Alex you are a natural philosopher. Crystal clear, analytical and logically consistent. I can see you having a huge impact on future generations. Keep up the excellent work
When they were talking about nobody can do something without taking pleasure in it(or something like that) what about having your much loved pet put down? It's not something you get pleasure from or feel good about, but you do it to prevent the further suffering of something you care deeply about.
@@budsio Not pleasure, enjoyment. Its an important distinction that (sadly) not all emotionalists make (emotionalism being that moral ideals are based purely in emotion), and it stems from psychoanalysis. You can think of it like this: Nobody (okay, almost nobody) takes pleasure in suffering. You can, however, enjoy suffering. An example would be people who whip themselves in religious practices, or human sacrifices in some cultures. So, why do people put down their much loved pets? Maybe they make the calculation that it will decrease the pets suffering (which is only relevant to them since they would know about it, and in turn suffer with it). Maybe they know that in broader society, it is common practice to put down suffering animals, and have learned that compliance with societal practices tends to lead to more pleasurable outcomes (this is how norms are born btw). Maybe they take enjoyment in sacrificing their short- term pleasure "altruistically", for the good of their pet. There are many ways to explain your example and still accept emotionalism. I hope i was helpful :)
@@hannah-zy6il my grandfather was born in 1939 and lives a long live regardless of being vegan. Being vegan doesn’t mean you automatically live longer Half the foods we eat in america are overprocessed. It’s not necessarily the meat it’s the shit the put into foods like cereals, chips, candy
@@medicisounds1384 Of course vegans living longer than meat eaters on average doesn't mean ALL vegans live long lives, that's a pretty crazy joke. Like you can say "non smokers live longer than smokers" and that isn't disproved by someone saying "Well my grandad was a non-smoker and still died young.."
@@hannah-zy6il I can agree on average vegans are more health conscious . But you can be that and eat meat and still be healthy. Ie. A good portion if meat eaters are the type to eat a bunch of greasy and meats full of fats and sauces with little to no veggies or fruits. However if you have an overall balanced diet eating veggies fruits and meats then why wouldn’t you be just as healthy? Eating hard foods (usually meat) for example can lead to better jaw health. Lots of chewing helps with having stronger teeth as well. If you look this up as human foods have gotten softer our jaw strenght has gone down as well. Our jaw bones are smaller and weaker than someone from hundreds of years ago. Obviously they also dealt with a lot of other issues too. From what I’ve seen or heard it’s usually pescatarians that live the longest. I think it’s a small village in japan that has the most amount of people living past 100 years.
Singer is used to talking about practical ethics, and doesn't do many interviews about meta-ethics. Still, I thought he gave reasonable responses to Alex's points (gave examples of self-evident truths, and accurately pointed out that some self-evident truths have more force than others), and his book 'The Point of View of the Universe' is clearer still. Singer was also right that pleasure and preferences aren't equivalent, and that one could act in such a way which is harmful to oneself (yet one might still have reason to do so). It's a shame that Singer didn't entirely bite the bullet on the Repugnant Conclusion - he does in the book!
@@geniusofmozart Thanks Jeremy for your input, It was a while ago now, I am going to have to find time to look at it again bearing in mind your points.
I'm currently switching to full vegan with my girlfriend after being vegetarian for like 2 months or so (after your video with matt). Alex you helped me putting the efforts into this. Thanks a lot :) Really cool to have Singer on. Loved the episode!!
@@d.l.7416 It's weird because in my family in was always common to eat nuts. Like even when i was vegetarian or a meat eater before i always eated all kinds of nuts because they taste delicious. Now i just eat more tofu than before but it didnt made much change. Which nutrients do you think i would miss actually ?
@@robertbouchardt3357 Would either of you mind giving me link to a good definition on this stance? I can only seem to find historical websites when I type the word in.
@@sarahneukirchen7947 its the stance that prioritises the ending of suffering in any moral scenario. I.e should I have a baby with downs. The abolitionist says no because of the immense suffering the baby will experience.
@@mistahkurtz2351 generally self reports of suffering suffice. Suffering isnt some abstract feeling. When people are suffering they know they are suffering. For babies one can study nociceptive pathways in the brain combined with some assessment of capability (pretty much standard in medical practice).
@@sweetjello_7057 Most decent people claim to care about animals, even if they aren't consistent with it in their actions like vegans are. I'm assuming you're in the camp of psychopaths who see non human animals as objects to be tortured and used rather than sentient beings deserving of basic rights and respect.
Wow. You did a great job pressing him. And he did a great job fighting back! Thank you for this podcast, this is one of the best real-time conversations on ethics I've seen.
I've been completely stunned at the quality of conversation in this podcast throughout all its episodes, of which this is an outstanding example. I've never seen so much delightful, and very often pleasantly surprising and thought provoking, philosophical conversation in one place. I rarely, if ever, feel there is some significant point left out of the conversation (an uncomfortable pang I'm sure most of us are somewhat familiar with). Keep up the good work!
Paderborn im Juni Die Medienberichterstattung war mal wieder ein Graus. www.nw.de/lokal/kreis_paderborn/paderborn/22472760_Umstrittener-Philosph-Peter-Singer-haelt-Vortrag-an-Uni-Paderborn.html
I'm only up to 30 minutes but I find it very interesting how Singer has difficulty in viewing human action in a pure egoist fashion, as in, by definition what we do is what we prefer to do. It's something I'd say is also self evident in the terms he specified a little earlier. This is been 'obvious' for me for a long time. It's interesting to see someone so fluent in these topics have an opposing intuition.
57:00, on the subject of animal pain, Dawkins has theorized that perhaps nonhuman animals suffer more than humans out of necessity, because nonhuman animals lack the same capacity of rationality and abstract thought to cope with pain. So, for example, if I break my arm, I can cope with it by training my brain to think of a funny joke or some post hoc rationalization that fills me with pride every time my arm begins to ache. Can a horse do that, or are they stuck with the dull thought of pain?
@@AV57 What about an animal just locked in a small cage. Some might say a human would have an advantage by mentally leaving the cage, but also it could be argued that being locked up is terrible when you have a conception of the time you are losing or life you could be living. Others might argue that with the lack of hopes and dreams of the non-human animal, if they get food and are not in pain they might be relatively happy being locked up.
@@neoepicurean3772 in water parks, dolphins and orcas etc. are (relatively) well fed and theoretically not in physical pain, yet they die much sooner than in the wild. Have you seen animals in small cages showing signs of mental suffering such as abnormal head movements, pacing, self harming?
