and harvest their organs for transplantation??!?". Like ...JFC, dude.... it's impossible not to find someone earnestly making an argument like this MONSTROUSLY ghoulish.

One reason to think you can't benefit an animal by bringing it into existence is that it would mean bringing them into existence would increase their well-being. However, an animal that doesn't exist doesn't have a well-being state, so you may not be able to make that comparison. This is to say that in order for you to benefit or harm an animal, it would already need to exist in the first place.

Thank you for the very interesting discussion.

With birth rates falling below replacement rates, the statement the abortion is a delaying tactic.

Great discussion! I think you let Singer off a little easy with the hospital thought experiment. Why should the surgeon wait for a patient with a brain tumor? Why shouldn’t he just go into the influenza ward, and give a patient an undetectable lethal injection? Even if the patient would have clearly recovered, the surgeon can now save five other patients, which would produce more quality-adjusted life years.

The whole animal/bird/fish as food question is simple to me. We currently eat too many prepared foods. I’m a loose vegetarian, but I worked as a chef for a good few minutes….I just choose the lentil option over skinning and butchering an animal. Most regular meat eaters I’ve come across would be grossed out grinding up pieces of a cow to make their beloved hamburger. We are Omnivores. But we are humans. If you think a live chicken is gross or wrong to kill to make your wing dish…..don’t eat it Of course factory farming is beyond gross, inhuman and obviously bad for the animals health. But it seems it only works because most people like the hamburger but hate looking at a skinned cow carcass…out of sight out of mind

Wasn't aware we cared about vegetable or mineral rights.

The beauty of ideas and preferences is everyone has them. The ugliness is when they use government force to preclude other people's ideas and preferences.

He provides the widest and most generous view of the fish and animals while constricting with the most limiting views the rights of humans in the case ID abortion. Great conversation. I am not convinced by his philosophy.

Our morals are twisted when this guy has no problem getting a book published but someone who questions gender ideology on kids is blacklisted.

Why is feeling pain so important. Every war is murdering other humans, and we do this every day throughout history.

@uncoiledfish2561

2 ай бұрын

Causing harm to others is objectively wrong. If you don't agree seek help.

@MofoWoW

2 ай бұрын

Just because war and murder have been commonplace does not mean they are morally okay. In fact, part of why war in particular is such a bad thing is precisely because it causes so much physical pain (among many other things, of course).

12:07 "I wouldn't mind eating oysters, because oysters don't move either" Apparently he doesn't know that larval oysters are free-swimming organisms that lives in the water column and only become sessile at adulthood when they settle and anchor to a substrate. It's not that they lack sufficient nervous complexity for movement, it's that their shells get too big and heavy I hate doing a whataboutism but I just couldn't pass this one up >_>; Or what about a scallop? Similar creature to an oyster, non-chordate filter-feeding bivalve. BUT, unlike oysters, scallops retains mobility into adulthood. Is it okay to eat those?

😢😢😢😢😢😢

Thanks for another great episode. As a fan who knows that you personally try hard to avoid audience capture, I will say that the cover photo does come off as very click-baitey when the abortion discussion was actually a very small part of this overall dialogue. That being said, I was relieved that the abortion discussion stayed so level headed. I liked the equivalence he drew between someone choosing not to have a kid and someone having an early term abortion. Speaking as a woman, it really is the same thing, and it gets extremely frustrating when people who know nothing about my life or circumstances think there is this huge holy distinction between a nonexistant pregnancy and an early term pregnancy. From my point of view, the concept of being unconditionally pro-life in one's beliefs is the ultimate form of virtue signaling. If you want people to WANT to keep their pregnancies, put your energy towards improving the physical, mental, and financial health of society as a whole. Clinging to this idea that life itself is unconditionally precious and inherently good is such a dangerously naive way of thinking. I would love to hear Peter Singer's thoughts on conservation of near-extinct species, as I feel that this type environmental goal also borders on virtue signaling in a similar way. Extinction is a very natural process, and even if some extinctions are clearly driven by the presence of man, an individual of an endangered animal species does not know nor care that it is endangered, and does not feel anymore significance in its own life or death than an individual of a highly populated animal species would. It is the humans that place this value on endangered species, and they are ultimately sustained for the sake of the human conscience. A great deal of money and resources goes into the conservation of endangered species, when that money could be going towards helping the rights of highly populated domesticated animals who are living in terrible mental and physical conditions.

