Peter Singer: From Animal Liberation to Effective Altruism
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 9 фев 2025
- A message from Lawrence:
I have felt privileged to know the remarkable scholar Peter Singer as a friend and colleague for over a decade. We first met, I believe, in the context of atheism, but our discussions have ranged far more broadly, and his impact on my own thinking has been substantial. He and I engaged in a public dialogue in Arizona eight or nine years ago, and preparing for that discussion changed my views about world in many ways. Peter actually had an impact on my life even earlier than that, as when my daughter was very young. The late Katharine Thalberg, who ran the famous Explore Bookstore in Aspen where I often did book signings, and who, along with her spouse Bill Stirling, rang an unsuccessful campaign to ban furs in Aspen, saw how much my then seven year old loved her dogs, and she gave Lilli a copy of Singer’s 1975 book Animal Liberation, to read when she got older. I don’t know if Lilli ever did read it, but she became a vegetarian well before I did.
Peter, perhaps more than anyone else alive, has effectively promoted the cause of animal welfare, coining the term “species-ism” to describe the fact that a proper ethics should include an equal consideration of welfare for not just all people, but all creatures. He has backed up his position with a comprehensive discussion of the disgusting manner in which animals are made to suffer in the context of industrial scale food preparation for humans. That includes not just cattle, pigs, and chickens, but also fish. Whether or not one continues to choose to eat meat, we should all at least be aware of what we are signing on for by doing so.
This year Peter updated Animal Liberation so that it is called Animal Liberation Now, to record the developments that have taken place in the almost 50 years since the book first appeared. His arguments remain as dramatic and clear as they were then, and what I particularly enjoy about Peter is how he combines the philosopher’s tools of analytical logic, with a scientist’s tools of gathering of evidence. The end result is a compelling treatise, and I was thrilled that Peter agreed to sit down again for a comprehensive discussion of the ideas in his book.
We took advantage of this opportunity to talk about Peter’s interest in Effective Altruism, about which he has also written extensively. This is the effort to do the most good in the world by empirically examining both what sorts of charities do the most good for the most people, and also exploring how much of one’s own resources one can readily part with in the process without substantially changing one’s lifestyle. Once again, his discussions may change the way you think, and act.
I hope you enjoy our comprehensive dialogue, for which he generously contributed significant time, as much as I did. And I hope it provokes the same kind of personal reflections for you as it did for me.
--------------
Consider supporting the podcast and the Origins Project Foundation at www.originspro...
The Origins Podcast, a production of The Origins Project Foundation, features in-depth conversations with some of the most interesting people in the world about the issues that impact all of us in the 21st century. Host, theoretical physicist, lecturer, and author, Lawrence M. Krauss, will be joined by guests from a wide range of fields, including science, the arts, and journalism. The topics discussed on The Origins Podcast reflect the full range of the human experience - exploring science and culture in a way that seeks to entertain, educate, and inspire.
Full Episodes Playlist:
• Ricky Gervais - The Or...
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
Thank you for having this conversation. I can't think of another issue so impactful, in the sense of being unethical, that has been ignored foe so long.
Off-topic, but Lawrence looks youthful and glowing in this episode.
Unethical? Singer's junk food utilitarianism leads directly to ABLEISM.
I was really surprised to learn that Lawrence is vegetarian, I was not expecting that, awesome thalk!
So good to see you two together again Lawrence! I thoroughly enjoyed your 2015 talk on stage at ASU, and this one is great too! Peter is such an inspiration! He was my teacher many years ago at Monash University, and I'm immensely grateful for that experience. I still read his works as they arrive and continue to learn from him. Thank you for this fascinating interview.
Great conversation!
Does anyone know why this podcast doesn’t get so many views? Every time I watch it, it’s excellent.
It’s because Singer’s utilitarianism leads to ABLEISM as his ideology says that animals have the same value status like humans. Gosh, people can be so cynical.
@@iche9373 this doesn’t relate to my comment at all. I’m not a big fan utilitarianism but I don’t think that is a very accurate representation of Peter singer whose ideology would probably say that we have a responsibility to protect disabled people who might not have the ability to advocate for themselves.
@@iche9373I’ve been vegan for over 7 years and I do NOT think humans and nonhuman animals are equally valuable. However, I still believe animals are deserving of our moral consideration, especially because we typically possess moral agency and a great capacity for empathy.
