He's a cheeky sitcom grandad, and Coleman is sometimes a bit tired of his shenanigans but deep down he really loves him and knows his heart is in the right place.
Peter Singer is not really a vegan. He follows what he calls "the Paris exception", which basically means you can cheat sometimes. Never eating meat, but eating eggs or dairy. He's a vegan until someone puts a bowl of delicious ice cream in front of him, and then he magically turns into a vegetarian.
Great interview. I wish you would have went into the topic of animal ethics a bit, as I think that's going to be the next big "ism" that's tackled by our society, but which is still now very much on the fringe. All of the recent conversations about statues, and whether we should judge someone by their actions alone or in the context of a certain place and time are interesting. But also interesting is what we're doing now that future generations will judge as cruel. Our treatment of animals is going to be a big one.
My argument would be we don’t always know what we are actually funding overseas when we donate. Even donating locally funds can be misused. I’d prefer to offer my time and services.
Correct. Charitous organizations are close to 100% ineffective. Some of them are outright scam. The rest are ridiculously ineffective. Besides... let's say you manage to transfer 100% of the intended funds to a starving family in the Congo or whatever. In 20 years they would have reproduced, doubled in number, and now you just need to feed 2 families instead of 1.
One of my favorite "little books" is Peter Singer's _A Darwinian Left: Politics, Evolution, and Cooperation_ (1999). It's in the "Darwinism Today" series, each text of which is worth reading, twice.
@10:00 Assuming my moral obligation to first do no harm, the immediately apparent risk of not rescuing the child far outweighs that of doing so (for virtually anyone). However, the strength of that same calculus diminishes rapidly as the suffering to be confronted becomes less present, immediate, and concrete especially when the channels of assistance themselves (charities, NGO's etc.) are opaque, distant, and for whom effectiveness is very difficult to evaluate. Though the obligation to my moral code may in principle be the same for the two examples provided by the argument, the factors of circumstance bearing on the choice of how practically I ought to respond to each is very different.
@Martin Smith - Though true, and all for the good, your response does not address my objection to Singer's claim that since the moral obligation that operates in the proximal setting is not different from the moral obligation that operates in the distal setting one ought to respond the same way to each. There are many reasons to respond in the same way to each, however I do not believe Singer's argument is valid, and on that basis may very well be crowding out much better reasons to help people. Philosophical nit-picking of course, but that's why I'm watching this video:)
@Martin Smith - Assuming we agree on what the overarching argument is (which we probably do), then I am even less convinced that the hypothetical provided is an effective means, assuming the intent is to include an appeal to the moral conscience of non-utilitarians/non-materialists such as my self. Singer explicitly frames the argument in a materialist way when he posits that the material cost (the loss of the new suit) of acting in the local example is greater than than in the distant example. This feature of his argument alone is off-putting to those whose moral landscapes are not fundamentally materialist/utilitarian. The argument shouldn't be easy to consume. Something of such broad social importance should be agonizingly satisfying to consume, if for no other reason than we keep the burden of persuasion on us so that it doesn't become a burden of dissuasion on those we hope to enlist.
I find Peter Singer's insinuation that Hunter Gatherers were oblivious to the pull-out method of contraception frankly insulting. Even more insulting is his implicit avowal that they were ignorant of the rapturous delight which masturbation and oral sex can achieve.
29:30 very good question, I applaud you! People do no longer live in a tribe where everyone knows everyone. Thus, the morality of the tribe has its problems. In an extended order, where I make bolts out of steel, there are no evident direct moral questions or consequences observable for my actions. Nonetheless, me selling my bolts does benefit some people I have never met in a faraway place by providing for them a business. Sad that Singer did not really grasp that question by its core.
I hate to say this because i love Singer, but he's a little bit too straightforward and pragmatic to have a truly fun conversation with. He steers right into boring territory. His answer on the Redskins name change is the cleanest example. Was it really edifying to hear him run through the different ways the utilitarian calculus could run? Couldnt he have offered a bit of elaboration on the general phenomena of people being offended on other's behalf and how to think about it?
Great comment, totally agree. Singer should've offered a generalizable principle and moral frame for thinking through taking offense on behalf of others, but he just hyperfocused on the example, which is fine for the example but unhelpful for fine-tuning the larger point.
@@gewreid5946 it would be a cop out to say that your general approach is to only consider specifics. Unless you truly believe each case is distinct enough that there are no useful intellectual tools or frameworks to understand them by.
I agree. It felt like he is also playing it safe or choosing to not dive deeper to have the wrong opinions - he's a prof at Princeton and probably wants it to stay that way.
@@michaelfavata2720 Does it have standards and accountability built in or is it rather vague as to funneling money to those most in need with no oversight and control as to if it is further stuffed into bureaucrats' pockets instead of the ones who actually need it the most?
There may not be a negative of hedonic adaptation, but you could maybe make the slightly strange argument that by so effectively dulling all our pains and removing so much risk, our happier moments are significantly less happy as result. Or that, without significant adversity, we are all slightly lost?
Indeed. And this is perhaps a flaw in the consequentialist/utilitarian approach to morality. A lack of suffering isn' the same thing as happiness, as suffering in some sense, can be a part of a greater whole of a person's life, the bitterness, contrast, and struggle that makes it meaningful. Now, of course there is also much suffering which has no hope, and restrains the sufferer from ever having a chance of changing their circumstance.
Great Aussie perspective on the problem of solving the homicide problem in high crime neighbourhoods. So many people in the US start talking about more police and more community safety to foster cooperation in helping solve the crimes based on the assumption nothing can be done about the number of guns, whereas everyone outside the US looking in doesn’t start from that assumption and recognises affecting the number of guns as a first step to reducing homicide as a logical place to start.
i have a hard time seeing that not directly leading to a civil war in the U.S. Maybe that has to do with me living in rural America and trump voters saying that directly. Maybe they're joking tho
The way I see it, the nature and availability of firearms has little to do with the supposed increase in what people refer to as mass shootings. Think of this, firearms technology as it is today has been relatively the same for five or six decades and mass shootings have been on the public radar as something seen as a legitimate issue for what, three? The crazies we see going places and murdering many people are a symptom of a great civilizational malaise, nihilism and the decay of any semblance of community in modern society cause these problems. Will stripping the basic rights of every person in a country really be a suitable answer to this problem? Of course not, the general feeling of apathy, dissatisfaction, and loneliness will remain. People will build bombs, or 3D printing will get to the point where all gun control measures are rendered moot. As far as I'm concerned, there is no solving of this problem and we are in the midst of a great societal decline; such is the nature of human civilization. Crack open any history textbook, the writing is on the wall. Besides, the great majority of gun crime (the actual problem) takes place in inner cities and violence is perpetrated by people who are more often than not convicted felons disallowed from owning guns under federal law. These are people who would remain untouched by any strong attempts at gun control/confiscation.
Thanks for pushing back some on the rayshard case Coleman. That one has been terribly misrepresented in media. I have to disagree with Peter. After a scuffle and in the heat of pursuit, you can't expect the cop to keep track of how many times a taser has or hasn't been fired and the cop fired immediately after the taser was fired at him which is a normal, biological response. It all went down in a matter of seconds, it's not like the cop sat there and thought "oh he's fired that taser twice now and is running away, I think I'll wait a minute then shoot him if I can't catch him", it was an instantaneous fight or flight reflexive response to being shot at with the taser.