@@neoepicurean3772 You might find it interesting to know that animals also exhibit their species' equivalent of those behaviors (abnormal head movements, pacing, self-harming, etc.).
@@Hxnsson I think that they are incompatible if that's what you mean. I would argue that veganism entails a moral objectivist position, otherwise the word lacks any clear definition beyond atomic fact.
@@PerspectivePhilosophy Could you elaborate?? I mean, I don't see why that is necessarily the case. Can't you just be very strongly affected if something doesn't go according to your moral emotions (e.g. carnist/anti-vegan stuff) yet still be convinced that these are just only your emotions? Like, I feel it very viscerally (though while knowing it's an intersubjective experience) the smell of rotten eggs with the accompanying 'conclusion' of "this is bad"; I also feel it very viscerally (though while knowing it's an intersubjective experience) the torture of people/animals/sentient beings with the accompanying 'conclusion' of "this is bad".
@@PerspectivePhilosophy Couldn't you say the same about suffering in general? By your standards, if I am a moral subjectivist and decide to send a group of men to torture a previously uncontacted tribe of people, am I doing something immoral?
I've been following you for a long time and I'm just really proud of how far you and your ideas have come. You really helped me change my perspective on so many things in life, not the least helping me keep my sanity as I struggled with childhood religious beliefs. I can't believe that just a few months ago I was studying Singer in class and now he's talking with you. I can't wait to see where you'll be in a few years!
fact of the matter is, that we share this planet with other living creatures that are equally conscious in that they are conscious, and do experience and observe reality as we do, and just observing another living creature run/crawl w/e from danger is a clear indication for their desire to live. That should be respected whether or not it is of the same species as yourseld, and no matter how great or small they are. It is never justified morally to kill unless it is absolutely necessary for survival purposes. I personally have made an effort to not even kill bugs that are considered pests, if they become an annoyance in my apartment(i rarely have insects in my current apartment) I will gently catch them and put them outside. I am aware that there are predators lurking outdoors, but I cannot risk the chance of allowing them to multiply in my apartment and end up getting sick should they end up spreading germs that can end up making me sick. It's the best solution I know so far, but at least I am sparing their lives and not killing them like I used to.
And yet, of course we care more for our own species than another. As much as I feel pity for the situation of some other animals, I care more for the well being and happiness of my fellow human beings. In reality species is non comparable to sex and race. Non-intelligent species are not comparable specifically by their nature. We are, unfortunately for the creatures we eat, omnivorous.
@@RespectTheHood it's natural to have this bias, and there's nothing immoral to feel this way, but what matters is having respect for other life when you are in it's presence. As for our choice of foods, I have only just recently have been confronted with this at a philosophical level, so Ineed time to break the habit, and it's not going to be easy because of my budget for food each month as I am on disability, and it's much cheaper for me to get by including meat in my diet. I have seen videos of what goes on in slaughter houses for many of the livestock we typically use for food in the US, and it did make me feel bad to know that is what my money contributes to when i buy any sort of meat product. Like any habit, it will take time for me to get over it, but it's on my to do list in the future.
@@brucecook502 Whole Foods Vegan diets are very affordable. Bread, rice, beans, potatoes, pasta, root vegetables, lentils, split peas, chick peas, frozen vegetables and fruit. These are the cheapest foods on the planet. Most can be bought in bulk and stored for ages.
@@RespectTheHood Do you care to give an argument as to why prejudice amongst species is not the same as prejudice amongst sex and race? Yes you have a bias for your own species, but that bias is simply the prejudice you fail to validate.
You already went a step too far in your first and second assertions in your very first sentence: 1) *equally conscious* - scientific evidence would actually disagree with you on this one unless you have a different definition than what would be generally accepted in the field of study of consciousness. 2) *do experience and observe reality as we do* - again, nope. Dogs experience a great deal of their reality through smell in a way we never can. That right there invalidates your *fact*.
Probably because it's kinda undeniable..at least that's my own humble opinion that seemingly haven't been persuaded away from. If you have a proper argument, please, let me hear/see it! :)
@@daddyleon Yes, I think Alex's position is undeniable. I'm not totally familiar with Singer's work, but what he presents here seems to allude to a moral position not based upon pleasure (as Alex explains well in other videos) - I just can't see that making sense when you consider our evolution as a species.
@@DanielClementYoga I think Singer agrees that we have emotions that have evolved and that they feed into our moral reactions (he talked about the 'moral dumbfounding' study from..iirc Jonathan Haidt). But besides that, I think Singer also thinks that you can use reason to come to the conclusion that ... well "you ought". But I don't see how that makes it an objective foundation (which I think Singer does seem to think), I do see how that could make your ethical system more coherent (but that's something else than a foundation, I'd say).
Well I'm denying it. (and not to side with singer as he is an mostly unknown entity to me) The word 'pleasure' on its own is very vague. I contend that people and their situations are diverse enough that there is not any nontrivial overarching motivator that applies to all cases. Any more stringent definition of a motivator will lead to counterexamples. Human behavior is necessarily as complex as the entirety of what goes into determining human behavior. By a more stringent definition, I'm thinking along the lines of aiming for select levels of certain neurotransmitters such as dopamine. When I say nontrivial, I am exempting the case where the motivator is literally defined as the entirety of what makes up that human behavior. I would hope we all agree, that would be a useless definition.
Really nice to see two public philosophers that I respect a lot and whose views align very much with mine in discussion with each other. I think it was a great conversation where I found myself agreeing with Alex one moment, and with Peter another. Thanks!
1:21:07 I completely agree with you, CosmicSkeptic. As an abolitionist activist myself for more than a quarter century, it makes no sense IMO for me go ask people to do the morally responsible thing only minimally or part time when I can ask and explain to them why it's morally responsible to do their honest very best to completely eschew from their complicity in the needless intentional harming of animals. Now of course, if they start this transition by doing meatless Mondays or whatever, then I'm okay with that. But how dare I (the arrogance it would be) ask someone to stop raping only on weekdays or stop being complicit in needlessly harming animals only a couple days a week! If it's bad or wrong to do violence to innocent individuals one day a week (and it's my position that it is) then it's at least as wrong to do it more than 1 day a week.
I completely agree and actually had this exact conversation (almost word for word) with someone a few days ago. I think theres something to be said for a messenger that has conviction in their statement and not willing to faulter. People say it is not effective in making change but the example that I gave was that of religion. If an abolitionist perspective was not effective then surely religions would not be as effective in their recruiting. But as we can see there are many, many people practicing these religions even though religion does not advocate for only Sinless Sundays.