@sportscarman5

10 ай бұрын

There absolutely is a difference between not being pregnant and an early pregnancy.

@DSS712

10 ай бұрын

​@@sportscarman5 Not in any relevant way, no. It may be relevant to some women/couples, and that is absolutely fine. but that doesn't mean it has to be relevant to all women/couples. There's a reason why modern secular society (and a growing portion of religious society) no longer considers it unspeakable to do things like have sex before marriage, use contraception, or masturbate. Just like people no longer make a big deal about men wasting their sperm on non-reproductive reasons, society is coming to an understanding that a healthy society and healthy individuals comes not from the inherent birthing of new humans, but rather from the preparedness of the parent population. We have the technology and ability to allow unprepared parents to hold off on taking on the task of parenting until when (or if) they are ready. Early term abortions are carried out either medically or with a simple procedure, and the side effects are similar to that of a bad period. Then life goes on. It blows my mind that people somehow take issue with modern society using technology to make a responsible childcentric choice. If you want to find a marginalized group to care for, help out those who are already here, can already feel pain, and need some actual support. Early-term prolifers are wasting their time and everybody else's when they could be helping actual people in need.

@Elena-ht7ku

10 ай бұрын

​@@sportscarman5Bravo!!!

I would like for Singer to explain how capitalism leaves people in extram poverty. Countries that have embraced capitalism like the western world have very few if any people living in extreme poverty. Singer even acknowledged indirectly that China lifeted many of its people out of poverty because of an embrace of capitalist ideas.

@KathyPrendergast-cu5ci

7 ай бұрын

Yes; one of the countries that embraced capitalism the most enthusiastically in the 20th century, Japan, now has very little really serious poverty, even after a few major economic downturns. The population in fact is so much better fed than it was in the first half of the 20th century that the current generation of young adults are on average at least half a foot taller than their grandparents. They're the actual height Japanese people are genetically meant to be, because they weren't starved as babies and children. You see this in China and South Korea as well.

@fparedes5802

Ай бұрын

Agree 100%. This seems to be an example of an intellectual not staying in his lane. Capitalism has been the system that has brought billions out of poverty in world history. The alternative - socialism - has brought people to poverty and kept them there. My favorite real example is looking at the Economic Freedom Index (measuring rule of law, property rights, regulations, basic economic freedoms)… the countries with the highest freedom score (closest to pure capitalism) are the most prosperous. The countries with the lowest freedom score are the most poor… The conclusion is inescapable: more capitalism = more prosperity and less poverty (which I have to mention is a separate issue from “wealth gap/disparity.”)

Firstly, excellent interview as always to Coleman. I take issue with Singer's abortion perspective in two ways, so I apologize for the essay in advance. He claimed that he doesn't support abortion after the fetus can feel pain. This begs the question of why? Are pain feeling people more of a person and therefore deserve more rights (specifically the right to not be killed) than those who can't feel pain? Does this pain criterion of human personhood extend to those under general anesthesia where a human can't feel pain either? And ultimately, what is the reasoning behind this demarcation line regarding personhood and gaining the right not to be killed? The second more difficult argument is the assertion that there is no moral consideration for acts of commission vs omission. I think most agree that generally persons have the right to not be killed yet lack the right not to die. In other words we generally have a no-right to kill someone else but lack a duty to save them from death. I say generally because there are exceptions. The right not to be killed is superceded to another person's right to self-preservation, and more pertinent to abortion, a parent/guardian DOES have a duty to do what they can to prevent their dependent from dying. When a parent disregards this duty, we call it child neglect. When child neglect leads to death, it is usually legally and morally tantamount to murder. A father who leaves their baby in the middle of the living room floor till it perishes commits an act of omission by not killing it, yet is still guilty of killing it and murdering it, if the legal system is just. Parents have a duty of care and that's what makes the difference between acts of commission and omission negligible when discussing abortion.

@KathyPrendergast-cu5ci

7 ай бұрын

Even when I was much more pro-choice on abortion than I am now, I never once deluded myself into believing that abortion doesn't actually involve the deliberate killing of a living human being. Knowing that, there are very obvious ethical arguments against abortion for the sole purpose of convenience, just like there are against killing a human being after birth just because his or her life "inconveniences" someone else.