My 2 cents on the thoughts of the group affected in relation to statues, names and symbols of oppression. I'm glad the guest brought up how knowledge about the actions of historical figures, symbols and names should rightfully drive action. We can't democratize if wrong should be accepted in some scenarios and seeing the tragic effects it has should be cause for us to take action. If only a few people feel strongly that they dont want themselves or future offsprings to live in a country where figures and names used to oppress their ancestors are present then their claim to righting wrong should be taken serious
this was fucking dope, thanks Coleman. My first impression of Peter was slightly white guilt brigade (common with Oxbridge alumni) but clearly not by the end
Helping those in need is fine, especially in emergency situations, but wouldn’t spending that money on supporting causes that change the political systems in those areas to support human flourishing so they can help themselves and not have to rely on charity be a much better use of our money. If the individuals are not given the chance to help themselves in those areas due to there rights being infringed on by whatever system that is bringing them to the point where they need charity then they will always rely on charity and essentially we would always be slaves to supporting those people. Seems we need to look at the root of why they need charity rather easing their suffering for the short term.
I believe that's something effective altruists think of. For example, I saw a guest lecture by Will MacAskill where he claimed that a lifetime of vegetarianism will only save as many chickens as 20 $ of donation directed at lobbying for better animal treatment!
@@johnwhorfin3815 I find anti-natalism funny, so I'm not sure whether you meant that as a joke. I would guess that some of the logic behind being a vegan with regards to how that affects the dairy industry and male calves could be interpreted as anti-natalist, though.
Hmmm, perhaps the reason is the crippling poverty imposed on poor countries by the global superpowers who need them to prop up their businesses with cheap labor and exploitation. I always find it funny when people are like "what's wrong with these poor countries? Why can't they get their shit together?" Ignoring centuries of colonial rule, economic exploitation, unfair lending practices, the arbitrary drawing of borders, in some cases literal genocide, etc ... I mean your point still stands that charity can't fix systemic issues, but context is important
Technology can be used as tool and weapon. It can streamline processes while creatively eliminating perceived redundacies, inefficiencies...Like Mr. Singer did in Sydney,NE.
In response to the arguement that not giving to welfare now, and investing in GDP instead, so that GDP will grow faster, at what point would be the right time to support the poor and marginalized? The danger with that argument could be that we could always say that investing in GDP (which could be interpreted as quality of life for people with decent incomes) is more important than caring for the unemployed. I'm curious from proponents of the GDP argument, what approaches there are for when/if we focus on welfare.
Peter, what if the "life you can save" is already above the "carrying capacity" of its respective ecosystem? And by saving it, that child has several children of its own, all of whom will need saving, or suffer also, thus multiplying your problem several fold a half generation down the road? And, what if those lives, by way of their demand for more resources, further increase, pollution, deforestation, loss of biodiversity, climate change, etc., further worsening the conditions for all life on earth? What if this is the mother of all uncomfortable issues?
Richer people tend to have less children, making poverty reduction solve this issue. Also I doubt we are at carrying capacity. That’d only be the case if we found the most optimal use of earth matter and energy for creating wellbeing and that now we just have to sustain that. We’re no were near that.
Poor people wanting to live rich, will only shrink the earths carrying capacity faster. Current carrying capacity of the earth is 2.5 billion people (assuming today's quality of life) and shrinking... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ecological_footprint
And what if we don't simply assume todays "quality of life" going forward? Also what exactly do you mean by todays quality of life? Because i feel like a lot of vastly different things fall under that umbrella that might require an individual cost-benefit assessment.
I think the stakes are too high and the consequences too dire to wait and gamble it on the right technology being developed. Fixing the problems now with the solutions at our disposal is the safer option. If we do that and new, better technology that enables a brighter future comes along, we can still use it. If it doesn't, no loss.
Really enjoyed the episode as always... Just wondered within his charitable giving of a nation, would he take the side of a libertarian and utilize such apps as gofund me to support individuals within extreme impoverished communities or utilize government taxation to send payment to various organizations and municipalities of a land?
The lands and seas have changed since the beginning of time. Climate change whether a function of population and technological evolution or simply a function of cosmic changes while just require the same adaptation as humans have always experienced.
I was disappointed with the discussion on tearing down statues and the censure or 'cancelling' of historical figures (e.g. Woodrow Wilson). Should we judge historical figures by the standards of today's politically correct pieties, and after finding them lacking (as we are bound to), condemn them and refuse to celebrate their achievements? Other than his expressions of sympathy for the 'offended', Singer had little to offer and Coleman was not of a mind to press him.
It's a pity that Peter is so ignorant on some things, despite being very lucid on so many other things. He has been led to believe that Rayshard Brooks was shot while simply running away from a “clearly non-violent encounter” and that there is any indication that lawful civilian ownership of firearms is somehow the *leading explanation* of homicide in the U.S.
neet bucks would love to hear what he doesn’t understand about veganism. Most honest people who understand the arguments tends to pursue it with efforts. Even more so if someone do philosophy as a thinking practice
Concerning immediate benefits vs. future GDP growth, I have had similar ideas, but I think one should take a much longer perspective. GDP growth may look good over a span of 100 years -- a major catastrophe over that period may seem small. Over a period of 1000 or 10,000 years, a major catastrophe seems inevitable and the expected benefit after a certain amount of time will be zero. But some things that we are doing now will have even longer term effects. In particular, species extinction seems to be eternal. The Maori that killed off the last moas may have felt that their benefit from doing so outweighed any loss that may have been felt by their descendants, but I don't think so. I don't see how their benefit can outweigh the loss to trillions (quadrillions?) of future humans. Perhaps killing moas helped expand their GDP over some period, it still doesn't come close to humanity's loss from not living in a world with moas. We are currently in the midst of the sixth great extinction. I would submit that all other problems are minuscule by comparison.
@35:30 Regarding monuments to people; A libertarian approach to statues might be helpful. Since anyone who's virtue is to be revered is also a person who's vices are to be condemned, let the people rather than the governments maintain monuments to them, and be held accountable to the justifications for their placements. It would be one less burden upon our ability to hold our governments accountable.
36.35: "Hey, why is this university honoring somebody who wouldn't even have wanted me to be a student at this university?" Actually there is no evidence that Woodrow Wilson wanted to segregate universities.
I'm willing to assume Singer's reputation is well earned, but after this conversation I was not impressed. I don't think he added any clarity to assuming some primacy to consequentialist or utilitarian thinking. He didn't address the standard objections about the near impossibility of making useful determinate calculations due to nearly infinite real and hypothetical impediments created by variations in quality of pleasure or the effects of physical or temporal proximity and their roles in weighting calculations. I tend to think consequences matter and should be a continuing sense of concern, but ultimately those determinations seem to become more and more dependent on higher level grounds to find their justification or proper utility. I also wasn't impressed by the strangely naive statements suggesting people will suddenly drown from climate induced sea level rises when they may have nearly 80 years to see the approach of rising water, and his suggestion that simply eliminating guns will solve or murder problems in the U.S.. He should have some hint of the political barriers to this solution and also realize that violence can continue to manifest even without guns.
well you can see why he is a professor of *applied* ethics. The deep meta-ethical questions are better addressed by eg the late Derek Parfit. But it’s not a solved problem.
Just a small comment people didn’t really get toothaches in Hunter gatherer societies due to the fact there was negligible sugar consumption ( fruit when ripe ). So it was a rare occurrence.
You don't think someone getting kicked in the mouth by a gazelle could cause some serious malformation of the gums, which could lead to excruciating pain?
I am skeptical to accept the analogy of the child in the pond. Of course one would save the child. I don’t think there is an inconvenience or sacrifice made to do so. You don’t ruin $200 pants by getting them wet. I think a more viable analogy would illustrate there is more than one child drowning in the pond and you could only carry one at a time. Also the proximity of the analogy or issue makes the analogy itself even more un-relatable. Why money as the first choice? If money is the only way to make a ethical difference then why not invest it in you own kin to help prevent the potential of an increased in suffering without your contribution of expendable money? Idk.