I’m not eating farmed humans, so your raping analogy draws a false equivalency. If you want to argue for the ethics of veganism you have to either refute the value claim of humans over non humans, if you can’t do this then you really can’t draw any comparisons about how we treat each other versus how we treat animals
Therefore my argument that follows is that I can agree with you that the suffering of animals is wrong, but still make the claim that the benefit we as humans (being more valuable) gain from the slavery of animals outweighs the suffering it causes of these animals. And you can not refute this by drawing comparisons about ethics regarding humans. They discussed it here, what is the exchange rate on human slaves vs non human slaves, how many animals enslaved equates to as bad as one human enslaved.. well how can we possibly determine that, one could say one human suffering is infinitesimally times worse than any amount of animals suffering.. so one human not going hungry aka not suffering is worth making an animal suffer
@@dahadahaful Interesting. But even if I grant your notion that animals cannot be granted the same status as humans, I cannot see any argument that supports the idea that the benefits animals give us outweigh the pain that they suffer. Even leaving animal suffering out of the equation I still cannot see how animals give us any benefit. Animal agriculture is a net detriment to human beings, partially due to health concerns, but more so to ecological concerns. 60-70% of grains and vegetables that are grown in the world go to animal feed, and the water consumption is even worse. Even totally ignoring the issue of greenhouse emissions animal agriculture puts an enormous strain on resources, and adds nothing useful to our diet. All just so we can enjoy the taste of a steak?
PtolemyauletesXII those arguments while being much more compelling are quite controversial. I was simply refuting the claim that eating meat is immoral/wrong because of the suffering it causes to the animals. If it is shown that humans don’t benefit and actually are net harmed from eating meat that Is the condition under which eating meat would be wrong/immoral
Fantastic discussion, it was incredible to watch Singer slowly have his wits almost matched by someone so young but so well spoken. This has absolutely caused me to look at my own blind carnism and reevaluate my next dietary steps. Keep up the great quality Alex!
@@vegahimsa3057 😢 damn... called out. I have cut out everything but chicken. So I took steps toward eating vegetatian, but pretty far from vegan unfortunately.
@@dylannowak2158 that's still pretty good, unless you're scarfing down 21 chickens a week. What's the hang up, though? Family pressure, taste temptations, still doubting? I always recommend people start at home, where you have most time and control.
I remember seeing Prof. Singer walking around University back in the day. He always seemed busy and his lectures were thought provoking. I wish I'd done more philosophy undergrad, but chemistry and biochemistry had me in their thrall. Great interview, thanks - despite my being 3 years too late. 🖖🏼🇦🇺
Man, Peter is so generous to Alex, somehow negotiating that lengthy bit on pleasure and motivation without using the (fully appropriate) expressions "beg the question", "tautology" or "No True Scotsman".
I respect and appreciate Singer, and I appreciated him more once I accepted he was a moralist who became an ethicist. He can be stringent, but certain predicates either appeal to folk conceptions or a stretch of the categories beyond recognition. A good man and one of my favorite authors.
"You could offer that explanation [that people act in accordance with their desires], but I don't see why it's necessary to do so." Perhaps because the discussion was about why people act the way that they do. Great argument from Peter Singer. I remain unconvinced that anyone can act not in accordance with their preferences or in seeking their own pleasure (even if they are wrong about the best way to do so). "We don't have a very strong inclination to help strangers far away from us and [...] people we can't even see as identifiable recipients" - sounds like we only care about people we can empathise with, and thus avoiding the pain of empathising with people in pain.
the use of logic in the dialogue + the beautiful & elegant pattern on the wall = a room of harmonious combination of mathematics (geometry) + philosophy (ethics)
I completely agree with you on the meatless Monday point. People just need to suck it up and change, if you know it's bad for you and the animals you need to have the intent of eliminating it completely.
This is perfect Alex. I, too, am an abolitionist. In the eyes of the victims and from an environmental perspective, this is a crisis, and in order to be morally consistent, I feel we should treat it as such.
I love the topics covered. I too became vegan after watching yours and some other philosophers/youtubers videos. Keep it up dude, the world needs talks like these.
oh, but Peter Singer. The good of the spider is NOT the good of the fly. Amazing you had him on, amazing how much confidence you have respectfully disagreeing with him. LOVE.
Fantastic. What a coup to have Peter Singer do a long form interview. He's definitely one of the intellectual giants of our time. I hope Alex can do this as a career (after his education is complete). He could be as good as Sam Harris.
Alex, it seems that in your conversations with Michael Shermer and here with Peter Singer you are more willing to discuss fundamental moral ideas than your conversational partners whereas they focus on the practicality and reality of how people live their lives. I find your approach to be more convincing, but regarding terminology (desire, pleasure, preference) I think you are talking past each other.
Pleasure is not usually the motivation to donate a kidney. But avoiding the guilt of knowing you could've helped someone and didn't... Is that not acting in self interest?
@@gregoryrowlerson8457 To understand Singer's position and one of the problems with Alex's psychological egoism we need to remember that, while we always do what we want to do, sometimes our reasons for wanting to do something are based on other people's interests, not our own. The soldier who throws himself over a grenade to save his colleagues does what he wants to do, but he does it for others' interests. The solder who runs out of the room to save his life leaving his comrades to die does what he wants to do but he does it for his own self-interest.
@@JohnThomas yes, but as Alex explained, or at least suggested, the soldier makes a subconscious decision in that moment that the future pain of living without having jumped on the grenade would outweigh the incredible pain in its immediacy of killing himself via the grenade (whilst saving others). So it is still in self interest, less pain for him now, rather than more (hypothetically) in the long run. It's a rather complicated issue though.
@@gregoryrowlerson8457 Yes, that's a response one could make. But it seems more plausible to suggest that the soldier sacrifices his life because of the benefit it brings to others rather than because he is worried about feeling guilty now or in the future.
It's rare to donate a kidney to an unknown person with absolutely no recognition from anyone. And maybe such a person still often does it for personal satisfaction. But who are we to claim that no one can or does?
Alex, please invite Shelly Kagan next. He is a moral philosopher, who OBLITERATED William Lane Craig in one of his debates. I think it would be super interesting, if you guys discussed different topics. As for this interview, thank you for inviting Singer, it was a very fruitful conversation.
Obliterated WL Craig? Omg! No way! (Sorry for the sarcasm). My old pair of sweatsocks could beat him in a debate, without even bothering to get a wash first.
nicbongo Honestly, from the philosophical quality of the arguments, I think Alex completely outclassed Singer. I’m not sure those labels really apply here!
