@@TorSmawbs Can you name a academic book or a peer-reviewed paper to base upon your opinion that he "misconstrues virtue ethics massively"? Did you dedicated any of your time to seriously study any of his publications?
@@TorSmawbs disagreed. Virtue ethics, most of the time, has to take on a pretty 'solid' idea of a being and thereby define its 'goal'. But with natural beings this always end up lacking. Pigs have been defines as beings 'meant' to be eaten, as theyre such perfect meat packets. But then, perhaps humans 'should' be eaten by crocodiles, as our shape just so perfectly fits in their mouth (I think it was Porphory that pointed this out). Furthermore evolution shows, as Singer explains, the impossibility of a 'species'. Even an individual, if we are being precise is almost undefinable. At most our different genes might be have their own teleologies, but even then... teleology is an artifact from times of gods and myths of 'higher' purpose, and I think that that Singer recognizes this.
Naive...😅 “What I relate is the history of the next two centuries. I describe what is coming, what can no longer come differently: the advent of nihilism! Nihilism stands at the door: whence comes this uncanniest of all guests? 1. Point of departure: it is an error to consider 'social distress' or 'physiological degeneration' or, worse, corruption, as the cause of nihilism. Ours is the most decent and compassionate age. Distress, whether of the soul, body, or intellect, cannot of itself give birth to nihilism (i.e., the radical repudiation of value, meaning, and desirability). Such distress always permits a variety of interpretations. Rather: it is in one particular interpretation, the Christian-moral one, that nihilism is rooted. 2. The end of Christianity-at the hands of its own morality (which cannot be replaced), which turns against the Christian God (the sense of truthfulness, developed highly by Christianity, is nauseated by the falseness and mendaciousness of all Christian interpretations of the world and of history; rebound from 'God is truth' to the fanatical faith 'All is false'; a Buddhism of inaction). 3. Skepticism regarding morality is what is decisive. The end of the moral interpretation of the world, which no longer has any sanction after it has tried to escape into some beyond, leads to nihilism. 'Everything lacks meaning' (the untenability of one interpretation of the world, upon which a tremendous amount of energy has been lavished, awakens the suspicion that all interpretations of the world are false). Buddhistic tendency, a kind of yearning for Nothing. (Indian Buddhism is not the culmination of a thoroughly moralistic development; its nihilism is therefore full of morality that is not overcome: existence as punishment, existence construed as error, error thus as a punishment- is a moral valuation.) 4. Philosophical attempts to overcome the 'moral God' (Hegel, pantheism). Overcoming popular ideals: the sage; the saint; the poet. The antagonism of 'true' and 'beautiful' and 'good'." ~ Friedrich Nietzsche (1888)
@@ConnorThompson-w2k lmfao! Yea. Especially considering how right he is, for you. But alas, he sees you, too: "No one quite lies the way the morally indignant do!"
@James-ll3jb How odd that Nietzsche denies the existence of any objective, timeless, non-perspectival truths, and yet he is "right" about his completely baseless and rhetorical attacks on morality! But I do suppose that, given you believe morality does not exist, you can spread as many false absurdities as you please, and do it with a clean conscience. Better yet, you can be a true Nietzschean, manifest your "Will to Power" and let the "weak perish" and unashamedly embrace your most base instincts. Thus, if you wanted to kill someone, let us say, and for no apparent reason, then why not go through with the act? After all, it would increase your strength, your "Will to Power," and since no moral value can be attributed to it, the only deterrent is lawful punishment, or the cowardice that inhibits transgression!
@@ConnorThompson-w2k lmfao. Nietzsche didn't DENY the EXISTENCE of "any objective, timeless, non-perspectival truths" per se! Rather, he is with current science on the matter (See Don Hoffman: ua-cam.com/video/ffgzkHCGZGE/v-deo.html) Your slanderous rant of total misapprehension of Nietzsche here is understandable, though. As he himself said, "No one quite LIES the way the morally indignant do!"
Pete repeatedly tells us what we get in moral philosophy etc is what we would expect from evolutionary theory. What he doesn't tell us is what we might reasonably expect if evolutionary theory were one day proved to be exaggerated at best and completely wrong at worst.
Agreeing or not with Singer, is undeniable his brilliancy and relevance for moral theory.
He misconstrues virtue ethics massively. But it was an informative talk otherwise.
