I think part of what causes so much outrage among people who don't like what Singer argues is that many people who are not utilitarians use utilitarian arguments to justify certain moral positions which they hold that they could not otherwise justify. And by Singer showing them the logical conclusion of utilitarianism, he's sort of removing the plausibility of utilitarian justifications for these speciously held moral positions.
@ferdia1405 Not in itself, but if you use a utilitarian argument to justify killing animals for meat, e.g., then it's a blatant contradiction to then say that infanticide is always immoral. But people nonetheless want to have a deontological conception of human life, and a utilitarian conception of animal life. And Singer shows the absurdity of this. That's sort of a crude example of what I was talking about, but hopefully you get the idea.
@@markusoreos.233 a chronic disease, sure, but depends on the disease. But how are we to judge the experience of someone yet to be born or who has been born but yet to grow into a person? My issue with Singer is his views on disability, especially in the first part of this video, but I’m not sure how that translates to the rest of his ideas and books. Should we kill an infant that has been diagnosed with Down’s syndrome or autism? To our eyes, the child might be suffering. But is it not the case that, if we accommodate the child’s condition in an environment conducive to their well-being, that we would have better results. Instead of preventing pain by preventing a life from experiencing anything altogether, wouldn’t it be best to just minimize unwanted pains and maximize the pleasures they can find? My issue isn’t so much his use of utilitarian arguments. I may not have read him enough for me to say this, but I don’t think he sorts disabilities by degrees nor does he consider the judgment or even the experiences of the future person. It’s very top down. The first bit of the video made me realize how close some of his ideas about infanticide are to eugenics. At the very least, his first articulation was ableist.
I do like his ideas on abortion ethics. His ideas on moving experimentation towards basically human or even infant vegetables. But I don’t think he’s made the same move towards a comatose non-human animal.
I have criticised Peter Singer for avoiding the shark debate: "This is the guy who spent his whole life rationalising values to suit the greater good, only to change his mind when faced with the uncomfortable decision of his mother’s passing, finally conceding that; ”Perhaps it is more difficult than I thought before, because it is different when it’s your mother.” I guess that is the problem with many intellectuals. Enamoured by the rational mind, they lose touch with their very humanity."
I dont know very much about peter singer can you tell the story about his ethics changing because his mom died. (im typing this before seeing the video if that matters)
@@harzroller9862 If you search for: ”Perhaps it is more difficult than I thought before, because it is different when it’s your mother”, you'll see there are a few articles about it.
@@KombatKompanion-yd2cu Thanks for that. I see your point. My disappointment with Peter Singer stems from his failure to weigh in on the shark debate. I have written extensively on the topic and in one article criticised him and two young academics who care little for shark attack victims, siding instead with sharks. My political views are largely motivated by this experience, and my philosophy has evolved accordingly to value the human individual (as opposed to animals and groups identities).
@@KombatKompanion-yd2cu Do you mean if I had to choose between the two when only one can survive? On the face of it, I would choose the horse. But, I wouldn't want the family of the deceased to find out.
I find your response here rather disingenuous considering your response to me concerning how the explications of philosophers show issues to be " complex " and not " simple. " I'll give you a bit to see, given the position you have taken... why, when considering philosophical positions generally, their complexity if you will... you have refuted yourself by the simple, loaded question ( to take the life of a brain dead person or a healthy horse) you posed above...@@KombatKompanion-yd2cu
I see nothing wrong with his arguments. Euthanasia should be possible when one can not lead a dignified life. What's a dignified life is debatable. But to let someone suffer immensely without possibility of recovery, even if it's just a little baby, is morally wrong. That life should be terminated.
Sure. But he’s also arguing for infanticide on a baby who is not yet a person. He is excluding a future person who might be able to judge whether or not they’ve had a dignified life. By cutting a life short of the ability to grow to be able to make that judgement, he’s neglected what a person could be. He’s not even talking about a fetus being likely to have a disability, but rather a disabled newborn. His argument is close to, but not quite, eugenicist.
We really can't say much about another's experience--there are numerous cases where non-verbal babies with multiple disabilities respond to the world around and can even laugh. Perhaps we cannot think of existing that way; but there is no reason to think another person cannot. Most of us cannot think of living like Hitler either but that does not mean that he didn't live... We really have no solid framework for what a dignified life means. Also, it's strange that this man has qualms about his mother's passing but thought his newborns were less than "persons"--his personal experience too is quite inconsistent...
More people understand Peter Singer's thinking than ever before. Fortunately, like other great moral reformers before him, Peter Singer is becoming less and less controversial.
