The Ethical Use of Biotechnology: Debating the Science of Perfecting Humans
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 มี.ค. 2009
- Michael Sandel, the Anne T. and Robert M. Bass Professor of Government at Harvard University, and Peter Singer, the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University, opened the 2008-09 Amherst College Colloquium Series (ACCS) with a lecture titled The Ethical Use of Biotechnology: Debating the Science of Perfecting Humans
![[MPD직캠] 베이비몬스터 직캠 8K 'FOREVER' (BABYMONSTER FanCam) | @MCOUNTDOWN_2024.7.11](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ylRx8QOuGXo/mqdefault.jpg)
This was a wonderful debate. It's a shame that the longer, more indepth debates rarely get much attention.
Thank you very much for posting this debate, it is very enlightning
Brillant debate. Thank you very much for posting this.
This is the most satisfying debate I’ve ever watched! My two favorite philosophers are talking about philosophy, and they seem to be having a great time, which made me smile too. Goodness, I love this video so much. I hope there are more debates like this!
A great debate, too short!!
Very interesting!
But did they do the suggested debate too??
Well that's a cliffhanger without some link or description of the source you have this from!
Aside from an amazingly valid conversation. 1:12:00 clearly a man who didn't want to admit he'd seen a Rambo III
I suppose the utilitarian view of morality is the most modest and basic one. I, one the other hand, and I believe Sandel and Kant with me, find this modesty objectionable when it doesn't derive all the answers we seek. Respect and Honesty, say: we urge that these are included in the moral calculus for their own worth, regardless if these are principles that maximise happiness. I am not as fervent in this as Kant. I find utilitarianism persuasive at times, and you make the better case for it!
Sweetly delivered, Sir! Thanks. =)
"Theory typically uses the assumption that we probably have too many ethical ideas, some of which may well turn out to be mere prejudices. Our major problem now is actually that we have not too many but too few, and we need to cherish as many as we can" - Bernard Williams
There is no weight to an argument saying that something is "intrinsically wrong", unless the person making it is the messiah or something. There has to be a rational argument for a certain ethic. As soon as there is an explanation for an ethic, it no longer is "intrinsic".
Singer has recently stated that he is leaning towards the idea that pleasure/happiness, not preference satisfaction, should be maximized.
Sandel is so good here oh my god
"We hold life to be sacred, but we also know the foundation of life consists in a stream of codes not so different from the successive frames of a watchvid. Why then cannot we cut one code short here, and start another there? Is life so fragile that it can withstand no tampering? Does the sacred brook no improvement?"
@chikmagnet7
But what would a "sound argument that homosexuality were wrong" even look like? On what grounds could any argument be dismissed?
The fact that Singer's utilitarian provides falsifiable claims on morality is a good thing. All good evidence must be falsifiable. You might not like that it could potentially lead to homosexuality being considered immoral, but it doesn't make his ethical system worse. I think it makes it better.
Utilitarianism doesn't rely on the level of intrinsicness or arbitrariness that others do. Sure, it assumes that suffering is bad (which nobody really objects to), but it uses rationality to derive its axioms with that presumption, rather than skipping that whole step and simply saying "homosexuality is wrong" based on no further argument.
Just like a math problem, the best argument is the one that relies on the simplest, least questionable assumptions.
I know that this kind of language is not appropiate here but i can't help but thinking that Singer kills his opponent here. His consistency is amazing!
That people make specific claims like 'homosexuality is intrinsically wrong' does not invalidate or lessen the act of 'claiming' things such as that at all. I believe that our best approach to morality is by subscribing to the best values, the first of them, and the most fundamental, being the utilitarian 'happiness over suffering', but not the only one. Whereby someone chooses a bad 'intrinsic value' does not say anything about the rightness of choosing good ones.
I think several people her are confusing "intuition" with emotion or even superstition. Sandel is asking for deeper ethical reflection.