The only thing you need to consider is this:
Are these animals sufficiently “lower than” humans in your preferred criteria to be considered undeserving of wellbeing and a basic “right” to life? Who cares if they’re not equal in some characteristic or attribute such as intelligence, economic value, social dynamics, etc. All that matters is that they’re sentient and feel pain, and most of us are in a situation where other options are available (and according to recent studies, potentially cheaper). These are the similarities that we should really value, rather than amplifying the differences.
“The question is not, Can they reason?, nor Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?”
@@matthewzang6688 I agree, but it doesn’t change the fact that Singer wants the animals to have the same value status like humans, his junk utilitarianism is an entry ticket for ableism and other right-wing ideology which is just cynical.
We humans have human rights as we can freely act on obligations. You can’t have rights if you don’t have obligations. We are discussing about animal rights but can animals follow obligations?
Watched in 2x speed. Peter Singer is a legendary ethicist, he has been core inspiration for modern ethical movements.
I don't understand why non-vegans argue being conscious matters to whether it is ethical to cause another animal pain. They feel pain and suffer regardless of their degree of consciousness. Unless there is no alternative to save your life or your kids life or the animal's life, causing an animal pain is not justified.
I agree. Using consciousness as the criterion for deciding whether it's permissible to cause another living being to suffer just seems like another example of our anthropocentricity.
If there is no "consciousness" there to "experience" pain then is pain suffered by an unconscious being not equivalent to a light being switched on in an empty house that exists on a deserted country on a totally empty planet? The light comes on but there is absolutely nothing there to notice it.
Emotions and "pain" are information that the "consciousness" perceives. If there is no consciousness to perceive anything, does the "stimulation" count for anything?
What is being "stimulated" if there is no consciousness to "experience" this "stimulation" or pain or emotional response?
Does pain or emotion even have any meaning minus consciousness?
Is this not the same as studying the colour of light in absolute darkness?
Pain without consciousness is no pain at all, seeing as there is no consciousness there to "suffer".
So people can feel pain and suffer even when they are unconscious, like during major surgery? Shouldn't surgeons warn their patients about that?
@@WhiteRussianBC you are not understanding the term "consciousness", particularly as it relates to surgical anesthesia. Animals such as even flatworms and mussels are able to sense pain and move away from the stimuli-causing factor if given the chance. Humans under anesthesia have the region of their brain that senses pain shut off. You have heard people recount being "awake but unable to move, yet feel pain" during surgery and they are horror stories. It happens with certain drugs and certain idiosyncratic physiology. I, personally, was awakened intentionally during eye surgery when I was 4 years old and can still recount the terror I experienced. Boiling animals alive is never ok. These animals do feel pain and try to escape.
@@user-qm4pw7dc9n There are many different definitions of consciousness. My definition of consciousness is "subjective experience". And my definition of pain is "an unpleasant subjective experience". So by my definition, consciousness is necessary to feel pain. You might use different definitions. And regarding general anesthesia, we don't actually know how it works. It's still a mystery. One theory is that anesthesia only blocks memory formation, so you don't remember the pain you feel during surgery.
Chatting with a vegan friend while this gets posted. Looking forward to this conversation
One issue with free range eggs is that the animals are also bred to lay increased amounts of eggs. This is very draining of nutrients to them and they typically eat their unfertilzed eggs to regain a portion of the lost nutrients...without which they suffer greatly.
It is a fascinating discussion! Thank you Prof. krauss! I do have a question though, if in lieu of eating farm grown animals, we consume lab grown meat. In what form will this meat be grown in? As a chicken wing, as a rack of lamb chop, etc? Or as minced meat, sorta like a burger paddy? If the rationale is to minimize animal suffering, then what about eating cloned animals? They can be slaughtered just before they are waken up. Or how about clone without a brain and the central nervous system, hence rendering the animal incapable of perceiving pain.
I am just not sure of why that is needed..
@@TheOriginsPodcast There should not be any debate that animal products is an essential food source, as foods that contain a complete set essential animo acid is very limited, if at all, on a strictly vegetarian menu. So question comes down to, given that a mixed menu (including both meat and vegetables) is a better choice in terms of nutrient acquisition than a strictly vegetarian menu, what is the more efficient, more ecologically friendly and humane way to acquire the meat. In my opinion, lab grown meat seems to check these boxes.
It’s great that you go for veganism. But please don’t it in the ideological way of Singer. His utilitarianism and radical anti-Speciesism lead directly to ableism since they postulate that animals have the same value status like humans. And that’s a No-Go.