Singer’s idea that people’s potentially general relative lack of cognisance when making certain decisions as to their outcomes feels like a really cop out way to argue against pleasure and preference being intertwined at any level. It almost seems like that whole “I am personally not cognisant of my brain as I’ve never observed it therefore it isn’t real”, and almost works to discredit reason not only as a thought process but also as a collective body of works spanning however long humans have been able to document their discoveries. This aside, I really loved this conversation. Very cool to see you getting heavyweights on your podcast, Alex!
I never understood why so many people don't take animal rights seriously. They are animal, we are animal, they feel pain, we feel pain, what's the big difference? And the difference must be extremely big since gasing millions of Baby chickens is completely fine and accepted in society, yet a literal joke and Satire about the Holocaust can give you some serious troubles. We make such a big deal off racism (and rightfully so) but specisism seem to be totally fine. Not even that, but being against specisism is something some people even find laughable. Who decides which being is worth more than others?
@UCDuCua-_ZHUr0RAgtKBEVDQ Exactly. Schools should give out Singers books to their students. Whether or not you agree with him, everyone should at least think about this topic at least once in their life. I meet a few people that didn't even believe me when i said specisism is a real word.
So true suffering is suffering. Joy is joy. If a being can experience it. Then it should be taken into account. There is no significant difference between us, enough to ignore it.
I don't take animal rights seriously because of the very small impact it has on my life. Aside from the very strong feelings of empathy I get when I see animals with human-like characteristics, I don't see why one ought care about animal welfare.
GeneralArmorus, Singer is very good at displaying the the prejudice of speciesism in most moral philosophies. Outside of that, I really wouldn’t advise anyone interested in the moral topic of animals to go to Singer, unless they’re just dying to get the utilitarian argument.
This is crazy... imagine learning about Singer in A-Level philosophy, then within a couple of years you're interviewing him... great podcast!
I know right, I'm so proud of him!!!
Chocolegs how, you don’t know him
Hope he invites Shelly Kagan next - an extremely sophisticated moral philosopher, who obliterated WLC in one of his debates.
@@arcticwolf6402 What is WLC?
@@chelbyw3364 William Lane Craig
Alex you are a natural philosopher. Crystal clear, analytical and logically consistent. I can see you having a huge impact on future generations. Keep up the excellent work
The opposite is true!ruclips.net/video/h40PORX7O1A/видео.html
@@billionburns are you silly???
not quite sure about that but he sure is a hard worker.
He has evolved and presently evolving philosophically.
he is a very laughable robot figure in the perspective of metaphilosophy
You got peter singer?????
Dude I wrote my high school finals on his work
@Oners82 What makes you think he's a native speaker?
@Oners82 Looks like someone's got his panties in a bunch.
@Oners82 You are getting amused from really trivial things, buddy.
@@KingOfBboys You also made a few grammar and punctuation mistakes. What is your point? I doubt many people care.
Holy shit, you got peter singer on?
Edit: I literally had my final exams in philosophy about singers preferential utilitarianism
he is not a preference utilitarian anymore fyi he changed to hedonic utilitarianism
@@serenity748 Yeah ik, but my philosophy teacher didn`t lol
When they were talking about nobody can do something without taking pleasure in it(or something like that) what about having your much loved pet put down? It's not something you get pleasure from or feel good about, but you do it to prevent the further suffering of something you care deeply about.
@@budsio Not pleasure, enjoyment. Its an important distinction that (sadly) not all emotionalists make (emotionalism being that moral ideals are based purely in emotion), and it stems from psychoanalysis. You can think of it like this: Nobody (okay, almost nobody) takes pleasure in suffering. You can, however, enjoy suffering. An example would be people who whip themselves in religious practices, or human sacrifices in some cultures.
So, why do people put down their much loved pets? Maybe they make the calculation that it will decrease the pets suffering (which is only relevant to them since they would know about it, and in turn suffer with it). Maybe they know that in broader society, it is common practice to put down suffering animals, and have learned that compliance with societal practices tends to lead to more pleasurable outcomes (this is how norms are born btw). Maybe they take enjoyment in sacrificing their short- term pleasure "altruistically", for the good of their pet. There are many ways to explain your example and still accept emotionalism.
I hope i was helpful :)
@@brisca1668 Thanks! That's given me something to think about. Incredibly helpful, thank you.
Peter Singer is a legend
Peter singer is an advocate of infanticide, your words worry me.
@@spaced9999in what way?
He advocates to do experiment on people with disabilities rather than animals
To collectivists maybe. No intelligent and perceptive human revers him.
Yeah a legend you scare children with
I knew I was atheist at age 12 in 1972. Then I gave up eating animals in '77. Peter Singer had a lot to do with the latter. Legend.
@@cmpc724 it's very unfortunate for health based anti vegan arguments that this guy is still kicking after giving up animal exploitation in 1977
Your parents failed you
@@hannah-zy6il my grandfather was born in 1939 and lives a long live regardless of being vegan.
Being vegan doesn’t mean you automatically live longer
Half the foods we eat in america are overprocessed.
It’s not necessarily the meat it’s the shit the put into foods like cereals, chips, candy
@@medicisounds1384 Of course vegans living longer than meat eaters on average doesn't mean ALL vegans live long lives, that's a pretty crazy joke. Like you can say "non smokers live longer than smokers" and that isn't disproved by someone saying "Well my grandad was a non-smoker and still died young.."
@@hannah-zy6il I can agree on average vegans are more health conscious . But you can be that and eat meat and still be healthy.
Ie. A good portion if meat eaters are the type to eat a bunch of greasy and meats full of fats and sauces with little to no veggies or fruits.
However if you have an overall balanced diet eating veggies fruits and meats then why wouldn’t you be just as healthy?
Eating hard foods (usually meat) for example can lead to better jaw health. Lots of chewing helps with having stronger teeth as well.
If you look this up as human foods have gotten softer our jaw strenght has gone down as well. Our jaw bones are smaller and weaker than someone from hundreds of years ago.
Obviously they also dealt with a lot of other issues too.
From what I’ve seen or heard it’s usually pescatarians that live the longest. I think it’s a small village in japan that has the most amount of people living past 100 years.
**Searching for something to listen to while cooking (a vegan meal)**
....
:>
Pmakiie
Same, got some vegan sausages from sweden
William Lillevik Enjoyy :3
Fuck tbh I found this as I'm making burgers 😳
@@Shannxy I’m making steak 😶
Peter seems unused to having his views challenged so well, Thanks Alex for not just rolling over and agreeing just because he is Peter Singer.