Hey, the point about utilizing irrecoverably vegetative patients for medical research is really poignant. I agree. Before any objections I'd like to add that I'd sign a permission to do this to "me", or rather my body.
This shouldn't be a topic that religion or philosophy alone could explore for answers but Peter's argument totally IGNORES the fact that it is not outsiders but that individual whatever the age should be the one who decides it in general. That is only part of this issue but it is rather arrogant for anyone to impose his her idea upon wider society as the only acceptable notion specially in a topic where LIFE AND DEATH is the outcome. Who are you to decide the the time of death of any human life unless one is a murderer to put it plainly ?!
@@KombatKompanion-yd2cu I think Derek Parfit would be the opposite, claiming the future self has equal amounts of rights as the present self. So more an eternalist view. I wondered, maybe you know: did Parfit 'steal' Singers argument, or the other way around? The one about more people being better than fewer people (A, A+ and B society)
Even when a human being has no consciousness we need to treat them with respect. That means how we talk about them too. We should respect all life, but we draw a line around humans just as we treat our own family in a special way. The problem with Singer's utilitarianism is that he doesn't differentiate moral rules from moral ideals. Moral rules, such as do not harm others and do not murder, are not optional, they are compulsory. If you opt out from these rules you should be treated as an outlaw. Respecting and honouring people is a moral ideal it isn't a requirement. If you are disrespectful, you will get judgemental reactions from others but disrespect does not deserve punishment in the same way that deliberately injuring or killing a person would be considered a punishable offence. Morality is about drawing a line. On one side are all the many things that we are permitted to do. These are far too numerous to detail. On the other side are the few things that we are forbidden to do. We need this line in order for human society to function.
Fwiw I don't value respect or dignity. I don't think these are particularly useful concepts as moral rules or social norms. Of course, they're going to have their applicability when in the context you frame murder as disrespectful and not murdering as respectful. But I think the more ordinary usage of these terms, including "dignity" as a feeling or "respect" as an attitude of reverence or subservience you take to a person in a position of authority are just plain stupid. We also don't need the aforementioned concepts to frame more extreme circumstances like murder - we can just defer to "Don't cause a lot of suffering," which I think is a far better principle than "don't disrespect others."
@@KombatKompanion-yd2cu , that's a good question. We need to draw a line somewhere, and it works best to draw it around humans as a whole. There are lots of grey areas where it is not clear whether a human is a person, because of factors like consciousness. There are plenty examples of people in coma who came back to consciousness. There is the fact that people in a permanent coma once had a life, and have loved ones. All reasons for keeping a certain sense of respect for these people. We respect who we are, we draw a line to include even dysfunctional, or non-functioning members of our species, because to not draw the line universally to all humans leads to different forms of exclusion such as eugenics, genocide, "ethnic cleansing", caste systems, slavery, the many many ways that humans have exploited each other.
@@DaKoopaKing Sorry, it appears that the way I stated things gave you the wrong impression. I first mentioned "respect" because Singer's statements came across as disrespectful to me. But that's not my main criticism of Singer. My main criticism is that he doesn't differentiate between the moral rules and moral ideals. I then gave "respect" as an example of a moral ideal. Moral rules are obligatory. If they are broken they call for punishment. Moral ideals are optional but encouraged. Another moral ideal is to help others in need. If you don't help others when it is not onerous to do so, people may disapprove of you but it wasn't obligatory for you to do so.
@@johnmanno2052 you bet I am, although I disagree with Kant that you can derive morality from reason alone. That's pulling a rabbit out of a hat. I also don't think that the universality of morality comes from self-legislation. Moral rules are basically universal agreements.
What appeal to a necrophile doesn't appeal to a pedophile? In fact, if we delve into our lawful obscenity of nakedness today, body as sex is mostly welcomed by all necrophilic customs, sciences, religions, and what pedophiles would insatiably dissatisfy is of length.
As one that studies philosophy relentlessly, the worst thing about philosophers is how they make the simple complicated! How about this : Don't harm ANYTHING out of malice !! The reality of existence makes it impossible not to harm things, just don't harm with malicious intent... it seems to me!!
If I walk on a track after a rain, I am walking to keep myself fit, the nature of existence means that worms will be on the track! I try to avoid them, but I cannot possibly avoid them all. I may try to throw a few off of the track. However, the essence of existence on this planet and the interplay of life, makes it impossible for me not to step on... and end the life of many of those worms! My intent is to avoid and not kill or injure them, but it is impossible, again, due to the nature of existence and the collision of life forms... and each one's particular behaviors. I have done nothing immoral... If I walk on the track and gleefully step on every worm I can, and end their lives and injure them.... to me.... I am being immoral! Get it! Now apply that example to other areas....like an interaction with your friend, partner... whomever. There is no contradiction, you may not know what a contradiction is...@@KombatKompanion-yd2cu
When humans build... when animals build things, as well... there is, can be... damage to the environment that results in the ending of life, and the harming other beings, but such activity is essential to the survival of those doing the building. Only an extreme pessimist, and I would say a stupid and obstinate person... would claim such harm " immoral, " and this person is essentially railing against the nature of existence itself; which I'd consider immoral in and of itself, as it, this kind of " thinking... " when acted upon/applied thru force... actually results in harm and the ending of life with intention...