"If she terminates her pregnancy, it won't change the number of people that come into existence." What?! You guys do know how pregnancy works right? That first child is now dead. The child that would be born after the woman is in a "financially better position" would NOT be the same child! In one world 2 children could exist, in the other only 1 exists. The number of people existing is completely different.

@JohnThomas

8 ай бұрын

He's talking about when parents intend to have the same number of children and so have another pregnancy later.

At the heart of the " I can't argue with that logic, but I feel it's wrong" is a strange mix of "I'm an atheist but it feels like you're playing God.

Singer's ideas could ha been used to justify the so-called holocaust.

The organ transplant scenario seems wrong (ethically) because organ transplant isn’t the only way to keep those other patients alive, and the patient with the brain tumor isn’t the only potential source of organs at any rate. Finally, of course you are treating the patient with a brain tumor as as a means, rather than an end in and of itself.

“Global capitalism is a system that can leave a lot of people in extreme poverty” dude this guy is wild

@dipdo7675

10 ай бұрын

Petey boy reminds me of a cult leader!!

@aben42933

10 ай бұрын

@@dipdo7675He is a cult leader. “He’s considered a leader in the development of the modern animal rights movement.”

About UBI. There's a lot to the subject, I'll try to be brief, and of course my simplistic answers will have holes. First, the idea that giving everyone money will cause inflation. It would cause some price adjustments. But can we really say that it's better to leave those without income with no money, because prices would be slightly higher for everyone? The primary driver of inflation is the need for publicly owned companies to post record profits quarter over quarter. It's not the local diner increasing their meals a couple of dollars because they consistently have more customers than they can serve. Second, what level of income do you consider 'rich'? It's likely that the administrative cost of making sure 'rich' people didn't get UBI would cost more than just giving it to them. Especially because paying for UBI will almost certainly require some form of sales tax which would clearly hit the rich much harder than the poor.

@stonecoldscubasteveo4827

10 ай бұрын

You don't understand inflation. It's not caused by corporate profiteering. It's caused by increasing (AKA inflating) the money supply. The more dollars going around the less each of them is worth. That's it. It's why you can't just crank up the money printing machines and cut everyone a check for a billion dollars to end poverty.

Peter Singer's book is titled, Animal Liberation, yet he is the worst advocate for it. He is a welfarist that doesn't want to liberate fellow animals from humans. He is perfectly okay with finding better ways of enslaving and murdering them. If human slavery was still the norm, would he be okay with better treatment of the slaves (rather than not enslaving fellow humans)? A better guest for animal rights would be Tom Regan or Gary L. Francione. Animal liberation is dependent on the abolition of animal use (to stop viewing fellow animals as things/property to be exploited).

@abhijitkurse53

10 ай бұрын

True. We need to eventually get to the point where animals are completely free of human association, which they cannot consent to and thus involves exploitation, which includes existence in zoos and wildlife "sanctuaries" for viewing of humans (even for environmental purposes) as well as having pets of any kind. Animal rights activists have already made commendable moves in the direction of arguments against pet ownership, which is more or less house slavery. Too bad Regan is dead.

These days when I ear people say that they accepted the reality of global warming I feel like I used to when I heard someone say that they have accepted Jesus in their heart.

Genuine respect for interviewer and interviewee kept me watching. The respect still stands, but doesn't great influence come with great responsibility? In an interview about the new edition of Singer's animal rights book, much well deserved ado is made about practical, actionable philosophy. The discussion turns very wide ranging. But no distinction is drawn between the various matters. No "don't try this at home." Radical views expressed on some other matters are morally highy controversial, to say the least. For instance, Singer seems to opine that, under certain circumstances, a surgeon would do an ethical good by secretly botching an operation, killing the patient on the table, so that the surgeon could use his organs to save several other people! Such behavior would certainly be highly illegal--felonious. Moreover, such teachings are bound to lead to appalling, albeit unintended, consequences on medical ethics, trust in physicians, ethics in general, honesty, and humans' trust in each other.

Philosophy only gets credit for half of its matter? Do you mean half absence of matter???

Thinking more about that example with doctor and what is moral. Actually, why exactly is saving 5 lives that need organ transplantation is moral. I am not necessarily against this proposition, but it does rely on premises and assumptions that are not so obvious to me ...