I enjoy listening to you Coleman, even though I reject your and Singer's moral presuppositions. Morality/ethics that is based on either or both utility and consequences is morally bankrupt and tends to lead to tyrannical regimes and authoritarianism. It's backending morality. The standard for morality is transcendental. We seek moral choices not for ourselves or for their intended consequences but rather because the standard for humanity should be to please God who set the standard for human morality at creation. You and I may choose the same moral choice, but the truly moral choice is one that seeks an ultimate goal, and not simply a human outcome. Limited humans cannot know how or if a given choice will actually produce the outcome that is intended. But if we are behaving morally according to an ultimate, divine standard, it acknowledges the unknowability of future outcomes while humbling ourselves to the sovereignty of the God who knows everything and what will happen because he is working through the people who honor his authority to set the standard. Utilitarianism and consequentialism cannot truly bring humility to man. They can only devalue one life over the valuing of another. All life is of value because all life has been created in God's image. The only way to wisely know how to make complex decisions is by humbling ourselves before the divine Knower who can and does guide those who seek him and his gift of wisdom. I truly respect how carefully and consistently you think through issues. My main disagreement is with your presuppositions and the world view that rests upon them. May God bless you.
He gets the kid in a pond analogy wrong for many reasons. What if you action to rescue the child, causes him more injury? Because you are very clumsy, say? Unlikely? Maybe, but donating to some organizations may end up strengthening the tyrants who oppress the poor you intend to help. Money doesn't just turn into food and appear in hungry people's bellies, many times a decent percentage goes to bribery and payoffs, to allow any aid in. A better analogy might be, there's a huge pond, ten kids drown in it every second, so would your energy be better spent rescuing kids? Or pumping the water out of the pond... even as some kids die. Capitalism lifts more people out of poverty, by orders of magnitude, than charity. Buy foreign, buy often.
Just some other observations. Somehow he doesn't grasp the concept, that humans (all animals) are concerned with matters, in direct proportion to their proximity?
As I'm doing now .a arm chair input taping on a screen .human beings are complicated, we ear animals, dump our waist in the rivers which flow to the sea.who is in control of this world .? Think about this.
Haha, he's a gun grabber. Its not a coincidence that the people getting killed "disproportionately" killed by polices also "disproportionately" kill each other with firearms. The "guns are the problem" is the most short sighted view of the subject one can hold.
Saying that the cop should’ve known how many times the taser had been shot is so out of touch. Different tasers can be shot with different frequencies and no police officer is counting or even should be counting how many times a taser has been shot.
@@scratchfg212 Once you're committed to evidence, reason and compassion - there's no way to avoid it :). Sadly, most humanists seem to be doing a remarkably good job...
@@everythingsawesome, How couldn't a similar response be used with regards to eating any animal flesh (dog, cat, horse, chimp, and human)? Or more broadly to justify harming anybody else/any sentient being for any kind of pleasure (including sexual abuse/exploitation)?
@@everythingsawesome Real sushi is pretty fucking good indeed. (Though i've had really amazing vegetarian sushi too. The way they combine ingredients in creative ways can lead to awesome results that you just can't compare to fish sushi. They are both unique and awesome in their own ways.) But what about canned tuna or other things that you use for a quick, uninspired meal you aren't particularily excited about? Does low-effort fast-food have to contain meat?
Personally i haven't gone full vegan but i reduced my meat consumption considerably by making meat and fish something fancy and special i have only occasionally and when i do i expect it to be the best it can possibly be and want to give it it's due appreciation.
Gewreid you can for sure go vegan it isn’t hard. Plenty of people I knew went vegan and one of them was in a dairy farmer family. Eating meat and dairy at every meal. It’s cheaper and easier than you would think. Even more so in the states. We live in Switzerland and we have 1/10 of the vegan specific product US resident have. But you don’t even need vegan specific product anyway. Rice/beans/lentils/nuts all the way
@@KrwiomoczBogurodzicy You're making a slippery slope argument that could apply to anything. Watch how the fallacy works: "Why allow same-sex marriage when that could open the floodgates to marrying animals?" It's a neat trick. The answer is we draw ethically practical lines by applying the harm principle to minimize harm on balance with maximum flourishing. Are we imperfect in drawing lines? Yes. Good luck perfecting it.
I am wondering what this idea does to people's self determination. Of course people's life in poverty is not their fault, at least not if you talk about truly poor people in the third world (since if a person in your neighbourhood chooses to not work, they will be poor and they are responsible for that themselves). However, it is the fault of their government. If there is corruption for example, or the government is unable to develop the country in a reasonable way that leads to prosperity. Now that sucks for the people there, but is the failing of the government, which is on some level also a function of local culture and people, wealthy people's responsibility? I don't think so. And I don't think it should be. Because if it is, we are to an extent taking away their responsibility to figure things out themselves. And as soon as you start supporting those poor nations with foreign money, I don't think they will ever make things work on their own. The way in which a livable life was achieved for them did not organically develop with local culture, so culture will stay the same. In other words, as soon as you take away the money, things will go back to the way they were. Also, wealthy people are rarely truly wealthy as they need to take care of themselves and their children. And how is it fair to make a culture that clearly got things figured out artificially less wealthy by spreading their wealth around the world?
Or maybe to extend to that, I still have to read the book to understand the arguments made thoroughly but from how it is presented here; if you are morally obliged to "donate" (or help to use a broader term) for everything bad you see and the claim is that geographical space as well as time doesn't matter, you basically are held responsible to take care of the world around you (in the broadest sense) AND the world which is yet to come but which you are not even part of anymore. That sounds a bit Kantian to me and I'm not sure if I think the implications fit within the context individual liberty and individual responsibility. I might not be held responsible for damage that others do, but I am somehow morally obliged to clean it up. But to take that back to the analogy made of the kid drowning; the actual matter of the fact is that if you poll people and ask them about "cost for clothes and damages" versus life of the kid, people think choosing the former is "outrageous". Yet, if such an incident would occur, everybody would get their smartphone and stream it on social media instead of doing something. Of a whole group, only 1 person might actually jump in the water. There clearly is a dissonance between what polled people answer and how people behave (social desirable answers?). That aside, the argument is then made that it is logically inconsistent to pick helping the kid but not helping others in need on the other side of the globe. The difference however is that in the first the incident happens before your eyes while the second is not within your literal reach. That begs the question, if I just be ignorant about the world and ignore all the suffering, am I then absolved of my moral obligation? You would think so because if time and distance don't matter, the only thing that does matter and makes the difference seems to be the knowledge about the current/future suffering. If that is the case, that begs the question who should be morally obliged. If I have an IQ of 80, do I still have such obligation even though I am not cognitively able to understand it? Where exactly are all the boundaries drawn?
Singer is wrong about Rayshard Brooks by all available evidence. Also taking the guns from American civilians will never go over well and is a dumb idea. Restricting some firearms and making it more difficult to obtain would be a better route to go.
Get guns out of the hands of Americans ??? Really that’s our 2nd amendment right - I have a legal right to beat arms and his Opinion has no bearing on our country’s bill of rights! . It’s personal responsibility. to live a Moral life. today it means nothing .. . So sick of this dialogue .
First of all, ethics are above the law and constitution as both law and constitution are only a reflection of a very particular view on ethics. Note that laws and constitutions change with new ethical insights. But what I never understood as European, why the hell do Americans need that 2nd amendment? We don't have it and never felt the need to have it. So why is that different for you Americans, regardless of the point that it is your right?