He is. He does not consider the possibility of experiences a future person could have. His ideas of nipping pain in the bud also nips pleasure in the bud. Abortion ethics are fine, but there’s something about his utilitarianism that is genuinely close to eugenics even without resorting to the same sentimental intuitions that his detractors have committed to.
@@dionysianapollomarx Yes I am 100% pro abortion but that’s because I believe in the autonomy of the human subject. His analysis forgets that human beings are subjects and are indeed objects, like when he said recently that he regrets caring for his dying mother because she was going to die anyway and he should’ve just let her go and done more productive things.
I don't think first order ethical systems have incommensurable features. There's no incoherency in deontologists adopting a rule that we should kill newborns for instance. In fact, if one is also an antinatalist, this might be a plausible principle they would follow.
I think the time for debate is over. We will not experiment on humans because I have decided we won’t. I don’t care if I’m right. You’ll desist and live according to what I have established because I said so, Mr. Singer. It’s that simple.
I think part of what causes so much outrage among people who don't like what Singer argues is that many people who are not utilitarians use utilitarian arguments to justify certain moral positions which they hold that they could not otherwise justify. And by Singer showing them the logical conclusion of utilitarianism, he's sort of removing the plausibility of utilitarian justifications for these speciously held moral positions.
I don't think utilitarianism implies that infanticide isn't always immoral lol
@ferdia1405 Not in itself, but if you use a utilitarian argument to justify killing animals for meat, e.g., then it's a blatant contradiction to then say that infanticide is always immoral. But people nonetheless want to have a deontological conception of human life, and a utilitarian conception of animal life. And Singer shows the absurdity of this. That's sort of a crude example of what I was talking about, but hopefully you get the idea.
@@ferdia748If the baby is destined to have a miserable life due to a chronic disease, maybe.
@@markusoreos.233 a chronic disease, sure, but depends on the disease. But how are we to judge the experience of someone yet to be born or who has been born but yet to grow into a person? My issue with Singer is his views on disability, especially in the first part of this video, but I’m not sure how that translates to the rest of his ideas and books. Should we kill an infant that has been diagnosed with Down’s syndrome or autism? To our eyes, the child might be suffering. But is it not the case that, if we accommodate the child’s condition in an environment conducive to their well-being, that we would have better results. Instead of preventing pain by preventing a life from experiencing anything altogether, wouldn’t it be best to just minimize unwanted pains and maximize the pleasures they can find? My issue isn’t so much his use of utilitarian arguments. I may not have read him enough for me to say this, but I don’t think he sorts disabilities by degrees nor does he consider the judgment or even the experiences of the future person. It’s very top down. The first bit of the video made me realize how close some of his ideas about infanticide are to eugenics. At the very least, his first articulation was ableist.
I do like his ideas on abortion ethics. His ideas on moving experimentation towards basically human or even infant vegetables. But I don’t think he’s made the same move towards a comatose non-human animal.
I have criticised Peter Singer for avoiding the shark debate: "This is the guy who spent his whole life rationalising values to suit the greater good, only to change his mind when faced with the uncomfortable decision of his mother’s passing, finally conceding that; ”Perhaps it is more difficult than I thought before, because it is different when it’s your mother.” I guess that is the problem with many intellectuals. Enamoured by the rational mind, they lose touch with their very humanity."
I dont know very much about peter singer can you tell the story about his ethics changing because his mom died. (im typing this before seeing the video if that matters)
@@harzroller9862 If you search for: ”Perhaps it is more difficult than I thought before, because it is different when it’s your mother”, you'll see there are a few articles about it.
@@KombatKompanion-yd2cu Thanks for that. I see your point. My disappointment with Peter Singer stems from his failure to weigh in on the shark debate. I have written extensively on the topic and in one article criticised him and two young academics who care little for shark attack victims, siding instead with sharks. My political views are largely motivated by this experience, and my philosophy has evolved accordingly to value the human individual (as opposed to animals and groups identities).
@@KombatKompanion-yd2cu Do you mean if I had to choose between the two when only one can survive? On the face of it, I would choose the horse. But, I wouldn't want the family of the deceased to find out.