57:58 I certainly don't agree and would like to live far from those who agree. This is why we need freedom of association and anarcho capitalism....

It always amazes me how someone who have no qualms about infanticides could go around being treated as a serious moral philosopher. As the Bible says, "claiming to be wise, they became fools".

@MiracleBlazze

10 ай бұрын

Not particularly surprising that someone who takes the Bible seriously isn't interested in academic discussion.

@petyrbaelish1216

10 ай бұрын

We don't have to be morally consist, if a society wants to be morally inconsistent then they can be.

@NicholasWongCQ

10 ай бұрын

@@petyrbaelish1216 Yeah but you can't be morally abhorrent and call yourself a moral philosopher.

@petyrbaelish1216

10 ай бұрын

@@NicholasWongCQ why not? Nature does not give a dam about your moral philosophy. You should be running for you life threw the jungle right now. Because that's what we did for the past 100,000 years. Go tell the lion that's it's morally abhorrent.

@NicholasWongCQ

10 ай бұрын

@@MiracleBlazze It's just amusing to observe those who see themselves as descendants of bacteria or ugly bags of mostly water engaging in "academic" discussion about morality, good and evil, right and wrong, like they're ultimately real and meaningful.

Isn’t mostly about the quality of a life’s existence right up until its dead . Whether you are killing and eating it or it’s killing and eating you . We should care about the wellbeing and healthy existence of all life right before we bbq it .

@kronosDking

10 ай бұрын

That is exactly what Singer is saying.

Peter is wild

‘The different child born later’ is not equivalent! If my brother was born instead of me where will I be ??

Can you imagine spending a night with him?? Oh the smugness…BORING!!

Good conversation, but I do find Singer’s evolutionary thinking pretty dubious or incomplete. Also, the places he appears to truncate thought seem to suspiciously support his own conclusions. For example his reasoning regarding the experiments for fish feeling pain seems incomplete. First of all, responding to shocks = presence of pain isn’t enough for me, he’s making a logical leap there. But even if we grant that fish physiology uses something like pain as the signal in a cost/benefit analysis, he has to then demonstrate that the fish has some kind of conscious awareness of that pain, which he skips over, at least in this conversation. He also uses pain as an endpoint for making decisions, but then discounts any benefit of being brought into existence. Pain evolved to help with the problem of continued existence, which includes perpetuating oneself into the future through reproduction. It seems very ironic to argue from the basis of pain but then to not also argue from the basis of existing, since pain seems pretty clearly to subserve existence.

infanticide is ok, and lets make sure animals dont suffer.

@PeteMD

10 ай бұрын

Yep truly bizarre and backwards logic from this old demented kook

@twentyshoestrings

10 ай бұрын

This is such an absurd misreading of what he says

That’s a bizarre assumption: that we developed the ability to move because we experience pain. And comparing that to trees that are stationary, therefore them never developing the ability to experience pain. But that’s false. Scientists have discovered that plants emit noises (they “scream”) when stressed that are too high-pitched for humans to hear. Looks like your assumption based on evolutionary theory is incorrect If I were to address your assumption head-on, I would have to question how we developed the ability to experience pain. If, at some point, we never had pain, then how did we develop the ability to move? The ability to move would be a result of experiencing pain, as pain serves as a trigger to initiate movement away from its cause. This implies that we had the ability to experience pain before our ability to move. This contradicts your theory that we gained the ability to move because we experience pain. Your theory suggests that the evolutionary purpose of movement is solely a utility of moving away from pain. And not so that we could mate or eat, for example. It’s a bit absurd. Coleman, I like you, but it’ll benefit you to write more just for the sake of writing, and have your ideas critiqued by analytic philosophers that specialize in logic to help strengthen your argumentative skills. Your article on affirmative action was riddle with a lot of assumptions. Idk, maybe you don’t care about actually being right. But you should probably first consider framing your argument on empirical evidence, and using the evidence to determine whether a particular issue is ethically right or wrong. Then move on to whether the social implications of said issue outweighs its ethical status. Just a suggestion.

The description calls Singer a “moral” philosopher. Maybe an “immoral” philosopher is more apt?

@kronosDking

10 ай бұрын

Why?

@Terrordirt

10 ай бұрын

I agree this dude is terrifying

@sophieoshaughnessy9469

10 ай бұрын

Amoral, perhaps. Immoral is a judgment on what is moral. He has values. They just don’t align with yours.