Uh oh, using time as a dimension by which to structure moral actions opens a can of worms for the morality of the direct destruction of the life in the womb. Looking pretty christian
I think a strong moral case for abortion can still be made with such dimension added. If the parents are not able to fulfil their responsibilities (don't want to, not equipped to, whatever), then you already take time in consideration as the argument is that the child will suffer from parents not being able to live up to their responsibilities.
@@santibanks that is a secondary cause. IF one is to believe they have a moral obligation to take actions now for future generations in terms of food one must also take into account the moral accountibility of engaging in the primary cause of bringing into the world a child. the moral obligation is to the person not just a group of persons ie a generation. The subjective conditions do not take away the moral obligation to the singular child wrought from the primary cause. Thus the secondary conditions do not negate the responsibility of the parents to allow the child its right to life. ends do not justify the means. the outcome of a childs life doesnt justify the breach of moral obligation on the parents to protect the right of that child to have its life.
49:37 disgusting lack of understanding of real life, deadly interaction. What a shitty logic this "great" philosopher has. I am going to KFC and I am ordering double everything.
Peter Singer is fundamentally wrong on his ethics. Let's assume that charity is a moral good, and our obligation (it isn't, as any unreciprocated transfer of resources is merely parasitism). If you give resources to people to meet basic needs, as Peter argues that it is one of the best thing you can do at around 17:30, then you are incentivising incompetence and bad behaviour. It is very well documented, that giving resources to people and not expecting reciprocation has this effect. Basically, look at sub-saharan Africa, where the average ahykew is around 60. If you are pumping food and money into these low ahykew, incompetent breeding pairs then by the time they are 20-22, the number of mouths you need to feed have doubled. Again, this is well documented. The only ethical form of charity is loans. Loans that are fair, and payment is enforced with an iron fist. Your house burned down? Okay, I'm happy to help you. I'll give you some resources to get you back on your feet, then in a few years you'll pay me back that amount and then some more in the form of interest. You are a talented kid from a poor family and want to become a doctor? That's amazing. Here's some loan to cover your tuition costs, food, and quarter. Once you become a bigshot MD you'll pay me back with interest.
*UA-cam automatically censors comments regarding common ancestry groups and psychometrics, so you have to write things with crayons. It's virtually impossible to have an adult conversation on YT...
Payment enforced with an iron first? That doesn't sound like it would take lenience, which would absolve the people enforcing it from ethical responsibility, which would then cause a system that could potentially make people a commodity to be "bought". The process would have to be well thought out with the focus being upon what would be rationally just, and have a clear set of societal guidelines that were being followed, for whatever form of the loan was being undertaken... Not to mention not everyone who studies to be a doctor, becomes a doctor. Unless if they're given a set term time to practice which is already stated before the loan is agreed upon, but you see my point... *Edited for paragraph spacing
Subsaharan africa, africa in general has valuable natural resources they export to other countries to make products they import back to their country. I agree with your point about incentivizing bad behavior. However, Subsaharan africa needs a competent and educated future generation of leaders and entrepreneurs that can capitalize on its strength and give opportunities to more of the population and raise the GDP of these countries
The loan also eliminates the stigma of patronization and accords the individual the respect that they have the ability to pay you back, and be treated as an equal, not a poor victim. There are however many issues with lending , particularly if its predatory. If the loan is in the ethos of helping the borrower and not enriching the lender, I believe it can do good.
People care more and donate more to the dog & cat rescue. People care less and donate less to farm animals People don't care at all about the plethora of rodents and bugs killed during the cultivation of land and harvesting of vegan crops. So who holds the moralistic high ground - the vegan eating their loaf of bread (more than likely has dead bugs in it) the pet owner or the meat eater??? Very hypocritical to judge.
You haven't thought this through very much. How do you think farm animals are fed? You still need those crops, and by very large amount. 70% of the world's soy is fed to livestock. By eliminating the middleman (animals) you end up with significantly less suffering (not to mention less land use, less environmental impacts, etc.)
@@vincentmorneau You obviously haven't thought very much about it. But the death and suffering of varmints and insects does, in fact occur on farms. So any self righteous vegan is lying to themselves if they think that any living things were not harmed and suffered in the feilds to providing them their soy based burger.
@@TerryManitoba No vegan is claiming that varmints and insects don't die on farms. Meat eaters are simply offsetting that problem by growing crops and feeding it to livestock. Then they eat the livestock. How much crop you think is required to feed a single cow for a year? Eliminate the cow, eat directly from plant based sources, and you are left with much less death and energy used. Can we at least agree about that?
@@vincentmorneau Well of course farm animals eat a crapload of grains. That not what I'm arguing. Simply put I'm just pointing out that most vegan type folks haven't a clue how much death occurs providing them food. So how can they even consider they are against ending life if they participate and don't find an alternative that does not shed blood.
@@TerryManitoba You seem to be arguing in good faith, but I think you're wrong about "most vegans". Becoming vegan is not easy from a social standpoint, so we have to do a decent amount of research, and that includes how death occurs. It's impossible to live on this earth and cause no blood to be shed. But I believe being vegan does reduce the impact significantly.
I love how the thumbnail looks like Coleman is taking out his grandpa for a walk, and he's extremely excited about it.
Omg 😂
Haha it looks like Singers hand is actually Coleman's hand wrapped around his arm
He's a cheeky sitcom grandad, and Coleman is sometimes a bit tired of his shenanigans but deep down he really loves him and knows his heart is in the right place.
Wow he actually changed the thumbnails, that's hilarious
My $10 of support per month to Coleman Hughes is probably the best investment I can make for my country's future.
Passive support is great but be active by sharing videos with ideas and argument of worth & quality! :)
He's a hero in the vegan world.
Peter Singer is not really a vegan. He follows what he calls "the Paris exception", which basically means you can cheat sometimes. Never eating meat, but eating eggs or dairy. He's a vegan until someone puts a bowl of delicious ice cream in front of him, and then he magically turns into a vegetarian.
Great interview. I wish you would have went into the topic of animal ethics a bit, as I think that's going to be the next big "ism" that's tackled by our society, but which is still now very much on the fringe. All of the recent conversations about statues, and whether we should judge someone by their actions alone or in the context of a certain place and time are interesting. But also interesting is what we're doing now that future generations will judge as cruel. Our treatment of animals is going to be a big one.
Human supremacy in action. Peter Singer isn't a great advocate for veganism (obviously).
I'm telling your employee you called him a grunt.
I thought that was hilarious. His employee likely edited that.
of course, that person likely advertises himself on that basis "Use me! Get rid of the grunt work!"
My argument would be we don’t always know what we are actually funding overseas when we donate. Even donating locally funds can be misused. I’d prefer to offer my time and services.
Correct. Charitous organizations are close to 100% ineffective. Some of them are outright scam. The rest are ridiculously ineffective. Besides... let's say you manage to transfer 100% of the intended funds to a starving family in the Congo or whatever. In 20 years they would have reproduced, doubled in number, and now you just need to feed 2 families instead of 1.
True, but Singer works hard to account for just that problem. And he does a pretty good job.
Check out Peter’s work on this important issue
@Martin Smith well put
One of my favorite "little books" is Peter Singer's _A Darwinian Left: Politics, Evolution, and Cooperation_ (1999). It's in the "Darwinism Today" series, each text of which is worth reading, twice.