Thank you
Singer was clearly the most rational debater here. He didn't just rely on intuitions or perceptions of "perversion" like Sandel did. He also successfully answered Sandel's challenges.
I find Singer's arguments much more forceful than Sandel's appeal to ill-defined intrinsic values.
After all, people claim things like "homosexuality is intrinsically wrong". The utilitarian view pulls the rug out from these claims. It provides a reasonable and intuitive framework to judge actions ethically.
@artfulgoat really? name calling?
ok
All of morality must be based off of something 'intrinsic' or 'arbitrary', if you will. You cannot find a book of morality if you study science unless you hold at least one ultimate axiom of morality: say, that principly happiness should be pursued above suffering. You have to subscribe to this fundamental law arbitrarily, because there is no more fundamental law from which we can derive this from.
Sandel brought up a few interesting points but I think he was relying too much on intuition.
No offense but the one professor is rude as hell for non-stop interrupting the other professor like just stop for a minute and let him speak bruhh.
Looking back, I should refute my embarrassing badthinking from long back... I said this in a comment to this video:
"I suppose the utilitarian view of morality is the most modest and basic one. I, one the other hand, and I believe Sandel and Kant with me, find this modesty objectionable when it doesn't derive all the answers we seek."
That's not allowed ! You can't derive a moral theory based on what answers you'd like it to produce. You are deriving a moral theory in order so that it can give you the answers, not to fit in with the 'answers' you already have, given to you by birth, chance and wishful thinking.
That is also why most of the 'refutations' of utilitarianism are silly. The refutation shows an answer that utilitarianism produces, and then claims that utilitarianism is false based on how they feel about the answer. Unless morality simply is whatever we feel is moral, then that approach is unjustiable. The answers the theory of utilitarianism produces must be accepted if utilitarianism is a sound moral theory. If utilitarianism is true, then we ought to feed the utility monster, we ought to hook up to the experience machine and we ought to feed the Christians to the lions. These answers don't refute anything, they just show us what we ought to do.
Excellent points, for the most part! Although, I would say that preference utilitarianism is still superior to hedonistic utilitarianism. I wouldn't want to, for instance, take a drug that provides me with ultimate happiness. Hedonistic utilitarianism states that I should, but preference utilitarianism states that I'm perfectly justified in not doing so.
While Singer has recently moved towards an objective, hedonistic utilitarian view, I don't think it was entirely justified. I agree with him on the objectivity aspect. I attempt to satisfy all of my preferences and, from the point of view of the universe - looking at the universe with my capacity for reasoning - I can observe that other people have preferences, and suffer, as well. Their suffering exists and their preferences exist - they are no less real than my own suffering and my own preferences. And, seeing as I cannot find a rational reason for treating others differently to myself, it follows that I ought not only to try to satisfy my own preferences, but to satisfy others' as well.
geniusofmozart "While Singer has recently moved towards an objective, hedonistic utilitarian view, I don't think it was entirely justified."
Do you have a source for this? I haven't heard anything about this change in his thought.
synchronium24
Search, in TH-cam, 'Peter Singer - The Point of View of the Universe' - you'll see a video by Adam Ford, an effective altruist. In it, Singer briefly discusses his reasons for changing his thoughts in the video and, for more expansion, I'd read his new book, 'The Point of View of the Universe'. I think I get the gist of his argument but I'm still far more convinced by preference utilitarianism. For the most part, though, his views are still virtually identical, seeing as preference and classical utilitarians agree on the majority of things apart from, say, whether we ought to take drugs that will give us blissful happiness. A preference utilitarian standpoint would respect the desire of an individual not to do so; I'm not sure a hedonistic viewpoint would.
geniusofmozart
Thanks, I'll start with watching the video you mentioned.
No
@chikmagnet7
Singer's approach provides at least the framework for using evidence in ethical disagreements.
If someone provided good reasons and evidence supporting the stance that "homosexuality is wrong", you would have to concede as well under your interpretation of Sandel's ethics, so I don't see the big deal here.
Arian NOOOO
Creeps