Singer is used to talking about practical ethics, and doesn't do many interviews about meta-ethics. Still, I thought he gave reasonable responses to Alex's points (gave examples of self-evident truths, and accurately pointed out that some self-evident truths have more force than others), and his book 'The Point of View of the Universe' is clearer still. Singer was also right that pleasure and preferences aren't equivalent, and that one could act in such a way which is harmful to oneself (yet one might still have reason to do so). It's a shame that Singer didn't entirely bite the bullet on the Repugnant Conclusion - he does in the book!
@@geniusofmozart Thanks Jeremy for your input, It was a while ago now, I am going to have to find time to look at it again bearing in mind your points.
I'm currently switching to full vegan with my girlfriend after being vegetarian for like 2 months or so (after your video with matt).
Alex you helped me putting the efforts into this.
Thanks a lot :)
Really cool to have Singer on. Loved the episode!!
Right on bro!
please don't go vegan without understanding its health consequences
@@sjuvanet Not sure what you mean ?
@telkmx well you can be short of some nutrients, so you have to bear that in mind and eat things like soy meat and nuts and things
@@d.l.7416 It's weird because in my family in was always common to eat nuts. Like even when i was vegetarian or a meat eater before i always eated all kinds of nuts because they taste delicious. Now i just eat more tofu than before but it didnt made much change. Which nutrients do you think i would miss actually ?
I appreciate you taking an abolitionist stance, Alex
It's the way to go to have a clear conscious. It made me a lot happier as an individual.
@@robertbouchardt3357 Would either of you mind giving me link to a good definition on this stance? I can only seem to find historical websites when I type the word in.
@@sarahneukirchen7947 its the stance that prioritises the ending of suffering in any moral scenario. I.e should I have a baby with downs. The abolitionist says no because of the immense suffering the baby will experience.
@@xsuploader How can we judge the suffering of someone else?
@@mistahkurtz2351 generally self reports of suffering suffice. Suffering isnt some abstract feeling. When people are suffering they know they are suffering. For babies one can study nociceptive pathways in the brain combined with some assessment of capability (pretty much standard in medical practice).
The moment I saw the notification, I knew that this would be a good podcast.
Deep respect for your coming of age. Your work matters. Press on.
This combination of thinkers and topics is what dreams are made of.
So glad to finally be able to listen to this after just finished reading Animal Liberation. We love you, Alex!
who cares for animals
@@sweetjello_7057 Most decent people claim to care about animals, even if they aren't consistent with it in their actions like vegans are.
I'm assuming you're in the camp of psychopaths who see non human animals as objects to be tortured and used rather than sentient beings deserving of basic rights and respect.
Wow. You did a great job pressing him. And he did a great job fighting back! Thank you for this podcast, this is one of the best real-time conversations on ethics I've seen.
Holy crap. You got Peter Singer. Genuinely gobsmacked. 🍿🍿🍿
I've been completely stunned at the quality of conversation in this podcast throughout all its episodes, of which this is an outstanding example. I've never seen so much delightful, and very often pleasantly surprising and thought provoking, philosophical conversation in one place. I rarely, if ever, feel there is some significant point left out of the conversation (an uncomfortable pang I'm sure most of us are somewhat familiar with).
Keep up the good work!
4 weeks ago i finished reading animal liberation, 3 weeks ago i saw a talk by him here in germany and now i see him on cosmicskeptic lol... great! :D
Singer war in DE?! Wieso, wann, wo? O.o
Paderborn im Juni
Die Medienberichterstattung war mal wieder ein Graus.
www.nw.de/lokal/kreis_paderborn/paderborn/22472760_Umstrittener-Philosph-Peter-Singer-haelt-Vortrag-an-Uni-Paderborn.html
Your Channel keeps surprising.
I am a big fan of Singer (flashbacks from highschool)
Bless him
Alex does a good job in pointing out some of the flaws in Peter's ethics.
@@MaxGrassfed incredible, huge flaws... In my opinion, Singer's views on animal ethics are outdated and speciesist.
Omg this is HUGE ! I'm liking even before watching :)
I'm only up to 30 minutes but I find it very interesting how Singer has difficulty in viewing human action in a pure egoist fashion, as in, by definition what we do is what we prefer to do. It's something I'd say is also self evident in the terms he specified a little earlier. This is been 'obvious' for me for a long time. It's interesting to see someone so fluent in these topics have an opposing intuition.
Same! It seemed to me he was almost reluctant to admit it because it would be uncomfortable. Or, does he see something I just don't see?
@@fromeveryting29 I had the same impression. He didn't seem very logical on this one.
@@yasselesca Singer does not deny that we do what we prefer to do (see my comment above).
57:00, on the subject of animal pain, Dawkins has theorized that perhaps nonhuman animals suffer more than humans out of necessity, because nonhuman animals lack the same capacity of rationality and abstract thought to cope with pain. So, for example, if I break my arm, I can cope with it by training my brain to think of a funny joke or some post hoc rationalization that fills me with pride every time my arm begins to ache. Can a horse do that, or are they stuck with the dull thought of pain?
Phil Kesler, true. This really does showcase the absolute necessity to think of others as individuals, because their interests can vary so wildly.
@@AV57 What about an animal just locked in a small cage. Some might say a human would have an advantage by mentally leaving the cage, but also it could be argued that being locked up is terrible when you have a conception of the time you are losing or life you could be living. Others might argue that with the lack of hopes and dreams of the non-human animal, if they get food and are not in pain they might be relatively happy being locked up.
@@neoepicurean3772 in water parks, dolphins and orcas etc. are (relatively) well fed and theoretically not in physical pain, yet they die much sooner than in the wild. Have you seen animals in small cages showing signs of mental suffering such as abnormal head movements, pacing, self harming?
@@kymamps9638 Yes, I've seen humans doing all those things.
@@neoepicurean3772 You might find it interesting to know that animals also exhibit their species' equivalent of those behaviors (abnormal head movements, pacing, self-harming, etc.).
If you got this guy on your 6th episode. Who are you going to have on your 100th? The Jewish God? Apollo? Thor?
God is still working out how to avoid being interrogated without being accused of cowardice. Divine Hiddenness is his current ploy
Trump
Episode 35: discussing with a god on weather they can prove to themselves their own omniscience
Thanks for this, Alex
Very excited to hear this, I hope you asked about his metaethics!
You still running around thinking that holding veganism and subjectivism simultaneously produces contradiction?
@@Hxnsson I think that they are incompatible if that's what you mean. I would argue that veganism entails a moral objectivist position, otherwise the word lacks any clear definition beyond atomic fact.
