so much yes! "Philosophy always causes offence and it should cause offence. Perhaps, people have become a little bit too sensitive to the idea that being offended is a bad thing when it's really sometimes necessary to be intellectually challenged." "People need to get a little more perspective on how our views change."
QUESTIONS WITH TIME-STAMPS: 0:26 - You’ve done more good than many philosopher, or others, will ever do. Despite this, many people have depicted you as evil and have compared your views to those defended by Nazis. How has this affected you? 2:09 - Sometimes defending a very controversial position may not have the best outcome, because it may, e.g., result in people no longer giving credence to your views, including less controversial ones. Should we refrain from publicly defending very controversial views in such cases? 5:22 - Would it make sense to defend the most controversial positions only in the philosophical literature, where it’s easier to provide detailed arguments - something that’s more difficult in media outlets? 7:41 - Some academic philosophers avoid working on topics that seem to trigger particularly strong reactions (e.g. disability) because they’re worried that they’ll be ‘attacked’ and that it’ll harm their reputation and career prospects, and they may be right. Do you think it’s okay for philosophers to avoid working on these topics for these reasons? 8:40 - Do you think philosophers should be able to publish controversial views anonymously? 9: 42 - Should extremely influential philosophers like you be extra careful about what positions to publicly defend because of the effect it may have on the reputation of philosophers in general? 10:55 - If people disagree with others’ views, they should attack the arguments and not the people defending those views. They should engage in a calm and rational way. But surely there must be limits. Suppose someone was defending the view that it is permissible to prioritise white people for organ transplants, I’d intuitively think I shouldn’t engage with that person and give her a platform. Do you agree? And if so, where do we draw the line? 12:29 - Some people think your views shouldn’t be given a platform - they might even object to me interviewing you - do they then just mistakenly think you have no plausible arguments to present? 14:08 - Some people probably agree that you present arguments, but they just find them so obviously wrong, and so offensive that they think we should not engage with them. 15:52 - Your recent article in the New York Times on the Stubblefield Case (with Jeff McMahan) has offended many people, including many philosophers, who have openly distanced themselves from your views. What’s your reaction to this? 18:02 - Do you have any advice for young philosophers whose arguments lead them to controversial conclusions?
I disagree with many of his views, but i absolutely agree with his freedom of speech! We need more dialogue and more people willing to logically argue their points within the arena of ideas, not less. Deep respect sir.
18:32 specially if the argument reduces suffering. If the argument decreases suffering and produced better consequences is good. And should be put forward.
Great piece. I presume profs who meet criteria for publication can't use a pseudonym for anonymity? And maybe for comment/review? Perhaps singer or others could see if that's easy to implement at a journal, or consider a new journal? Might be difficult... / Cheers! Keep fighting the battle of ideas!
16:00 philosophers should of countered his argument. They should of object what singer was arguing. I would expect them to write arguments against it. *THEY WERNT SAYING WHERE THE ARGUMENT WENT WRONG* that is how a philosopher should *’critically examine work’* from other philosophers.
Times change. In different times of history people shared a common popular belief. When someone argued and appose that common popular belief everyone in society would get offended about how someone would dare apose the common popular belief. In Peters example he says that Americans use to believe that africans were less and when a student defends the rights of those Africans the people in the room would get offended. Why would they get offended? Because that is the ‘africans are less” is the common popular belief in Americans. Peter Singer now writes the exact opposite. Singer will write an argument that ‘africans are inferior’ and in todays America, people will get offended(*times have change*). The lesson that Singer is trying to teach all of us is that if people wernt willing to offend society in the past then the world would of NOT changed for the better. It is thanks to courageous people who were willing to ‘offend’ society that the greater good prevailed. If social justice warriors did not ‘offend’ racist white America then african Americans would not have been given the freedom they poses today. ‘Offending’ (how Singer describes it) is how we have brought out the greater good. I understand why I puts people at the edge of their seat because Singer likes the topic of Ethics. Singer loves talking about ethics and his controversial arguments that offend everyone are simply a way to get us to understand that it is through defying society that we can fight against evil.
so much yes!
"Philosophy always causes offence and it should cause offence. Perhaps, people have become a little bit too sensitive to the idea that being offended is a bad thing when it's really sometimes necessary to be intellectually challenged."
"People need to get a little more perspective on how our views change."
I’m offended
A pleasure listening to this man!