That shirt looks amazing on you Coleman
@10:00 Assuming my moral obligation to first do no harm, the immediately apparent risk of not rescuing the child far outweighs that of doing so (for virtually anyone). However, the strength of that same calculus diminishes rapidly as the suffering to be confronted becomes less present, immediate, and concrete especially when the channels of assistance themselves (charities, NGO's etc.) are opaque, distant, and for whom effectiveness is very difficult to evaluate. Though the obligation to my moral code may in principle be the same for the two examples provided by the argument, the factors of circumstance bearing on the choice of how practically I ought to respond to each is very different.
@Martin Smith - Though true, and all for the good, your response does not address my objection to Singer's claim that since the moral obligation that operates in the proximal setting is not different from the moral obligation that operates in the distal setting one ought to respond the same way to each. There are many reasons to respond in the same way to each, however I do not believe Singer's argument is valid, and on that basis may very well be crowding out much better reasons to help people. Philosophical nit-picking of course, but that's why I'm watching this video:)
@Martin Smith - Assuming we agree on what the overarching argument is (which we probably do), then I am even less convinced that the hypothetical provided is an effective means, assuming the intent is to include an appeal to the moral conscience of non-utilitarians/non-materialists such as my self. Singer explicitly frames the argument in a materialist way when he posits that the material cost (the loss of the new suit) of acting in the local example is greater than than in the distant example. This feature of his argument alone is off-putting to those whose moral landscapes are not fundamentally materialist/utilitarian. The argument shouldn't be easy to consume. Something of such broad social importance should be agonizingly satisfying to consume, if for no other reason than we keep the burden of persuasion on us so that it doesn't become a burden of dissuasion on those we hope to enlist.
I find Peter Singer's insinuation that Hunter Gatherers were oblivious to the pull-out method of contraception frankly insulting. Even more insulting is his implicit avowal that they were ignorant of the rapturous delight which masturbation and oral sex can achieve.
Up next : Milton Friedman speaks. I guess my autoplay has it right
Yay more Coleman!
29:30 very good question, I applaud you! People do no longer live in a tribe where everyone knows everyone. Thus, the morality of the tribe has its problems. In an extended order, where I make bolts out of steel, there are no evident direct moral questions or consequences observable for my actions. Nonetheless, me selling my bolts does benefit some people I have never met in a faraway place by providing for them a business. Sad that Singer did not really grasp that question by its core.
How on earth were there only 100 or so people watching this live..
I hate to say this because i love Singer, but he's a little bit too straightforward and pragmatic to have a truly fun conversation with. He steers right into boring territory. His answer on the Redskins name change is the cleanest example. Was it really edifying to hear him run through the different ways the utilitarian calculus could run? Couldnt he have offered a bit of elaboration on the general phenomena of people being offended on other's behalf and how to think about it?
Great comment, totally agree. Singer should've offered a generalizable principle and moral frame for thinking through taking offense on behalf of others, but he just hyperfocused on the example, which is fine for the example but unhelpful for fine-tuning the larger point.
What if focussing on the specifics , details and context of something is his general principle to approach things?
@@gewreid5946 it would be a cop out to say that your general approach is to only consider specifics. Unless you truly believe each case is distinct enough that there are no useful intellectual tools or frameworks to understand them by.
I agree. It felt like he is also playing it safe or choosing to not dive deeper to have the wrong opinions - he's a prof at Princeton and probably wants it to stay that way.
Great conversation Coleman! Peter Singer is actually a moral hero of mine. What an interesting perspective on BLM and police brutality.
Peter Singer is an advocate of infanticide which means his moral compass is broken
Jonathan You’re broadcasting your incapacity for nuance to the world
Excellent episode so far.
I've spoken with Peter a few times. You make me wish I could go back and ask him a whole new set of questions.
That is one of the best compliments I've ever seen on YT; had to give you props for that.
Having an obligation to help does not imply “send money.” You may in fact cause more harm on net by throwing money at certain problems.
EX: "Waiting for Superman" doc illustrated that very point.
Read Poor Economics!
That's true. But that's why the effective altruism movement is built on making real the connection between money and help.
Use the money to provide resources
@@michaelfavata2720 Does it have standards and accountability built in or is it rather vague as to funneling money to those most in need with no oversight and control as to if it is further stuffed into bureaucrats' pockets instead of the ones who actually need it the most?
There may not be a negative of hedonic adaptation, but you could maybe make the slightly strange argument that by so effectively dulling all our pains and removing so much risk, our happier moments are significantly less happy as result. Or that, without significant adversity, we are all slightly lost?
Indeed. And this is perhaps a flaw in the consequentialist/utilitarian approach to morality. A lack of suffering isn' the same thing as happiness, as suffering in some sense, can be a part of a greater whole of a person's life, the bitterness, contrast, and struggle that makes it meaningful.
Now, of course there is also much suffering which has no hope, and restrains the sufferer from ever having a chance of changing their circumstance.
Great Aussie perspective on the problem of solving the homicide problem in high crime neighbourhoods. So many people in the US start talking about more police and more community safety to foster cooperation in helping solve the crimes based on the assumption nothing can be done about the number of guns, whereas everyone outside the US looking in doesn’t start from that assumption and recognises affecting the number of guns as a first step to reducing homicide as a logical place to start.
i have a hard time seeing that not directly leading to a civil war in the U.S. Maybe that has to do with me living in rural America and trump voters saying that directly. Maybe they're joking tho
@@Vastness2646 I wouldn't think they're joking. People take their right to keep and bear arms very seriously, for good reason too.
The way I see it, the nature and availability of firearms has little to do with the supposed increase in what people refer to as mass shootings. Think of this, firearms technology as it is today has been relatively the same for five or six decades and mass shootings have been on the public radar as something seen as a legitimate issue for what, three? The crazies we see going places and murdering many people are a symptom of a great civilizational malaise, nihilism and the decay of any semblance of community in modern society cause these problems. Will stripping the basic rights of every person in a country really be a suitable answer to this problem? Of course not, the general feeling of apathy, dissatisfaction, and loneliness will remain. People will build bombs, or 3D printing will get to the point where all gun control measures are rendered moot. As far as I'm concerned, there is no solving of this problem and we are in the midst of a great societal decline; such is the nature of human civilization. Crack open any history textbook, the writing is on the wall. Besides, the great majority of gun crime (the actual problem) takes place in inner cities and violence is perpetrated by people who are more often than not convicted felons disallowed from owning guns under federal law. These are people who would remain untouched by any strong attempts at gun control/confiscation.
@@aidanreilly5987 I absolutely agree Peter Hitchens has a good clip talking about this as well: ua-cam.com/video/Q7Y967U8qh8/v-deo.html
@@Vastness2646 Thanks mang, I'll be sure to peep that.
Thanks for pushing back some on the rayshard case Coleman. That one has been terribly misrepresented in media. I have to disagree with Peter. After a scuffle and in the heat of pursuit, you can't expect the cop to keep track of how many times a taser has or hasn't been fired and the cop fired immediately after the taser was fired at him which is a normal, biological response. It all went down in a matter of seconds, it's not like the cop sat there and thought "oh he's fired that taser twice now and is running away, I think I'll wait a minute then shoot him if I can't catch him", it was an instantaneous fight or flight reflexive response to being shot at with the taser.
An intelligent, interesting and thought provoking discussion.
Wow amazing you got Peter Singer on the podcast. I have a ton of respect for that guy.
My 2 cents on the thoughts of the group affected in relation to statues, names and symbols of oppression. I'm glad the guest brought up how knowledge about the actions of historical figures, symbols and names should rightfully drive action. We can't democratize if wrong should be accepted in some scenarios and seeing the tragic effects it has should be cause for us to take action. If only a few people feel strongly that they dont want themselves or future offsprings to live in a country where figures and names used to oppress their ancestors are present then their claim to righting wrong should be taken serious
"ready to work!"