Salveee Salveee queridíssimo Lawrence Krauus , um dos maiores Físicos Teóricos do Mundo e um dos meus favoritos , amoooooooo você ce e td seu trabalho incrível, parabens , abraçãoooo 🤩😊🤗♥️♥️👏🏻👏🏻🌎🌏🌍🌲🌳🌴🦕🦖🌲🌳🌴♥️♥️♥️
It seems to me that if our chief aim is to minimize suffering, then it doesn't matter whether our efforts to do so result in fewer living beings coming into existence. Non-existent beings don't suffer by remaining non-existent.
So are you another antinatalist? Life would be better off if life hadn't existed? I find this attitude quite pathetic.
Watching from Britain
Sentient beings are inescapably within the scope of moral consideration
What you mean ?
@@carlosrodriguez-od4bx sentient beings (capable of feeling pain) are in the scope of moral consideration (as anyone with empathy has an interest in reducing suffering via moral standards)
And yet we can still revile poor treatment of inanimate objects that we link to sentient beings. I dont think its clear-cut, our attitudes are also irrational as well as purely ethical calculations.
@@simonwilton3546 It is clear cut. It doesn't take a lot of brain power to realize that "poor" treatment of inanimate objects are for reasons other than it causes suffering to them.
@@bring-out glad to hear it doesnt take much brain power👍🏻 my point however is similiar to the rather common examination of the motives of altruism eg, do we turn the tortoise back over for his benefit or ours. It is hard to ignore emotional responses to a burning effigy etc so it would be wise to take this basic human affordance into account.
Peter is the exact caliber of man that I would expect to be in alignment with SBF.
I do feel like there’s probably a point where it stops being maximally effective to only look at the direct impact per dollar on spending. Like small boost to quality of life could potentially have a multiplicative downstream impact by making it easier for ppl to make things better for others.
Great conversation. But, I'm a bit confused. I lost a lot of respect for and interest in Dr. Krauss years ago because he was so dismissive about philosophy while misunderstanding and misrepresenting some of it. I'm now impressed to find him so genuinely interested and open minded about the field. Have I missed something?
I read all the Churchill books also
Two non-vegan animal abusers create a podcast together to discuss animal ethics. Hilarious.
If you want an actual proper discussion on animal RIGHTS and not just welfarism, check out Earthling Ed, Joey Carbstrong or Gary Yourofsky. Sadly Singer is somehow misconstrued as the father of animal rights when he doesn't even believe in animal rights.
43:04 - Peter Singer's "drowning child" thought experiment has significant oversights. It oversimplifies scenarios by not accounting for the common practice of children being accompanied by adults to ponds, thereby suggesting a scenario of parental negligence when children are unattended. Moreover, Singer's argument implicitly urges Western intervention in underdeveloped countries, which he perceives to be predominantly inhabited by people of darker skin, based on the assumption that poverty is a primary cause of underdevelopment. He advocates for aid as a means to spur development, assuming that progress will naturally continue thereafter. However, this view overlooks the complexity of poverty, which may not be the root cause but rather a symptom of underlying challenges unique to these specific races (IQ, genetics, evolution etc). I.e. in simple terms, poverty among these races is not a cause but just the effect of their inherent backwardness.
Furthermore, Singer seems to miss the nuanced dynamics of cultural respect and the principle of self-ownership in development. The comparison of human assistance to animal aid disregards the essential human values of pride, self-esteem, and the significance of ethnic, racial, and group identity. This oversight indicates a gap in recognizing the complex layers of human society and the importance of letting communities to lead their own development. Singer's approach, by failing to consider these critical aspects, demonstrates a limitation in understanding the intricate balance between offering support and respecting the autonomy and cultural context of human communities.
You just gave me a birthday present. That was intentional.😉
Happy Birthday, same here
I have a lot of respect for Peter Singer especially about his animal rights works. He does seem to make some remarks about power structures between genders though which I find less appealing. Him saying his grandmother turning down working in Berlin because she wanted to marry his grandfather was another example of a woman sacrificing her scientific career for a man, seems to imply the grandfather did something unethical. Of course I don't know what happened but if his grandfather would choose not to marry his grandmother and go with her to Berlin that's his priorities. What we are willing to do for love is personal, is it not? I don't think anyone would really make the argument that the grandfather should've gone with her against his will. The grandmother however did prioritize love and family with that particular person over a scientific career and that's her personal prerogative. The unstated implication is that she lived her life in regret about turning down that offer which is a very condescending attitude towards her ability to make her own judgements of what was best for her.