@liberality

10 ай бұрын

​@@sophieoshaughnessy9469 If Singer has values, he can't be amoral. I agree he does have morals, based on resentment of his own species. And yet he is still alive, which implies a moral superiority in which it is other humans that must die to bring about his moral universe.

@petyrbaelish1216

10 ай бұрын

What's wrong with being immoral?

I find the position of being vegan and pro-choice is not morally consistent. I myself am both vegan and pro-life.

@Terrordirt

10 ай бұрын

Yea it is extremely creepy to care more about animals than humans

@sophieoshaughnessy9469

10 ай бұрын

Let me try a thought experiment with you. What I’d you were a mammalian fetal form of any mammal. which you are of course), and your certain future was to stand around in a dark room in your own waste for years or months until someone came to cram you in a chute and slit your throat. Would you want to be born into that life? If not are you really pro life or just pro human?

@marg0049

10 ай бұрын

He does mention that the most ethical abortion would be before a fetus can feel pain, which seems consistent with his statements on veganism.

@liberality

10 ай бұрын

​@@marg0049 But Singer supports abortion in general, up to and including infanticide, which is not a vegan position.

@petyrbaelish1216

10 ай бұрын

​@@Terrordirtnot really, if people could save a fertilized egg in a dish or their pet dog in a fire, I think most people would choose their pet.

Going to call Singer out on inconsistent logic,- as others here have pointed out in his views on animal rights/ abortion in regards to pain and etc. He is also guilty of False conflation. Actively killing and letting someone die are not the same. Choosing to kill one to save with the train switch scenario is not the same as the brain surgery/ organ scenario. In the first scenario You aren't choosing to kill anyone. You have a binary choice. 1 dead or 5 dead. I personally wouldn't flip the switch.. because I would walk away as this sounds too contrived and I do not trust whatever information source telling me that this was the scenario. If I had no choice? IDK how that would be.. maybe I'd die as well somehow? I'd probably animal panic and panic pull the switch to have 1 die vs 5 but that's not so much a choice, and it's not "right" but that's what I'd do. too contrived. but for these thought experiments they have to be.. or who could possibly think up a realistic scenario? Not I. Anyway, Choosing to murder is still murder, regardless of whatever net good argument one makes. This is how the law is and for good reason.. Because reality trumps these bankrupt philosophical hypotheticals.

Coleman, a surgeon quietly murdering a patient and stealing their organs for other patients "seems wrong" because it IS wrong. No one else's life is his to take even if he think its for the greater good. And a decision like that scales horrifically especially when you add the perverse financial incentives driving the medical industrial complex. Singer has some psychopathic traits, imo.

@justinv588

8 ай бұрын

I've never actually listened to Singer. I have only heard people talk about his wild positions and I always thought, "they must be exaggerating, there's no way someone actually holds these views or at the very least, they wouldn't say them into a microphone. Boy, was I wrong and "psychopathic traits" is being very charitable.

@robdielemans9189

8 ай бұрын

You can't be morally right because it is easy, but because it's hard.

The conversation about organs seriously uncomfortable. Humans believing they’re God enough. He’s talking about peoples bodies and organs which were given them by God and just switching them around with other peoples. This man, and humanity, need Jesus imo. Jesus Christ has the power to heal humanity. Instead of Jesus, we are relying on doctors with our lives and putting our trust in them.

21:47 "It's not as if there's some other theory that has answers to these questions" Seriously? _Of course_ there's other theories, just because Singer himself apparently isn't aware of them doesn't mean they don't exist! Off the top of my head: There's the Dharmic line, which is that the animals have a Dharma, which is their state of existence and purpose within the universe, when you are killing and eating the animals you are disrupting their dharma, therefore immoral There's the Abrahamic line, which is that the animals are given by god to man to use, when you are killing and eating the animals it is in accord with their intended purpose, therefore moral And there's the Confucianist line, which is that each person is cultivating their own virtue within their ability and circumstance and animals lack such potential for cultivation. Therefore you killing and eating the animals is neither inherently immoral or moral, but becomes an indication of the person's own nature Utilitarianism falls apart on a philosophical level before any of these do in regards to the animal welfare question, because utilitarianism presupposes two things that are demonstrably factually untrue: that happiness is A) measurable and B) fungible. All of your 'problems' arise from these two untrue presuppositions!