@@PerspectivePhilosophy Could you elaborate?? I mean, I don't see why that is necessarily the case. Can't you just be very strongly affected if something doesn't go according to your moral emotions (e.g. carnist/anti-vegan stuff) yet still be convinced that these are just only your emotions?
Like, I feel it very viscerally (though while knowing it's an intersubjective experience) the smell of rotten eggs with the accompanying 'conclusion' of "this is bad"; I also feel it very viscerally (though while knowing it's an intersubjective experience) the torture of people/animals/sentient beings with the accompanying 'conclusion' of "this is bad".
@@PerspectivePhilosophy Couldn't you say the same about suffering in general? By your standards, if I am a moral subjectivist and decide to send a group of men to torture a previously uncontacted tribe of people, am I doing something immoral?
@@daddyleon id happily explain on voice chat, do you have discord?
Alex I love how you expose the flaw's in arguments, definitely a lot more calmly than I could, massive respect man.
I've been following you for a long time and I'm just really proud of how far you and your ideas have come. You really helped me change my perspective on so many things in life, not the least helping me keep my sanity as I struggled with childhood religious beliefs. I can't believe that just a few months ago I was studying Singer in class and now he's talking with you. I can't wait to see where you'll be in a few years!
fact of the matter is, that we share this planet with other living creatures that are equally conscious in that they are conscious, and do experience and observe reality as we do, and just observing another living creature run/crawl w/e from danger is a clear indication for their desire to live. That should be respected whether or not it is of the same species as yourseld, and no matter how great or small they are. It is never justified morally to kill unless it is absolutely necessary for survival purposes. I personally have made an effort to not even kill bugs that are considered pests, if they become an annoyance in my apartment(i rarely have insects in my current apartment) I will gently catch them and put them outside. I am aware that there are predators lurking outdoors, but I cannot risk the chance of allowing them to multiply in my apartment and end up getting sick should they end up spreading germs that can end up making me sick. It's the best solution I know so far, but at least I am sparing their lives and not killing them like I used to.
And yet, of course we care more for our own species than another. As much as I feel pity for the situation of some other animals, I care more for the well being and happiness of my fellow human beings. In reality species is non comparable to sex and race. Non-intelligent species are not comparable specifically by their nature. We are, unfortunately for the creatures we eat, omnivorous.
@@RespectTheHood it's natural to have this bias, and there's nothing immoral to feel this way, but what matters is having respect for other life when you are in it's presence.
As for our choice of foods, I have only just recently have been confronted with this at a philosophical level, so Ineed time to break the habit, and it's not going to be easy because of my budget for food each month as I am on disability, and it's much cheaper for me to get by including meat in my diet. I have seen videos of what goes on in slaughter houses for many of the livestock we typically use for food in the US, and it did make me feel bad to know that is what my money contributes to when i buy any sort of meat product. Like any habit, it will take time for me to get over it, but it's on my to do list in the future.
@@brucecook502 Whole Foods Vegan diets are very affordable. Bread, rice, beans, potatoes, pasta, root vegetables, lentils, split peas, chick peas, frozen vegetables and fruit. These are the cheapest foods on the planet. Most can be bought in bulk and stored for ages.
@@RespectTheHood Do you care to give an argument as to why prejudice amongst species is not the same as prejudice amongst sex and race? Yes you have a bias for your own species, but that bias is simply the prejudice you fail to validate.
You already went a step too far in your first and second assertions in your very first sentence:
1) *equally conscious* - scientific evidence would actually disagree with you on this one unless you have a different definition than what would be generally accepted in the field of study of consciousness.
2) *do experience and observe reality as we do* - again, nope. Dogs experience a great deal of their reality through smell in a way we never can. That right there invalidates your *fact*.
Looks like i need to wait another 1 and half hour to sleep.
Amazing podcast, Alex. Thank you so much for your contribution to the world of philosophy and the ease of access thereof.
Awesome talk! It's impressive to see you taking the enormous steps befitting a giant, Alex!
Amazing conversation, two truly smart men talking about important subjects.
wooow this is amazing! I was so blown away when seeing the title!
Almost feel a bit bad for Peter Singer. Alex's position on pleasure as THE motivator is very strong.
Probably because it's kinda undeniable..at least that's my own humble opinion that seemingly haven't been persuaded away from. If you have a proper argument, please, let me hear/see it! :)
@@daddyleon Yes, I think Alex's position is undeniable. I'm not totally familiar with Singer's work, but what he presents here seems to allude to a moral position not based upon pleasure (as Alex explains well in other videos) - I just can't see that making sense when you consider our evolution as a species.
@@DanielClementYoga I think Singer agrees that we have emotions that have evolved and that they feed into our moral reactions (he talked about the 'moral dumbfounding' study from..iirc Jonathan Haidt). But besides that, I think Singer also thinks that you can use reason to come to the conclusion that ... well "you ought". But I don't see how that makes it an objective foundation (which I think Singer does seem to think), I do see how that could make your ethical system more coherent (but that's something else than a foundation, I'd say).
Well I'm denying it. (and not to side with singer as he is an mostly unknown entity to me) The word 'pleasure' on its own is very vague.
I contend that people and their situations are diverse enough that there is not any nontrivial overarching motivator that applies to all cases. Any more stringent definition of a motivator will lead to counterexamples. Human behavior is necessarily as complex as the entirety of what goes into determining human behavior.
By a more stringent definition, I'm thinking along the lines of aiming for select levels of certain neurotransmitters such as dopamine.
When I say nontrivial, I am exempting the case where the motivator is literally defined as the entirety of what makes up that human behavior. I would hope we all agree, that would be a useless definition.
Elrog3 you’re misunderstanding the meaning of pleasure in this context. Think of suffering as any unmet desire and pleasure as satisfying a desire.
Came for the animals, stayed cuz of alex
Came for atheism, stayed for alex, left because veganism, then came back for animals, then stayed for knowlege
Really nice to see two public philosophers that I respect a lot and whose views align very much with mine in discussion with each other. I think it was a great conversation where I found myself agreeing with Alex one moment, and with Peter another. Thanks!
Thank you for bringing this to tens of thousands.
Love how Alex has totally red pilled himself on animal rights ..... Well done!
Next is antinatalism
Wow. Peter Singer. Just wow.
The probability that this video is amazing is indeed staggeringly high!
