วีดีโอ

Einfach legändär

DAMBISA MOYO IS FROM ZAMBIA. NEVERTHELESS THANKS FOR THIS EXPLANATION. IS WAS SIMPLE AND STRAIGHT FORWARD

It would a law that could be universalizable not universal

I do not think the way African Americans Amare treated in the Deep South is over and it is and was not just in the Deep South

Should be taught in grade school. Start out on the right foot has much higher chances at success. We teach career based education and ignore life based education. So has to be expected results is today's world.

There are many religions and its sides below things...Nowadays social and other pressure are rising...This is not good.

thanks for this series!!!

Gandhi also had racist attitudes and slept in a bed naked with his underage relative at least once

What about the downside of grain?

My objection with regards to consideration of equal interests is who gets to decide what's in the best interest of animals. I mean not so long ago in my country of South Africa, high quality education was nit considered necessary or even in the best interest of non-Whites

I didn’t know this was only 4 mins lol. I was already so hooked in the lesson

Russia is poor in internet access in comparison to the United States due to its isolated internet. Through military alliances we can fully globalize the internet and send resources that people in those countries need, to them.

Singer is a rock star!

Never give up

Successfully game theory strategies for a species to survive makes morality objective?

A great debate on this issue. Atheist Vs Christian: Do Ethics Depend On God? - Apologia th-cam.com/video/6fNhK0SXW1I/w-d-xo.html

The bible says that God is Good. So if you think god told you something that isn't good... like murdering someone innocent, then you're hearing something that isn't from God. So this ends up being a circular debunking that doesn't hold weight. God is Love, so if you attempt to do something that violates the natural rights of someone else, it isn't from God. (Natural Rights originated in Christian morality) God's commandments are what underlie the Western Tradition. So you can't say that humans who don't murder is somehow good... but at the same time the objective standard that underlies all of these Western traditions that we love is somehow invalid. This is why wise thinkers who weren't religious still respected the Bible. You don't need to be religious to understand the wisdom in it's message. Then you just need to verify the history that He lived, Died, and rose from the dead. That's something that's falsifiable, Christianity is not a blind faith. If others claim they have faith, it's not an issue. There are ways of proving if their religion is true or not. Atheist Vs Christian: Do Ethics Depend On God? - Apologia th-cam.com/video/6fNhK0SXW1I/w-d-xo.html

<3

thank you so much

It's really disappointing that this video has so few views. Thanks for trying to bring more attention to this topic.

Really? Maybe not everyone agreed with slavery tho? So if some people didn't, it was possible to oppose it in that culture and that time. I bet the slaves didn't condone slavery.

speciesism: In the animal rights movement, “speciesism” normally refers to the belief that all species of animal life are fundamentally equal. This view is an extremist position, bordering on pathological, as it contradicts basic principles of biological science and applied ethics (see Chapter 12 of this “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity” to properly understand both meta-ethics and normative ethics). Anybody who believes that all animal species are equal in moral value will not be able to sustain that view when confronted with the option of destroying the life of either a gnat or that of a fellow human being. Equality is non-existent in this relative sphere, with the possible exception of equality in abstract concepts such as mathematics (for instance, 1+1 is precisely equal to 2), and arguably on the atomic and quantum levels (for example, two hydrogen atoms are essentially identical, as are two gluon subatomic particles). English psychologist, Richard D. Ryder, who coined the term, defined it as “a prejudice or attitude of bias in favour of the interests of members of one’s own species and against those of members of other species”. This is a truly INANE philosophical position, because it is normal for a member of any particular species of animal to have a natural in-group preference for individuals of its own species. For example, if a pack of wolves was hunting a family of deer, why would one of the deer encourage a family member to run in the direction of the wolves? That would be counterintuitive and detrimental to the deer’s own species. If a race of superior aliens was to take-over the world, what kind of Homo sapiens would assist the aliens to conquer our own planet? Only a human who is mentally deranged, I would posit, unless that human believes that the destruction of humanity would be truly beneficial to the planet. Therefore, to claim that it is immoral for a human to be biased towards his own species in certain circumstances, is blatantly erroneous, just as it is fallacious to claim that one should not be biased in favour of one’s gender or race in specific cases. I have a particularly hilarious ANECDOTE in regards to this insane, delusional “philosophy”: an Englishman I befriended on a social media website informed me that he would gladly sacrifice his life for the life of a cockroach that may be killed in the home of a vegan who believes that it is morally-justifiable to exterminate vermin. And just in case one may believe that he was not actually serious, I can assure the reader that he was indeed serious in his statement. I know him quite well, and because his understanding of both metaethics and normative ethics is poor, he truly would sacrifice himself for a mere insect (although, I cannot imagine that he would actually go through with the deed if the situation presented itself to him - such is the nature of hypocritical, egalitarian leftists). Therefore, according to the definitions of “speciesism” given above, I, the author of this Holiest of Holy Scriptures, am exceedingly proud to be among those SANE vegans who consider my own species to be of greater moral value than the life of a microbe or a fly. This does not imply that I would wantingly destroy the life of an inferior animal simply for the fact that it is not human, but that I would most definitely choose to destroy the life of an animal of another species in the case of self-defence, in order to survive a famine, or to protect my food supply, all of which adheres to the correct definition of the word “vegan”. As a general rule, one ought not exterminate vermin from one’s home or workplace if one is unwilling to kill the animal with one’s bare hands. In my particular case, for example, I am completely comfortable smacking a mosquito or an ant that is crawling on my skin, but I could never bring myself to catch a rodent with my hands and bash it to death with my fists. Rather, I would prefer to trap it in a cage and release it. So, obviously, I would never (and could never, at least psychologically) murder a cow or a pig, even if I was dying of starvation. Therefore, according to the law (“dharma”, in Sanskrit), the rule that ought to be followed is that the higher the species (on the evolutionary scale), the more morally-valuable it is. I am certain that you, the reader, would instinctively attempt to rescue a dog or a rabbit over a drowning insect or lizard. Of course, it is not implied that every human intuition is morally-correct, yet in that particular case, it indeed conforms to authentic dharma. Incidentally, this pyramidical hierarchy of animal sentience/consciousness applies WITHIN the human species too. See the subsections regarding moral dilemmas and the ethics of abortion in Chapter 12, where, in the latter subsection, it is mentioned that the life of an embryo is not as morally-valuable as that of a five year-old child. It seems blatantly obvious to me that the typical person, when confronted with the choice of rescuing either a five year-old child or a batch of one hundred frozen embryos, would immediately and instinctively decide to save the five year-old child. Cf. “vegan” and “sentience”.

Very interesting video! Unfortunately it seems to end rather abruptly, is the full version available elsewhere?

I believe the person in this video is peter singer not Thomas pogge.

Did any else notice. There wasn't an answer as what the sherriff should lynch the one to save the five?🤔😊

Utilitarianism vs Deontolgy vs Virtue Ethics. Trolley Dilemma.

Bottom line - Nature reproduces by growing sperm and eggs in animals, and then triggering powerful chemicals in their brains that drive them to copulate. If at ANY point you consciously interrupt the process, you are pro-choice. If you think interrupting the process shortly after copulation is murder, then so is abstinence. The anti-choice movement is totally arbitrary and inconsistent. And please don't tell me there is a god who doesn't like abortion. If there is a god, he gives little kids cancer and other monstrous diseases, slowly torturing them to death in ways that would make Torquemada cringe.

Life is a right, not a duty.

Indeed, I am equally as baffled.