God I hate consequentialism.

I don't think abortion is ethical BUT it is necessary. I say this as someone who, if I was unfortunate enough to get pregnant, I'd have to get an abortion. It would be a horrible situation to be in. In regards to being vegan, it's a stance I agree with but don't practice. It's a juxtaposition I have in my brain that I try to ignore. My sister is vegan but not militant which I appreciate

@KathyPrendergast-cu5ci

7 ай бұрын

If one of my sisters became vegan she would know she would have to be "not militant" about it if she wanted a continued relationship with me. Next to evangelical Christians, militant vegans are among the most unbearably judgmental and self-righteous people to be around, and it doesn't help that most of them are also rank hypocrites. Farming for plant foods kills and destroys the habitats of millions of animals.

"Promosm"

I am certainly glad to have existed, at least at times; but had I not existed, I should not have missed anything. 'Benefit' surely doesn't come into the matter. I do not see why my (or other people's) occasional, or even constant, gladness at having come into existence should be regarded as making the mere fact of living into some kind of metaphysical 'benefit'.There seems to be an illicit step being taken in this argument - or is it that existence is being regarded as obviously a benefit, ineluctably & without argument, and has nothing to do with what one feels about one's existence? My existence certainly has not benefitted all those animals, birds and fish who have gone down my gullet in order to benefit me; and as someone from an exploiting country, it perhaps has not, all things considered, benefited people from poor and politically disordered countries, and may well have harmed them. What of a child who is born into destitution with no chance of bettering itself in, say, a country like North Korea? The assumption that existence is necessarily a benefit is surely questionable. Why is the Chorus in 'Oedipus at Colonus' wrong in saying 'Never to have been born is best'?

Bloody hell, this is popular isn't it!

Peter Singer is not for animal rights. He’s just a welfarist. Why not talk with someone who’s actually in favor of animal rights?

Quick answer no. At least not much more ethical than killing a newborn

*Snort* It's simple, really. Humans too are animals (not vegetables or minerals), part of Nature and subject to Nature's laws, just like every other animal. As such, we have the same rights that Nature gives to any other animal -- including the right to kill other animals (and vegetables) for our survival. But nothing and nobody gives us the right to torture. Neither are abused animals as good to eat as healthy animals. It would be better to take the attitude of my redskinned ancestors and treat every living thing with respect.

And now Parfit - well, what is happiness, and how is it measurable? What makes Putin happy, for example? Hitler was really happy at the news that Paris had fallen? Did his happiness, and the happiness of his supporters, make the unhappiness of patriotic French citizens somehow less, or balance it out? On what scale can these sorts of things be measured? There is then Parfit's suggestion that having more human beings with a level of happiness that is individually lower than that of the individuals in a smaller population would be preferable so long as the sum of the happiness of the former population exceeded the sum of the happiness of the latter population. Who is going to do the sums? There is, from the beginning, a peculiar impracticality about utilitarianism. '澤雉十步一啄，百步一飲，不蘄畜乎樊中。神雖王，不善也。 A pheasant of the marshes has to take ten steps to pick up a mouthful of food, and thirty steps to get a drink, but it does not seek to be nourished in a coop. Though its spirit would (there) enjoy a royal abundance, it does not think (such confinement) good.'

So he feels for animals but is able to morally justify abortion!😢 he probably believes human life equals animal life?

@petyrbaelish1216

10 ай бұрын

He's ok with eating oysters which are pretty equivalent to fetuses in the womb.

@DSS712

10 ай бұрын

Maybe you should ask yourself why it makes you so uncomfortable to consider animal life as potentially equal to human life.

How ethical is it to discuss abortion without including a female perspective?

@annarocha3254

10 ай бұрын

Perfectly. Since when does merely discussing an ethical topic require a certain kind of person?

@msmaryna961

10 ай бұрын

@@annarocha3254 remind me who needs abortions? It’s an important matter that requires acknowledging biological truth.

@annarocha3254

10 ай бұрын

@@msmaryna961 Obviously it is useful to acknowledge a woman's perspective in a general discussion of abortion. But a woman's presence is hardly required in order to have a discussion about the ethics of the matter. Considering women as a group are also not in agreement on abortion it seems silly to insist that one woman is present when she certainly couldn't be a stand-in for all women.