Sure, there were probably higher expectations of a woman to make that choice than a man, but that doesn't mean those expectations were forced upon society by a self serving patriarchy. Instead they could very well have been formed due to women actually freely made such priorities more often than men.
Go vegan for the animals and for the environment, taste preference and material preference are not good excuses for abusing animals. Go to the life you can save and find a charity to donate to because it is the best thing you can do with your disposable income.
Go vegan is great, but not in the ideological way of Singer. His utilitarianism and anti-Speciesism lead directly to Ableism since his ideology postulates that animals have the same level like humans. And that’s cynical.
If only the two carnists in this podcast listened to you. The fact that two non-vegans can think they can have a meaningful discussion about liberating animals is quite funny.
@@NoInjusticeLastsForeverto be fair, Singer thinks it’s okay to have sex with animals so not sure what else you were expecting.
Genocide is worse than abuse imo
The principle of minimizing harm, central to veganism, is completely undermined by the existence of very small animals. If we cannot justify prioritizing our well-being over that of even ants (even consumed in countries like Thailand), we are compelled to adopt a lifestyle that minimizes harm to even such minute creatures. This would necessitate forgoing technology and adopting a very simple lifestyle similar to the Amish-a choice not even vegans will embrace. Consequently, this reveals a fundamental flaw in their philosophy.
Just bought the book on Apple Books. I'm enjoying the foreward by Yuval Noah Harari, whom I've admired since first hearing him on Sam Harris' podcast.
Why do the jews are so stuck on your past failures and yet you get credit for and you are proud of letting your mothers, fathers and children be burned alive by another jew named hitler.
PPE degrees are hardly new Lawrence, the PPE degree is over 100 years old now and is often called 'the Oxford degree'
I often think would we be peaceful if we changed our diets.
Krauss missed the point Singer made when he said that the land used to grow crops to feed animals could grow crops to feed humans instead. And, because we would then be eating lower on the food chain, more food would be produced. That food could be exported to those areas that didn't have arable land to grow their own food. Krauss should've talked less and listened more. Most of his questions lacked depth.
My mother was an antinatalist.
That may well explain your other comment.
In her case it was an unrealised aspiration 😕
I'm sick to death of being panhandled everywhere. You can't even swipe your card at the supermarket now without being asked to donate to some obscure charity. I wonder how Peter Singer navigates the contemporary minefield of beggars.
He advocates spending a tenth of your income (more if you’re more wealthy I think?) to effective charities
ps is a dogs breakfast
My study told me utilitarianism is nonsense and this podcast confirmed it.
Unpersuasive comment.
Why do the jews are so stuck on your past failures and yet you get credit for and you are proud of letting your mothers, fathers and children be burned alive by another jew named hitler.
What’s your study?
@@ataraxia7439 Philosophy of Mind.
Free range is unfortunately just a label that preys on human kindness.
Let’s introduce back wolves then. They do the job without erhical implications. They are harmless for humans.
jesus what about whats legal within the Us
Why "we'll get to that"? Why not just let him talk? Narcissist...
What is the cutting line? Only animals? Not every living thing? Or only animals with nervous systems?
If we consider animals with nervous systems enough to protect them, shouldn´t by the same ethics standards we be against abortion after nervous system forms in the fetus? If we are able to create artificial wombs, then there is even less argument in favor of abortion, it seems, just like artificial meat might end the veganism argument.
Looking old there Peter :)
And it will happen to you if you are lucky ! He sounds like his Australian, the sun is much harsher and in his mid 70s.
Why do the jews are so stuck on your past failures and yet you get credit for and you are proud of letting your mothers, fathers and children be burned alive by another jew named hitler.
So will you after 77 years on this orb. He's certainly not obese.
Effective altruism is a fucking joke 😂
Why?
@@randyevermore9323 see the con on full display with SBF.
@@drewmcgill5290 SBF (allegedly) committed crimes in an ends-justify-any-means corruption of effective altruism. Effective altruism of course doesn't entail criminality.
@@randyevermore9323 it’s like believing No structural change but only donations from charities or rich people are what’s going to save people from poverty and over society ills. It’s dumb as rocks and 100% vanity projects and horrible “reasoning” For trying to make as much money as possible and not pay the government anything because these bird brained billionaires think they’re god. It’s beyond ridiculous. You’re a simp for rich people if you actually believe that they’re doing this for the good of people.