I find your response here rather disingenuous considering your response to me concerning how the explications of philosophers show issues to be " complex " and not " simple. "
I'll give you a bit to see, given the position you have taken... why, when considering philosophical positions generally, their complexity if you will... you have refuted yourself by the simple, loaded question ( to take the life of a brain dead person or a healthy horse) you posed above...@@KombatKompanion-yd2cu
Seems to be a reductio of some kind. Almost like he’s asking us to not even bother being human.
@Philosophy Overdose there was a full version of this documentary, wasn’t it?
People don't know the difference between formal philosophical evaluation and the usual sort of polemical advocacy.
what documentary is this excerpted from?
The various clips come from "A Dangerous Mind".
@@wholelottanothing2 Yes
I see nothing wrong with his arguments. Euthanasia should be possible when one can not lead a dignified life. What's a dignified life is debatable. But to let someone suffer immensely without possibility of recovery, even if it's just a little baby, is morally wrong. That life should be terminated.
I don't view your life as dignified. What now?
So then I ask why on a baby is wrong?
Wrong. And your opinion isn’t binding so thank you for sharing but it doesn’t matter.
Sure. But he’s also arguing for infanticide on a baby who is not yet a person. He is excluding a future person who might be able to judge whether or not they’ve had a dignified life. By cutting a life short of the ability to grow to be able to make that judgement, he’s neglected what a person could be. He’s not even talking about a fetus being likely to have a disability, but rather a disabled newborn. His argument is close to, but not quite, eugenicist.
We really can't say much about another's experience--there are numerous cases where non-verbal babies with multiple disabilities respond to the world around and can even laugh. Perhaps we cannot think of existing that way; but there is no reason to think another person cannot. Most of us cannot think of living like Hitler either but that does not mean that he didn't live... We really have no solid framework for what a dignified life means. Also, it's strange that this man has qualms about his mother's passing but thought his newborns were less than "persons"--his personal experience too is quite inconsistent...
More people understand Peter Singer's thinking than ever before. Fortunately, like other great moral reformers before him, Peter Singer is becoming less and less controversial.
Hey, the point about utilizing irrecoverably vegetative patients for medical research is really poignant. I agree. Before any objections I'd like to add that I'd sign a permission to do this to "me", or rather my body.
Yes it is natural to poignant about this at first glance..but sadly we are just our bodies
This shouldn't be a topic that religion or philosophy alone could explore for answers but Peter's argument totally IGNORES the fact that it is not outsiders but that individual whatever the age should be the one who decides it in general. That is only part of this issue but it is rather arrogant for anyone to impose his her idea upon wider society as the only acceptable notion specially in a topic where LIFE AND DEATH is the outcome. Who are you to decide the the time of death of any human life unless one is a murderer to put it plainly ?!
How did this guy got into Princeton deserves it's own documentary.
I guess Peter Singer is a presentist. This is not a judgement
@@KombatKompanion-yd2cu I think Derek Parfit would be the opposite, claiming the future self has equal amounts of rights as the present self. So more an eternalist view. I wondered, maybe you know: did Parfit 'steal' Singers argument, or the other way around? The one about more people being better than fewer people (A, A+ and B society)
He must be related to Margret.
Now the generous man have a plan to kill.
I see very little in this video I would disagree with.
Even when a human being has no consciousness we need to treat them with respect. That means how we talk about them too. We should respect all life, but we draw a line around humans just as we treat our own family in a special way.
The problem with Singer's utilitarianism is that he doesn't differentiate moral rules from moral ideals. Moral rules, such as do not harm others and do not murder, are not optional, they are compulsory. If you opt out from these rules you should be treated as an outlaw. Respecting and honouring people is a moral ideal it isn't a requirement. If you are disrespectful, you will get judgemental reactions from others but disrespect does not deserve punishment in the same way that deliberately injuring or killing a person would be considered a punishable offence. Morality is about drawing a line. On one side are all the many things that we are permitted to do. These are far too numerous to detail. On the other side are the few things that we are forbidden to do. We need this line in order for human society to function.
Fwiw I don't value respect or dignity. I don't think these are particularly useful concepts as moral rules or social norms. Of course, they're going to have their applicability when in the context you frame murder as disrespectful and not murdering as respectful. But I think the more ordinary usage of these terms, including "dignity" as a feeling or "respect" as an attitude of reverence or subservience you take to a person in a position of authority are just plain stupid. We also don't need the aforementioned concepts to frame more extreme circumstances like murder - we can just defer to "Don't cause a lot of suffering," which I think is a far better principle than "don't disrespect others."