@jacquieloller8504

10 ай бұрын

I’ll give a female perspective. I have a two year old. Went in for my first ultrasound at 10 weeks and expected my son to be a blob. Instead he was almost fully formed, moving around, touching his face, even clapping his hands together. This was on a 3D ultrasound. I was blown away and cannot fathom how anyone could mutilate and rip such a miracle out of its mothers womb. Women are being lied to and deceived into thinking abortion is something different than what it actually is.

@Mr.Artude

10 ай бұрын

By your logic, the discussion is meaningless without the presence of fish, non-human mammals and birds. Hopefully, we can use our rational minds to predict the concerns of those who are absent. It turns out that I don’t need a turkey to tell me that their life is abject misery when I see them malting and visibly apathetic to life. (Odd example perhaps, but the first that came to me from recent memory).

Sorry, not a philosopher. Simply ignores the tough topics to promote vaguely New World Order talking points. Equates the morality of abortion with not getting pregnant. Good grief.

The problem with Singers thought experiments and philosophy is that they assume an omnipotent actor. Second and third order effects of your choices are never taken into account. What if by hitting the switch and making the train kill one person vs 5 you end up killing the person who was about to cure aids or let one of the five people live who goes on to do a mass shooting?? Stupid simple thought experiments are exactly that. Even during COVID the example shows how his philosophy fails. Those that where thought to be the most likely to survive in Italy were put on ventilators (which ended up being very negative outcomes for those that were "fortunate" to be selected).

Omg, abortion is killing a baby. At least have the honesty to call it what it is & discuss it on that basis.

@dances_with_incels

10 ай бұрын

Most of this discussion is just basic 2015 leftist talking points. None of this is new.

@petesake1181

10 ай бұрын

Fetus is more precise. Baby is accurate and not quite precise

@dances_with_incels

10 ай бұрын

@@petesake1181 fetus is latin for baby

@petyrbaelish1216

10 ай бұрын

​@@dances_with_incelsyeah but babies aren't people.

@dances_with_incels

10 ай бұрын

@@petyrbaelish1216 can we abort grown men and women who identify as babies?

Grotesque.

We face a population collapse among educated, stable family demographics while poor unstable demographics are having loads of kids. Abortion is the only thing keeping it partially at bay. I’d rather have communities grow in size, not ghettos. The ethics become irrelevant.

@synthesizerneil

10 ай бұрын

Exactly the kind of ghastly, materialistic trash take I'd expect from anyone who agrees with Peter Singer

@joshuathompson6690

10 ай бұрын

This is true, but to say to abort them is a questionable response to the situation. Id prefer to address the issues in a different way.

@jeremyg591

10 ай бұрын

@@joshuathompson6690 why is it questionable?

@joshuathompson6690

10 ай бұрын

@@jeremyg591 killing our own offspring seems immoral to me. No matter if they can feel or have a conscious mind or not. Doesnt seem like a good enough reason to make it okay IMO. We always value humans more than any other living being normally. And usually the left, the people who are in more support of abortion than the right, they always talk about fixing issues from the root. Why cant we take that approach when it comes to this issue? I think we should encourage more forms of protection, birth control, and even sustaining from sex until one is ready for a child. We should try to change the culture instead of using abortion as one of the answers. People will have an abortion before changing their living habits. I dont think abortion is making the world a better place or making peoples lives generally better.

@jeremyg591

10 ай бұрын

@@joshuathompson6690 like veganism, being pro-life is a stance you can take during times of luxury, not survival. I argue the human race is facing a global crisis of population collapse among the nations and specifically the demographics in them that make modern technology and modern culture a reality. We genuinely risk turning back the hands of the clock and reverting to a primitive human era if the generational social structures that make scientists and advanced ethical legislation vanish or get eclipsed. We are accustomed to ghettos being a minority of communities we encounter, but the inverse is true in South America where suburbs and safety we are accustomed to lies behind barbed wire walls and private security because the ghettos are bigger than the communities

Know-it-all driveler!! 100 years from now the last 2 chicken on earth; Chicken 1 good news bad news…good news is we’re no longer eaten. Bad news? We’re the last 2 chickens and soon none! Chicken 2 What happened? Chicken 1: Pete Singer “saved” us!

so much emotional hog wash

Singer is mid