1:21:07
I completely agree with you, CosmicSkeptic. As an abolitionist activist myself for more than a quarter century, it makes no sense IMO for me go ask people to do the morally responsible thing only minimally or part time when I can ask and explain to them why it's morally responsible to do their honest very best to completely eschew from their complicity in the needless intentional harming of animals.
Now of course, if they start this transition by doing meatless Mondays or whatever, then I'm okay with that. But how dare I (the arrogance it would be) ask someone to stop raping only on weekdays or stop being complicit in needlessly harming animals only a couple days a week!
If it's bad or wrong to do violence to innocent individuals one day a week (and it's my position that it is) then it's at least as wrong to do it more than 1 day a week.
I completely agree and actually had this exact conversation (almost word for word) with someone a few days ago. I think theres something to be said for a messenger that has conviction in their statement and not willing to faulter. People say it is not effective in making change but the example that I gave was that of religion. If an abolitionist perspective was not effective then surely religions would not be as effective in their recruiting. But as we can see there are many, many people practicing these religions even though religion does not advocate for only Sinless Sundays.
I’m not eating farmed humans, so your raping analogy draws a false equivalency. If you want to argue for the ethics of veganism you have to either refute the value claim of humans over non humans, if you can’t do this then you really can’t draw any comparisons about how we treat each other versus how we treat animals
Therefore my argument that follows is that I can agree with you that the suffering of animals is wrong, but still make the claim that the benefit we as humans (being more valuable) gain from the slavery of animals outweighs the suffering it causes of these animals. And you can not refute this by drawing comparisons about ethics regarding humans.
They discussed it here, what is the exchange rate on human slaves vs non human slaves, how many animals enslaved equates to as bad as one human enslaved.. well how can we possibly determine that, one could say one human suffering is infinitesimally times worse than any amount of animals suffering.. so one human not going hungry aka not suffering is worth making an animal suffer
@@dahadahaful Interesting. But even if I grant your notion that animals cannot be granted the same status as humans, I cannot see any argument that supports the idea that the benefits animals give us outweigh the pain that they suffer. Even leaving animal suffering out of the equation I still cannot see how animals give us any benefit. Animal agriculture is a net detriment to human beings, partially due to health concerns, but more so to ecological concerns. 60-70% of grains and vegetables that are grown in the world go to animal feed, and the water consumption is even worse. Even totally ignoring the issue of greenhouse emissions animal agriculture puts an enormous strain on resources, and adds nothing useful to our diet. All just so we can enjoy the taste of a steak?
PtolemyauletesXII those arguments while being much more compelling are quite controversial. I was simply refuting the claim that eating meat is immoral/wrong because of the suffering it causes to the animals. If it is shown that humans don’t benefit and actually are net harmed from eating meat that Is the condition under which eating meat would be wrong/immoral
So much love for this.
Fantastic discussion, it was incredible to watch Singer slowly have his wits almost matched by someone so young but so well spoken. This has absolutely caused me to look at my own blind carnism and reevaluate my next dietary steps. Keep up the great quality Alex!
m.ruclips.net/video/es6U00LMmC4/видео.html
Cool. A year later, how's veganism going?
@@vegahimsa3057 😢 damn... called out. I have cut out everything but chicken. So I took steps toward eating vegetatian, but pretty far from vegan unfortunately.
@@dylannowak2158 that's still pretty good, unless you're scarfing down 21 chickens a week. What's the hang up, though? Family pressure, taste temptations, still doubting? I always recommend people start at home, where you have most time and control.
Love this... you're making a huge difference in this world, for the animals, our health and the environment. Thanks Alex!
Fantastic job Alex! Thank you for making this happen.
Amazing you got Singer on. Excellent conversation.
Really enjoyed this podcast, thanks Peter and Alex!
I remember seeing Prof. Singer walking around University back in the day. He always seemed busy and his lectures were thought provoking.
I wish I'd done more philosophy undergrad, but chemistry and biochemistry had me in their thrall.
Great interview, thanks - despite my being 3 years too late.
🖖🏼🇦🇺
Thank you both. Thank you so much!
Singer unpicked Cosmic Skeptics argument at around the 38 minute mark. Worth watching. He's a skilled logician.
A brilliant conversation.
Thanks Alex for the awesome work 👍 convincing as hell as always
Man, Peter is so generous to Alex, somehow negotiating that lengthy bit on pleasure and motivation without using the (fully appropriate) expressions "beg the question", "tautology" or "No True Scotsman".
That was exceptional. Thank you.
Has Alex talked about anti-natalism anywhere? I would really like to hear his view and how that may inform his view on veganism/environmentalism.
Would be good to get the negative utilitarian philosopher David Pearce on..
Anyway great conversation/wallpaper
Yup I would also love to see how he would try to make a good counter argument to it
he has, with david benatar.
This is the best day of the month, what a host and what a guest
Come home from philosophy class to find a new CS podcast episode, YES!
Also it’s Peter Singer, I’m quite unfamiliar so I’m even more excited!
Congratulations on having such a massive figure on the show!!
Great video! Well done Alex! Singer is so persuasive! He's a very hard man to disagree with.
One of my final exams will be about one of Singer's papers, I'm so glad that one of my favorite channels decideed to host him!
I respect and appreciate Singer, and I appreciated him more once I accepted he was a moralist who became an ethicist. He can be stringent, but certain predicates either appeal to folk conceptions or a stretch of the categories beyond recognition. A good man and one of my favorite authors.
Matt Dillahunty should listen to this, and perhaps learn a thing or two..
Phenomenal. Simply wonderful. Just... the best!
Agreed!!!!!!!!
I applaud your willingness to speak on this Topic Alex, you are doing great good in my opinion
Another one for the book. Amazing conversation!
Next up: Richard Dawkins!
It's happened!
This is so much more interesting than the infinite stream of garbage that is on my tv.
I admire your eloquence, Alex.
Great talk - I've just started reading Animal Liberation, so great to see a talk with Singer!
more views to you man... I couldn't believe it when I saw the title of the video... youtube needs more of this
Love your abolitionist ethical principle.
CosmicSkeptic ........brilliant interview!
"You could offer that explanation [that people act in accordance with their desires], but I don't see why it's necessary to do so." Perhaps because the discussion was about why people act the way that they do. Great argument from Peter Singer. I remain unconvinced that anyone can act not in accordance with their preferences or in seeking their own pleasure (even if they are wrong about the best way to do so).