@@KombatKompanion-yd2cu , that's a good question. We need to draw a line somewhere, and it works best to draw it around humans as a whole. There are lots of grey areas where it is not clear whether a human is a person, because of factors like consciousness. There are plenty examples of people in coma who came back to consciousness. There is the fact that people in a permanent coma once had a life, and have loved ones. All reasons for keeping a certain sense of respect for these people. We respect who we are, we draw a line to include even dysfunctional, or non-functioning members of our species, because to not draw the line universally to all humans leads to different forms of exclusion such as eugenics, genocide, "ethnic cleansing", caste systems, slavery, the many many ways that humans have exploited each other.
@@DaKoopaKing Sorry, it appears that the way I stated things gave you the wrong impression. I first mentioned "respect" because Singer's statements came across as disrespectful to me. But that's not my main criticism of Singer. My main criticism is that he doesn't differentiate between the moral rules and moral ideals. I then gave "respect" as an example of a moral ideal. Moral rules are obligatory. If they are broken they call for punishment. Moral ideals are optional but encouraged. Another moral ideal is to help others in need. If you don't help others when it is not onerous to do so, people may disapprove of you but it wasn't obligatory for you to do so.
So you're a fan of Herr Kant?
@@johnmanno2052 you bet I am, although I disagree with Kant that you can derive morality from reason alone. That's pulling a rabbit out of a hat. I also don't think that the universality of morality comes from self-legislation. Moral rules are basically universal agreements.
What appeal to a necrophile doesn't appeal to a pedophile? In fact, if we delve into our lawful obscenity of nakedness today, body as sex is mostly welcomed by all necrophilic customs, sciences, religions, and what pedophiles would insatiably dissatisfy is of length.
Lol well said.
((Australian)) 😂
As one that studies philosophy relentlessly, the worst thing about philosophers is how they make the simple complicated!
How about this : Don't harm ANYTHING out of malice !!
The reality of existence makes it impossible not to harm things, just don't harm with malicious intent... it seems to me!!
Yeah... like I said...@@KombatKompanion-yd2cu
If I walk on a track after a rain, I am walking to keep myself fit, the nature of existence means that worms will be on the track!
I try to avoid them, but I cannot possibly avoid them all.
I may try to throw a few off of the track.
However, the essence of existence on this planet and the interplay of life, makes it impossible for me not to step on... and end the life of many of those worms!
My intent is to avoid and not kill or injure them, but it is impossible, again, due to the nature of existence and the collision of life forms... and each one's particular behaviors.
I have done nothing immoral...
If I walk on the track and gleefully step on every worm I can, and end their lives and injure them.... to me.... I am being immoral!
Get it!
Now apply that example to other areas....like an interaction with your friend, partner... whomever.
There is no contradiction, you may not know what a contradiction is...@@KombatKompanion-yd2cu
When humans build... when animals build things, as well... there is, can be... damage to the environment that results in the ending of life, and the harming other beings, but such activity is essential to the survival of those doing the building.
Only an extreme pessimist, and I would say a stupid and obstinate person... would claim such harm " immoral, " and this person is essentially railing against the nature of existence itself; which I'd consider immoral in and of itself, as it, this kind of " thinking... " when acted upon/applied thru force... actually results in harm and the ending of life with intention...
This should be common sense but he’s surrounded by such ignorance
Utilitarianism went out of favor as a moral theory in the 19th century.
I think Singer is a great example of why utilitarianism is an intrinsically violent bourgeois ethical system
😂 L
He is. He does not consider the possibility of experiences a future person could have. His ideas of nipping pain in the bud also nips pleasure in the bud. Abortion ethics are fine, but there’s something about his utilitarianism that is genuinely close to eugenics even without resorting to the same sentimental intuitions that his detractors have committed to.
@@dionysianapollomarx Yes I am 100% pro abortion but that’s because I believe in the autonomy of the human subject. His analysis forgets that human beings are subjects and are indeed objects, like when he said recently that he regrets caring for his dying mother because she was going to die anyway and he should’ve just let her go and done more productive things.
I don't think first order ethical systems have incommensurable features. There's no incoherency in deontologists adopting a rule that we should kill newborns for instance. In fact, if one is also an antinatalist, this might be a plausible principle they would follow.
I think the time for debate is over. We will not experiment on humans because I have decided we won’t. I don’t care if I’m right. You’ll desist and live according to what I have established because I said so, Mr. Singer. It’s that simple.
Oooo! Neat! Another lizard person. 😃
@@KombatKompanion-yd2cu Pure Blood here, baby. I’ve no interest in your putrid compounds.
We need to experiment on Rather.
That was brilliant