"I can do that"
"me happy too"
"something you doing?"
"what do you want?"
"work work"
"I'll try :/"
this was fucking dope, thanks Coleman. My first impression of Peter was slightly white guilt brigade (common with Oxbridge alumni) but clearly not by the end
Helping those in need is fine, especially in emergency situations, but wouldn’t spending that money on supporting causes that change the political systems in those areas to support human flourishing so they can help themselves and not have to rely on charity be a much better use of our money.
If the individuals are not given the chance to help themselves in those areas due to there rights being infringed on by whatever system that is bringing them to the point where they need charity then they will always rely on charity and essentially we would always be slaves to supporting those people.
Seems we need to look at the root of why they need charity rather easing their suffering for the short term.
I believe that's something effective altruists think of. For example, I saw a guest lecture by Will MacAskill where he claimed that a lifetime of vegetarianism will only save as many chickens as 20 $ of donation directed at lobbying for better animal treatment!
@@prahladsaldanha568 I wonder if we can expect a new book down the line: "Animal Anti-natalism!"
@@johnwhorfin3815 I find anti-natalism funny, so I'm not sure whether you meant that as a joke.
I would guess that some of the logic behind being a vegan with regards to how that affects the dairy industry and male calves could be interpreted as anti-natalist, though.
Hmmm, perhaps the reason is the crippling poverty imposed on poor countries by the global superpowers who need them to prop up their businesses with cheap labor and exploitation. I always find it funny when people are like "what's wrong with these poor countries? Why can't they get their shit together?" Ignoring centuries of colonial rule, economic exploitation, unfair lending practices, the arbitrary drawing of borders, in some cases literal genocide, etc ... I mean your point still stands that charity can't fix systemic issues, but context is important
Technology can be used as tool and weapon. It can streamline processes while creatively eliminating perceived redundacies, inefficiencies...Like Mr. Singer did in Sydney,NE.
In response to the arguement that not giving to welfare now, and investing in GDP instead, so that GDP will grow faster, at what point would be the right time to support the poor and marginalized? The danger with that argument could be that we could always say that investing in GDP (which could be interpreted as quality of life for people with decent incomes) is more important than caring for the unemployed.
I'm curious from proponents of the GDP argument, what approaches there are for when/if we focus on welfare.
Peter, what if the "life you can save" is already above the "carrying capacity" of its respective ecosystem? And by saving it, that child has several children of its own, all of whom will need saving, or suffer also, thus multiplying your problem several fold a half generation down the road?
And, what if those lives, by way of their demand for more resources, further increase, pollution, deforestation, loss of biodiversity, climate change, etc., further worsening the conditions for all life on earth?
What if this is the mother of all uncomfortable issues?
Richer people tend to have less children, making poverty reduction solve this issue. Also I doubt we are at carrying capacity. That’d only be the case if we found the most optimal use of earth matter and energy for creating wellbeing and that now we just have to sustain that. We’re no were near that.
Poor people wanting to live rich, will only shrink the earths carrying capacity faster.
Current carrying capacity of the earth is 2.5 billion people (assuming today's quality of life) and shrinking...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ecological_footprint
And what if we don't simply assume todays "quality of life" going forward?
Also what exactly do you mean by todays quality of life?
Because i feel like a lot of vastly different things fall under that umbrella that might require an individual cost-benefit assessment.
All assumably solvable with the right technology if we can develop it
I think the stakes are too high and the consequences too dire to wait and gamble it on the right technology being developed.
Fixing the problems now with the solutions at our disposal is the safer option.
If we do that and new, better technology that enables a brighter future comes along, we can still use it. If it doesn't, no loss.
Really enjoyed the episode as always... Just wondered within his charitable giving of a nation, would he take the side of a libertarian and utilize such apps as gofund me to support individuals within extreme impoverished communities or utilize government taxation to send payment to various organizations and municipalities of a land?
The lands and seas have changed since the beginning of time. Climate change whether a function of population and technological evolution or simply a function of cosmic changes while just require the same adaptation as humans have always experienced.
Economists dont use discount factors when calculating net present values for morale reasons. Its preference mimicking.
I was disappointed with the discussion on tearing down statues and the censure or 'cancelling' of historical figures (e.g. Woodrow Wilson). Should we judge historical figures by the standards of today's politically correct pieties, and after finding them lacking (as we are bound to), condemn them and refuse to celebrate their achievements? Other than his expressions of sympathy for the 'offended', Singer had little to offer and Coleman was not of a mind to press him.
It's a pity that Peter is so ignorant on some things, despite being very lucid on so many other things. He has been led to believe that Rayshard Brooks was shot while simply running away from a “clearly non-violent encounter” and that there is any indication that lawful civilian ownership of firearms is somehow the *leading explanation* of homicide in the U.S.
19:40 That is essentially what fascists say: sacrificing a few for the many.
Wow, can't wait!
Is Coleman vegan or vegetarian?
Or meat-eating? He didn't say.
Meat eater Im pretty sure, heard him mention it in a podcast with Glenn Loury
hes said he eats meat in almost every meal in an episode he did w/ sean carroll. However, he was vegetarian for a short period in his teens.
neet bucks would love to hear what he doesn’t understand about veganism. Most honest people who understand the arguments tends to pursue it with efforts. Even more so if someone do philosophy as a thinking practice
telkmx im pretty sure its just not convenient for him to eat vegan but he probably holds that consuming meat today is immoral
Concerning immediate benefits vs. future GDP growth, I have had similar ideas, but I think one should take a much longer perspective. GDP growth may look good over a span of 100 years -- a major catastrophe over that period may seem small. Over a period of 1000 or 10,000 years, a major catastrophe seems inevitable and the expected benefit after a certain amount of time will be zero. But some things that we are doing now will have even longer term effects. In particular, species extinction seems to be eternal. The Maori that killed off the last moas may have felt that their benefit from doing so outweighed any loss that may have been felt by their descendants, but I don't think so. I don't see how their benefit can outweigh the loss to trillions (quadrillions?) of future humans. Perhaps killing moas helped expand their GDP over some period, it still doesn't come close to humanity's loss from not living in a world with moas. We are currently in the midst of the sixth great extinction. I would submit that all other problems are minuscule by comparison.
@35:30 Regarding monuments to people; A libertarian approach to statues might be helpful. Since anyone who's virtue is to be revered is also a person who's vices are to be condemned, let the people rather than the governments maintain monuments to them, and be held accountable to the justifications for their placements. It would be one less burden upon our ability to hold our governments accountable.
36.35: "Hey, why is this university honoring somebody who wouldn't even have wanted me to be a student at this university?" Actually there is no evidence that Woodrow Wilson wanted to segregate universities.
I'm willing to assume Singer's reputation is well earned, but after this conversation I was not impressed. I don't think he added any clarity to assuming some primacy to consequentialist or utilitarian thinking. He didn't address the standard objections about the near impossibility of making useful determinate calculations due to nearly infinite real and hypothetical impediments created by variations in quality of pleasure or the effects of physical or temporal proximity and their roles in weighting calculations. I tend to think consequences matter and should be a continuing sense of concern, but ultimately those determinations seem to become more and more dependent on higher level grounds to find their justification or proper utility.