@@TorSmawbs Can you name a academic book or a peer-reviewed paper to base upon your opinion that he "misconstrues virtue ethics massively"?
Did you dedicated any of your time to seriously study any of his publications?
@@TorSmawbs disagreed. Virtue ethics, most of the time, has to take on a pretty 'solid' idea of a being and thereby define its 'goal'. But with natural beings this always end up lacking. Pigs have been defines as beings 'meant' to be eaten, as theyre such perfect meat packets. But then, perhaps humans 'should' be eaten by crocodiles, as our shape just so perfectly fits in their mouth (I think it was Porphory that pointed this out).
Furthermore evolution shows, as Singer explains, the impossibility of a 'species'. Even an individual, if we are being precise is almost undefinable. At most our different genes might be have their own teleologies, but even then... teleology is an artifact from times of gods and myths of 'higher' purpose, and I think that that Singer recognizes this.
Naive...😅
“What I relate is the history of the next two centuries. I describe what is coming, what can no longer come differently: the advent of nihilism!
Nihilism stands at the door: whence comes this uncanniest of all guests?
1. Point of departure: it is an error to consider 'social distress' or 'physiological degeneration' or, worse, corruption, as the cause of nihilism. Ours is the most decent and compassionate age. Distress, whether of the soul, body, or intellect, cannot of itself give birth to nihilism (i.e., the radical repudiation of value, meaning, and desirability). Such distress always permits a variety of interpretations. Rather: it is in one particular interpretation, the Christian-moral one, that nihilism is rooted.
2. The end of Christianity-at the hands of its own morality (which cannot be replaced), which turns against the Christian God (the sense of truthfulness, developed highly by Christianity, is nauseated by the falseness and mendaciousness of all Christian interpretations of the world and of history; rebound from 'God is truth' to the fanatical faith 'All is false'; a Buddhism of inaction).
3. Skepticism regarding morality is what is decisive. The end of the moral interpretation of the world, which no longer has any sanction after it has tried to escape into some beyond, leads to nihilism. 'Everything lacks meaning' (the untenability of one interpretation of the world, upon which a tremendous amount of energy has been lavished, awakens the suspicion that all interpretations of the world are false). Buddhistic tendency, a kind of yearning for Nothing. (Indian Buddhism is not the culmination of a thoroughly moralistic development; its nihilism is therefore full of morality that is not overcome: existence as punishment, existence construed as error, error thus as a punishment- is a moral valuation.)
4. Philosophical attempts to overcome the 'moral God' (Hegel, pantheism).
Overcoming popular ideals: the sage; the saint; the poet.
The antagonism of 'true' and 'beautiful' and 'good'."
~ Friedrich Nietzsche (1888)
Damn Nietzsche and his pathological meta-ethical pontification
@@ConnorThompson-w2k lmfao! Yea. Especially considering how right he is, for you. But alas, he sees you, too:
"No one quite lies the way the morally indignant do!"
@James-ll3jb How odd that Nietzsche denies the existence of any objective, timeless, non-perspectival truths, and yet he is "right" about his completely baseless and rhetorical attacks on morality! But I do suppose that, given you believe morality does not exist, you can spread as many false absurdities as you please, and do it with a clean conscience. Better yet, you can be a true Nietzschean, manifest your "Will to Power" and let the "weak perish" and unashamedly embrace your most base instincts. Thus, if you wanted to kill someone, let us say, and for no apparent reason, then why not go through with the act? After all, it would increase your strength, your "Will to Power," and since no moral value can be attributed to it, the only deterrent is lawful punishment, or the cowardice that inhibits transgression!
@@ConnorThompson-w2k lmfao. Nietzsche didn't DENY the EXISTENCE of "any objective, timeless, non-perspectival truths" per se! Rather, he is with current science on the matter (See Don Hoffman: ua-cam.com/video/ffgzkHCGZGE/v-deo.html)
Your slanderous rant of total misapprehension of Nietzsche here is understandable, though. As he himself said, "No one quite LIES the way the morally indignant do!"
@James-ll3jb What is this nonsense you have linked me to. Nothing to do with Nietzsche. You clearly don't know what day it is. What a waste of time.
Pete repeatedly tells us what we get in moral philosophy etc is what we would expect from evolutionary theory. What he doesn't tell us is what we might reasonably expect if evolutionary theory were one day proved to be exaggerated at best and completely wrong at worst.