"We don't have a very strong inclination to help strangers far away from us and [...] people we can't even see as identifiable recipients" - sounds like we only care about people we can empathise with, and thus avoiding the pain of empathising with people in pain.
the use of logic in the dialogue + the beautiful & elegant pattern on the wall = a room of harmonious combination of mathematics (geometry) + philosophy (ethics)
I completely agree with you on the meatless Monday point. People just need to suck it up and change, if you know it's bad for you and the animals you need to have the intent of eliminating it completely.
yes its better if animals aren't given the chance to procretae and exist at all if they are going to be eaten isn't it.
A wonderful poscast like always
keep the good work Alex
Uploaded 8 minutes ago.. how would you even know
@@nulliusinverba5703 he has uploaded it on spotify
@@nulliusinverba5703 like yesterday
@@r.m8345 Damn.. I did not know that. Sorry for being an ass.
@@nulliusinverba5703 no it is okay
Great conversation. Thanks Cosmic.
Thank you so much for this!
Holyshit!!!! What a guest!! What a talk
This is perfect Alex. I, too, am an abolitionist. In the eyes of the victims and from an environmental perspective, this is a crisis, and in order to be morally consistent, I feel we should treat it as such.
Great discussion. Really appreciate it:)
I love the topics covered. I too became vegan after watching yours and some other philosophers/youtubers videos. Keep it up dude, the world needs talks like these.
nice job cosimicskeptic... thanks for bringing more awareness to the world... this is the top thing people should be talking/thinking about.
oh, but Peter Singer. The good of the spider is NOT the good of the fly.
Amazing you had him on, amazing how much confidence you have respectfully disagreeing with him. LOVE.
Currently studying Singer at A level and I’m really surprised you got an interview with him. Well done
Fantastic. What a coup to have Peter Singer do a long form interview. He's definitely one of the intellectual giants of our time. I hope Alex can do this as a career (after his education is complete). He could be as good as Sam Harris.
What happened to your drawers?
They're trapped in the 5th dimension
Alex, it seems that in your conversations with Michael Shermer and here with Peter Singer you are more willing to discuss fundamental moral ideas than your conversational partners whereas they focus on the practicality and reality of how people live their lives. I find your approach to be more convincing, but regarding terminology (desire, pleasure, preference) I think you are talking past each other.
Thanks a lot, great pod!
Wow, Singer, pretty amazing... Excited to listen
Wow, Peter Singer!
Pleasure is not usually the motivation to donate a kidney. But avoiding the guilt of knowing you could've helped someone and didn't... Is that not acting in self interest?
Yes, we always act in self-interest.
@@gregoryrowlerson8457 To understand Singer's position and one of the problems with Alex's psychological egoism we need to remember that, while we always do what we want to do, sometimes our reasons for wanting to do something are based on other people's interests, not our own. The soldier who throws himself over a grenade to save his colleagues does what he wants to do, but he does it for others' interests. The solder who runs out of the room to save his life leaving his comrades to die does what he wants to do but he does it for his own self-interest.
@@JohnThomas yes, but as Alex explained, or at least suggested, the soldier makes a subconscious decision in that moment that the future pain of living without having jumped on the grenade would outweigh the incredible pain in its immediacy of killing himself via the grenade (whilst saving others). So it is still in self interest, less pain for him now, rather than more (hypothetically) in the long run. It's a rather complicated issue though.
@@gregoryrowlerson8457 Yes, that's a response one could make. But it seems more plausible to suggest that the soldier sacrifices his life because of the benefit it brings to others rather than because he is worried about feeling guilty now or in the future.
It's rare to donate a kidney to an unknown person with absolutely no recognition from anyone. And maybe such a person still often does it for personal satisfaction. But who are we to claim that no one can or does?
Great, great discussion!!
Alex, please invite Shelly Kagan next. He is a moral philosopher, who OBLITERATED William Lane Craig in one of his debates. I think it would be super interesting, if you guys discussed different topics. As for this interview, thank you for inviting Singer, it was a very fruitful conversation.
Obliterated WL Craig? Omg! No way! (Sorry for the sarcasm). My old pair of sweatsocks could beat him in a debate, without even bothering to get a wash first.
Looks like Singer was taken aback a bit by Alex. 🙂
Yeah it was fun to watch hahaha
yea, Alex is pretty dogmatic! Good to see the apprentices challenging the masters!
nicbongo Honestly, from the philosophical quality of the arguments, I think Alex completely outclassed Singer. I’m not sure those labels really apply here!
O'Connor's apparent lack of nerves and willingness to probe and push back are nothing short of admirable and impressive.
You could say he got spooked ;)
Singer’s idea that people’s potentially general relative lack of cognisance when making certain decisions as to their outcomes feels like a really cop out way to argue against pleasure and preference being intertwined at any level. It almost seems like that whole “I am personally not cognisant of my brain as I’ve never observed it therefore it isn’t real”, and almost works to discredit reason not only as a thought process but also as a collective body of works spanning however long humans have been able to document their discoveries.
This aside, I really loved this conversation. Very cool to see you getting heavyweights on your podcast, Alex!
Great discussion and I've learned tremendously and made me developed a deeper appreciation for non human animals wellbeing.
I never understood why so many people don't take animal rights seriously.
They are animal, we are animal, they feel pain, we feel pain, what's the big difference? And the difference must be extremely big since gasing millions of Baby chickens is completely fine and accepted in society, yet a literal joke and Satire about the Holocaust can give you some serious troubles.
We make such a big deal off racism (and rightfully so) but specisism seem to be totally fine. Not even that, but being against specisism is something some people even find laughable.
Who decides which being is worth more than others?
@UCDuCua-_ZHUr0RAgtKBEVDQ Exactly. Schools should give out Singers books to their students. Whether or not you agree with him, everyone should at least think about this topic at least once in their life.
I meet a few people that didn't even believe me when i said specisism is a real word.
So true suffering is suffering. Joy is joy. If a being can experience it. Then it should be taken into account. There is no significant difference between us, enough to ignore it.
I don't take animal rights seriously because of the very small impact it has on my life. Aside from the very strong feelings of empathy I get when I see animals with human-like characteristics, I don't see why one ought care about animal welfare.
@@candorman9444 If you care about human suffering, what is it about animals, that differentiates
their suffering from ours?
@@jhunt5578 Their inability to significantly affect my world.
expectation Earthling Ed reality Peter "is he actually vegan" Singer
GeneralArmorus, Singer is very good at displaying the the prejudice of speciesism in most moral philosophies. Outside of that, I really wouldn’t advise anyone interested in the moral topic of animals to go to Singer, unless they’re just dying to get the utilitarian argument.
This is awesome!!
What a fascinating man. Flawed, but fascinating...
Excellent, so how do we change society's status quo for animal treatment?
Human agriculture