I also wasn't impressed by the strangely naive statements suggesting people will suddenly drown from climate induced sea level rises when they may have nearly 80 years to see the approach of rising water, and his suggestion that simply eliminating guns will solve or murder problems in the U.S.. He should have some hint of the political barriers to this solution and also realize that violence can continue to manifest even without guns.
well you can see why he is a professor of *applied* ethics. The deep meta-ethical questions are better addressed by eg the late Derek Parfit. But it’s not a solved problem.
28:52 coleman, killin' it
Just a small comment people didn’t really get toothaches in Hunter gatherer societies due to the fact there was negligible sugar consumption ( fruit when ripe ). So it was a rare occurrence.
You don't think someone getting kicked in the mouth by a gazelle could cause some serious malformation of the gums, which could lead to excruciating pain?
I am skeptical to accept the analogy of the child in the pond. Of course one would save the child. I don’t think there is an inconvenience or sacrifice made to do so. You don’t ruin $200 pants by getting them wet. I think a more viable analogy would illustrate there is more than one child drowning in the pond and you could only carry one at a time. Also the proximity of the analogy or issue makes the analogy itself even more un-relatable. Why money as the first choice? If money is the only way to make a ethical difference then why not invest it in you own kin to help prevent the potential of an increased in suffering without your contribution of expendable money? Idk.
the cold man would surely be made of snow thus making him white? a random thought.
I enjoy listening to you Coleman, even though I reject your and Singer's moral presuppositions. Morality/ethics that is based on either or both utility and consequences is morally bankrupt and tends to lead to tyrannical regimes and authoritarianism. It's backending morality.
The standard for morality is transcendental. We seek moral choices not for ourselves or for their intended consequences but rather because the standard for humanity should be to please God who set the standard for human morality at creation. You and I may choose the same moral choice, but the truly moral choice is one that seeks an ultimate goal, and not simply a human outcome. Limited humans cannot know how or if a given choice will actually produce the outcome that is intended. But if we are behaving morally according to an ultimate, divine standard, it acknowledges the unknowability of future outcomes while humbling ourselves to the sovereignty of the God who knows everything and what will happen because he is working through the people who honor his authority to set the standard. Utilitarianism and consequentialism cannot truly bring humility to man. They can only devalue one life over the valuing of another. All life is of value because all life has been created in God's image. The only way to wisely know how to make complex decisions is by humbling ourselves before the divine Knower who can and does guide those who seek him and his gift of wisdom.
I truly respect how carefully and consistently you think through issues. My main disagreement is with your presuppositions and the world view that rests upon them. May God bless you.
He gets the kid in a pond analogy wrong for many reasons. What if you action to rescue the child, causes him more injury? Because you are very clumsy, say? Unlikely? Maybe, but donating to some organizations may end up strengthening the tyrants who oppress the poor you intend to help. Money doesn't just turn into food and appear in hungry people's bellies, many times a decent percentage goes to bribery and payoffs, to allow any aid in.
A better analogy might be, there's a huge pond, ten kids drown in it every second, so would your energy be better spent rescuing kids? Or pumping the water out of the pond... even as some kids die. Capitalism lifts more people out of poverty, by orders of magnitude, than charity. Buy foreign, buy often.
Just some other observations. Somehow he doesn't grasp the concept, that humans (all animals) are concerned with matters, in direct proportion to their proximity?
Ok, "...drowning people, as ocean levels rise." I can't with this guy.
@@prybarknives Of course he grasps the concept! He uses logic to argue that we should act in ways that don't necessarily agree with our intuitions.
As I'm doing now .a arm chair input taping on a screen .human beings are complicated, we ear animals, dump our waist in the rivers which flow to the sea.who is in control of this world .? Think about this.
It sounds like Singer is still waiting for the Population Bomb to go off. You know what they say about meeting your idols…
Haha, he's a gun grabber. Its not a coincidence that the people getting killed "disproportionately" killed by polices also "disproportionately" kill each other with firearms. The "guns are the problem" is the most short sighted view of the subject one can hold.
Saying that the cop should’ve known how many times the taser had been shot is so out of touch. Different tasers can be shot with different frequencies and no police officer is counting or even should be counting how many times a taser has been shot.
Is Coleman vegan?
No, he eats meat.
Michael Camacho haha no wonder he didn’t dive into that even though he brought up Animal Liberation
@@scratchfg212 Yet another, otherwise careful, thinker stuck with awful cognitive dissonance?
@@Sentientism yeah - my bet is that he will eventually become one.
@@scratchfg212 Once you're committed to evidence, reason and compassion - there's no way to avoid it :). Sadly, most humanists seem to be doing a remarkably good job...
be vegan
Nah, real sushi's pretty fucking good
@@everythingsawesome,
How couldn't a similar response be used with regards to eating any animal flesh (dog, cat, horse, chimp, and human)? Or more broadly to justify harming anybody else/any sentient being for any kind of pleasure (including sexual abuse/exploitation)?
@@everythingsawesome Real sushi is pretty fucking good indeed.
(Though i've had really amazing vegetarian sushi too. The way they combine ingredients in creative ways can lead to awesome results that you just can't compare to fish sushi. They are both unique and awesome in their own ways.)
But what about canned tuna or other things that you use for a quick, uninspired meal you aren't particularily excited about? Does low-effort fast-food have to contain meat?
Personally i haven't gone full vegan but i reduced my meat consumption considerably by making meat and fish something fancy and special i have only occasionally and when i do i expect it to be the best it can possibly be and want to give it it's due appreciation.
Gewreid you can for sure go vegan it isn’t hard. Plenty of people I knew went vegan and one of them was in a dairy farmer family. Eating meat and dairy at every meal.
It’s cheaper and easier than you would think. Even more so in the states. We live in Switzerland and we have 1/10 of the vegan specific product US resident have.
But you don’t even need vegan specific product anyway. Rice/beans/lentils/nuts all the way
@@KrwiomoczBogurodzicy You're making a slippery slope argument that could apply to anything. Watch how the fallacy works: "Why allow same-sex marriage when that could open the floodgates to marrying animals?" It's a neat trick. The answer is we draw ethically practical lines by applying the harm principle to minimize harm on balance with maximum flourishing. Are we imperfect in drawing lines? Yes. Good luck perfecting it.
WOW
I am wondering what this idea does to people's self determination. Of course people's life in poverty is not their fault, at least not if you talk about truly poor people in the third world (since if a person in your neighbourhood chooses to not work, they will be poor and they are responsible for that themselves). However, it is the fault of their government. If there is corruption for example, or the government is unable to develop the country in a reasonable way that leads to prosperity. Now that sucks for the people there, but is the failing of the government, which is on some level also a function of local culture and people, wealthy people's responsibility? I don't think so. And I don't think it should be. Because if it is, we are to an extent taking away their responsibility to figure things out themselves. And as soon as you start supporting those poor nations with foreign money, I don't think they will ever make things work on their own. The way in which a livable life was achieved for them did not organically develop with local culture, so culture will stay the same. In other words, as soon as you take away the money, things will go back to the way they were. Also, wealthy people are rarely truly wealthy as they need to take care of themselves and their children. And how is it fair to make a culture that clearly got things figured out artificially less wealthy by spreading their wealth around the world?
Or maybe to extend to that, I still have to read the book to understand the arguments made thoroughly but from how it is presented here; if you are morally obliged to "donate" (or help to use a broader term) for everything bad you see and the claim is that geographical space as well as time doesn't matter, you basically are held responsible to take care of the world around you (in the broadest sense) AND the world which is yet to come but which you are not even part of anymore. That sounds a bit Kantian to me and I'm not sure if I think the implications fit within the context individual liberty and individual responsibility. I might not be held responsible for damage that others do, but I am somehow morally obliged to clean it up.