The pure evil of this man
@@pepedestroyer5974Is he purely evil because you don't like what he is saying or is he purely evil because you have good reason to think so?
QUESTIONS WITH TIME-STAMPS:
0:26 - You’ve done more good than many philosopher, or others, will ever do. Despite this, many people have depicted you as evil and have compared your views to those defended by Nazis. How has this affected you?
2:09 - Sometimes defending a very controversial position may not have the best outcome, because it may, e.g., result in people no longer giving credence to your views, including less controversial ones. Should we refrain from publicly defending very controversial views in such cases?
5:22 - Would it make sense to defend the most controversial positions only in the philosophical literature, where it’s easier to provide detailed arguments - something that’s more difficult in media outlets?
7:41 - Some academic philosophers avoid working on topics that seem to trigger particularly strong reactions (e.g. disability) because they’re worried that they’ll be ‘attacked’ and that it’ll harm their reputation and career prospects, and they may be right. Do you think it’s okay for philosophers to avoid working on these topics for these reasons?
8:40 - Do you think philosophers should be able to publish controversial views anonymously?
9: 42 - Should extremely influential philosophers like you be extra careful about what positions to publicly defend because of the effect it may have on the reputation of philosophers in general?
10:55 - If people disagree with others’ views, they should attack the arguments and not the people defending those views. They should engage in a calm and rational way. But surely there must be limits. Suppose someone was defending the view that it is permissible to prioritise white people for organ transplants, I’d intuitively think I shouldn’t engage with that person and give her a platform. Do you agree? And if so, where do we draw the line?
12:29 - Some people think your views shouldn’t be given a platform - they might even object to me interviewing you - do they then just mistakenly think you have no plausible arguments to present?
14:08 - Some people probably agree that you present arguments, but they just find them so obviously wrong, and so offensive that they think we should not engage with them.
15:52 - Your recent article in the New York Times on the Stubblefield Case (with Jeff McMahan) has offended many people, including many philosophers, who have openly distanced themselves from your views. What’s your reaction to this?
18:02 - Do you have any advice for young philosophers whose arguments lead them to controversial conclusions?
never stop interviwing him please i want to learn more about him
I disagree with many of his views, but i absolutely agree with his freedom of speech! We need more dialogue and more people willing to logically argue their points within the arena of ideas, not less. Deep respect sir.
18:32 specially if the argument reduces suffering.
If the argument decreases suffering and produced better consequences is good. And should be put forward.
Great piece. I presume profs who meet criteria for publication can't use a pseudonym for anonymity? And maybe for comment/review? Perhaps singer or others could see if that's easy to implement at a journal, or consider a new journal? Might be difficult... / Cheers! Keep fighting the battle of ideas!
16:00 philosophers should of countered his argument. They should of object what singer was arguing. I would expect them to write arguments against it. *THEY WERNT SAYING WHERE THE ARGUMENT WENT WRONG* that is how a philosopher should *’critically examine work’* from other philosophers.
Times change. In different times of history people shared a common popular belief. When someone argued and appose that common popular belief everyone in society would get offended about how someone would dare apose the common popular belief. In Peters example he says that Americans use to believe that africans were less and when a student defends the rights of those Africans the people in the room would get offended. Why would they get offended? Because that is the ‘africans are less” is the common popular belief in Americans. Peter Singer now writes the exact opposite. Singer will write an argument that ‘africans are inferior’ and in todays America, people will get offended(*times have change*). The lesson that Singer is trying to teach all of us is that if people wernt willing to offend society in the past then the world would of NOT changed for the better. It is thanks to courageous people who were willing to ‘offend’ society that the greater good prevailed. If social justice warriors did not ‘offend’ racist white America then african Americans would not have been given the freedom they poses today. ‘Offending’ (how Singer describes it) is how we have brought out the greater good. I understand why I puts people at the edge of their seat because Singer likes the topic of Ethics. Singer loves talking about ethics and his controversial arguments that offend everyone are simply a way to get us to understand that it is through defying society that we can fight against evil.
18:11 exam controversial conclusions critically and test them with fellow philosophers that we respect. Do you think there is anything wrong with it?
Hello,
I am wondering what the accent of the interviewer is. She has a very peculiar accent.
It is a Flemish accent
17:53 argue against philosophers we disagree with and not pour our emotions.
14:48
Fast forward and now the journal of controversial ideas exist