But to take that back to the analogy made of the kid drowning; the actual matter of the fact is that if you poll people and ask them about "cost for clothes and damages" versus life of the kid, people think choosing the former is "outrageous". Yet, if such an incident would occur, everybody would get their smartphone and stream it on social media instead of doing something. Of a whole group, only 1 person might actually jump in the water. There clearly is a dissonance between what polled people answer and how people behave (social desirable answers?). That aside, the argument is then made that it is logically inconsistent to pick helping the kid but not helping others in need on the other side of the globe. The difference however is that in the first the incident happens before your eyes while the second is not within your literal reach. That begs the question, if I just be ignorant about the world and ignore all the suffering, am I then absolved of my moral obligation? You would think so because if time and distance don't matter, the only thing that does matter and makes the difference seems to be the knowledge about the current/future suffering.
If that is the case, that begs the question who should be morally obliged. If I have an IQ of 80, do I still have such obligation even though I am not cognitively able to understand it? Where exactly are all the boundaries drawn?
Hi
Singer is wrong about Rayshard Brooks by all available evidence. Also taking the guns from American civilians will never go over well and is a dumb idea. Restricting some firearms and making it more difficult to obtain would be a better route to go.
It is really easy to make guns, firearm restrictions just mean poor people can't get the most effective tool for defending themselves.
Hello, I am an Arab. Is there anyone who loves me?
Foolish people do foolish acts
سلام عليكم
That must have been my $5 a month that took you over the edge 😜
Get guns out of the hands of Americans ??? Really that’s our 2nd amendment right - I have a legal right to beat arms and his Opinion has no bearing on our country’s bill of rights! . It’s personal responsibility. to live a Moral life. today it means nothing .. . So sick of this dialogue .
First of all, ethics are above the law and constitution as both law and constitution are only a reflection of a very particular view on ethics. Note that laws and constitutions change with new ethical insights.
But what I never understood as European, why the hell do Americans need that 2nd amendment? We don't have it and never felt the need to have it. So why is that different for you Americans, regardless of the point that it is your right?
Uh oh, using time as a dimension by which to structure moral actions opens a can of worms for the morality of the direct destruction of the life in the womb. Looking pretty christian
I think a strong moral case for abortion can still be made with such dimension added. If the parents are not able to fulfil their responsibilities (don't want to, not equipped to, whatever), then you already take time in consideration as the argument is that the child will suffer from parents not being able to live up to their responsibilities.
@@santibanks that is a secondary cause. IF one is to believe they have a moral obligation to take actions now for future generations in terms of food one must also take into account the moral accountibility of engaging in the primary cause of bringing into the world a child. the moral obligation is to the person not just a group of persons ie a generation. The subjective conditions do not take away the moral obligation to the singular child wrought from the primary cause. Thus the secondary conditions do not negate the responsibility of the parents to allow the child its right to life. ends do not justify the means. the outcome of a childs life doesnt justify the breach of moral obligation on the parents to protect the right of that child to have its life.
Sory u cant see the underlying problem. Do not disobey the law enforcement. And your chances are much better .wake up!
For those who relish the idea of Civil War:
"And people said openly that Christ and His saints slept" (Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, AD 1137)
woah, pete singer!! this is nasty
49:37 disgusting lack of understanding of real life, deadly interaction. What a shitty logic this "great" philosopher has. I am going to KFC and I am ordering double everything.
Peter Singer is fundamentally wrong on his ethics.
Let's assume that charity is a moral good, and our obligation (it isn't, as any unreciprocated transfer of resources is merely parasitism).
If you give resources to people to meet basic needs, as Peter argues that it is one of the best thing you can do at around 17:30, then you are incentivising incompetence and bad behaviour. It is very well documented, that giving resources to people and not expecting reciprocation has this effect. Basically, look at sub-saharan Africa, where the average ahykew is around 60. If you are pumping food and money into these low ahykew, incompetent breeding pairs then by the time they are 20-22, the number of mouths you need to feed have doubled. Again, this is well documented.
The only ethical form of charity is loans. Loans that are fair, and payment is enforced with an iron fist. Your house burned down? Okay, I'm happy to help you. I'll give you some resources to get you back on your feet, then in a few years you'll pay me back that amount and then some more in the form of interest. You are a talented kid from a poor family and want to become a doctor? That's amazing. Here's some loan to cover your tuition costs, food, and quarter. Once you become a bigshot MD you'll pay me back with interest.
*UA-cam automatically censors comments regarding common ancestry groups and psychometrics, so you have to write things with crayons.
It's virtually impossible to have an adult conversation on YT...
Payment enforced with an iron first? That doesn't sound like it would take lenience, which would absolve the people enforcing it from ethical responsibility, which would then cause a system that could potentially make people a commodity to be "bought".
The process would have to be well thought out with the focus being upon what would be rationally just, and have a clear set of societal guidelines that were being followed, for whatever form of the loan was being undertaken...
Not to mention not everyone who studies to be a doctor, becomes a doctor. Unless if they're given a set term time to practice which is already stated before the loan is agreed upon, but you see my point...
*Edited for paragraph spacing
Read Poor Economics. There are effective ways
Subsaharan africa, africa in general has valuable natural resources they export to other countries to make products they import back to their country. I agree with your point about incentivizing bad behavior. However, Subsaharan africa needs a competent and educated future generation of leaders and entrepreneurs that can capitalize on its strength and give opportunities to more of the population and raise the GDP of these countries
The loan also eliminates the stigma of patronization and accords the individual the respect that they have the ability to pay you back, and be treated as an equal, not a poor victim. There are however many issues with lending , particularly if its predatory. If the loan is in the ethos of helping the borrower and not enriching the lender, I believe it can do good.
Ask him if he still advocates for infanticide
Someone needs to brush up on their interview skills. And maybe be a little better prepared.
People care more and donate more to the dog & cat rescue.
People care less and donate less to farm animals
People don't care at all about the plethora of rodents and bugs killed during the cultivation of land and harvesting of vegan crops.
So who holds the moralistic high ground - the vegan eating their loaf of bread (more than likely has dead bugs in it) the pet owner or the meat eater???
Very hypocritical to judge.
You haven't thought this through very much. How do you think farm animals are fed? You still need those crops, and by very large amount. 70% of the world's soy is fed to livestock. By eliminating the middleman (animals) you end up with significantly less suffering (not to mention less land use, less environmental impacts, etc.)
@@vincentmorneau You obviously haven't thought very much about it. But the death and suffering of varmints and insects does, in fact occur on farms. So any self righteous vegan is lying to themselves if they think that any living things were not harmed and suffered in the feilds to providing them their soy based burger.
@@TerryManitoba No vegan is claiming that varmints and insects don't die on farms. Meat eaters are simply offsetting that problem by growing crops and feeding it to livestock. Then they eat the livestock. How much crop you think is required to feed a single cow for a year? Eliminate the cow, eat directly from plant based sources, and you are left with much less death and energy used. Can we at least agree about that?
@@vincentmorneau Well of course farm animals eat a crapload of grains. That not what I'm arguing.
Simply put I'm just pointing out that most vegan type folks haven't a clue how much death occurs providing them food. So how can they even consider they are against ending life if they participate and don't find an alternative that does not shed blood.
@@TerryManitoba You seem to be arguing in good faith, but I think you're wrong about "most vegans". Becoming vegan is not easy from a social standpoint, so we have to do a decent amount of research, and that includes how death occurs.
It's impossible to live on this earth and cause no blood to be shed. But I believe being vegan does reduce the impact significantly.
You lost me at "veganism". Going to go make a steak for dinner.
we don't adapt to suffering?? wtf?