Peter Singer's lukewarm views on the support of students for Palestine and Palestine itself makes me wonder if that grneration is more committed to their idea of a two state solution than what is and has always been the most just solution: the dismantling of Zionism and the unification of Palestine from the river to the sea.
On anti-speciesism I think Peter Singer can't be argued against. He is a very smart and sensible man and one of the best minds out there. If I ever where to put one single person in charge of decisions, he would surely be among my first picks. On Israel-Palestine, though, I think he cannot be entirely objective, understandably due to his nationality and ethnicity. When he says people on the Israeli side are not as extremist has Hamas, I think he fails to see how people like Ben Givr and Netanyahu himself with his Amalekh references have more or less openly called for ethnic cleansing and murder of civilians. How the IDF itself has been extensively reported to be executing civilians in cold blood. How a majority of the Israeli public is in favour of not letting humanitarian aid in Gaza. That, in my view, is no less extreme than what Hamas says. Hamas, though, at least has in part an excuse, namely being the breed born of a population living in oppression and captivity, with a low HDI, poor economic indicators. What excuse do the Israel zealots have, when they live in one of the most economically and technologically advanced countries on earth, with available education, travel, powerful passports and connection to thriving international communities? I think Israel govt is currently behaving even worse than Hamas. I have to give Singer a lot of credit for the following, though: -comparing the college protesters to civil rights movements like MLK -comparing a diplomatic approach towards Palestinian militant groups to South Africa freeing Mandela (which is not a minor thing to do, considered the parallels that can be drawn with regards to the state of apartheid in place). Surely a voice like his would do a lot of good on Israel-Palestine as well. But it is quite clear he is trying to stay away from expressing too persional on an opinion there. That's why your question "What would you do if Bibi resigned and put you in charge?" was a great one to ask. Well done on this contribution, thank you.
@@HellPatrol92 speciesism: British psychologist, Richard Hood Jack Dudley 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”. Consequently, ANTI-SPECIESISM seems to be an egalitarian position, similar to the ideology of anti-racism, which (at least in the minds of the vast majority of humans) advocates for the fundamental equality of all races and ethnicities. In the animal rights movement, “speciesism” normally implies 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). Opposition to speciesism is a truly INANE philosophical position, because, according to the principle of dharma (see that entry in this Glossary), it is normal, natural, and necessary for a member of any particular species of animal to have a preference for individuals of its own species. The negation or the suppression of in-group preference, especially in the case of humans’ preference for members of their own species in survival situations, is adharmic (i.e. unlawful), even if a higher species of life was to threaten our own species. For example, if a pack of wolves was hunting a herd 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 was mentally deranged, I would posit, unless that human believed that the destruction of humanity would be TRULY beneficial to the planet (and even then, the typical human would seriously question the sanity of that individual, as it is seems to contradict common civility). Therefore, to claim that it is immoral for a human being to be biased towards those of his own species in most every circumstance, is blatantly erroneous, just as it is fallacious to assert that one should not be partial towards one’s gender or race in specific cases. If you happened upon a lion or a tiger mauling a fellow human being who was attacking the cat’s family, would you consider that big cat to be evil, immoral, or simply wrong in its behaviour towards the human? Most probably not, because if you were sufficiently wise and intelligent, you would realize that the lion or the tiger was merely acting on its natural in-group instinctual preferences. On the contrary, in fact - if any non-human animal was to assist a Homo sapiens to attack its own family members, one would be fully warranted in assuming that the animal was afflicted with some kind of psychological abnormality! Thus, speciesism is JUSTIFIED. I have a particularly hilarious ANECDOTE in relation 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 wantonly 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. “veganism”; “sentience”. In summary, speciesism (as defined by the Englishman who coined the term, as well as those fools who accede to his objectively-evil “philosophy”, such as my fellow countryman, The Devilish Doctor Peter Singer) is a legitimate, sane and rational position to hold. However, if Dr. Ryder had included the clause, “Speciesism is an UNJUSTIFIED prejudice or attitude of bias in favour of the interests of members of one’s own species...” in his definition of the word, it would hold a completely legitimate tenor.
@@TheWorldTeacherI don't think you report correctly what specism and antispeciesism are about in the general understanding of the word. Your definition it too literal. Very few people would argue that a homo sapiens equals a dog equals a chimp equals a scrabble equals a parrot. Speciesm is the baseless discrimination against certain species based on how they are useful (or not) to us, by drawing arbitrary and unscientific lines between said species. It is the belief system that draws a line between homo sapiens and all other animals, with no scientific basis, thus justifying any kind of abuse against other animals so long as it benefits homo sapiens in the slightest. This irrational belief stretches to include animals we consider useful or that we appreciate: for example, everyone you ask opposes the Yulin Dog Meat festival in China, where animals are crammed in tiny cages, brutally slaughtered and killed. Yet, most of those people are OK with the exact same happening to pigs. Now, pigs are as smart and sentient as dogs, there is no scientific basis whatsoever to claim one is superior to the other. That's speciesm at work: dog = cute homo sapiens' friend, pig = food. That's not rooted in biology, only in our social conventions. Science tells us that, while all animals vary in terms of different types of intelligence, every single mammal (and most likely every single hot-blooded animal, and possibly even fish) have the same nervous system: they elaborate basic emotions such as fear, distress, and pain alike. Breaking a pig's leg generates the same amout of suffering it does breaking a human's. And all mammals are individuals, with individual and peculiar characters; everyone who has ever had a companion animal ranging from dogs to cats to rats to goats and pigs knows that. To put an imaginary wall between us two-legged apes and all others is limiting and rooted in what humanity has been doing with regards to other peoples and ethnicities: most humans have considered other ethnicities to be sub-humans or not humans at all. That's the same type of poison at work now. Being anti-speciesist means being opposed to that. That does not prevent us from admitting humans have a privilege in certain areas that we can put to good use. I will spay my rescue rats and bring them to the vet in their best interest because i'm better equipped than them to make that call, but I'm never torturing a pig while petting a dog.
Nothing to say against antisemitism? Nothing about the call to Israel destruction (From the river to the sea)? Very disappointing, neutral and prudent intervention...
@lizaa6145, there's a lot that needs to be said. This conversation about Israel is a short one. Maybe if I speak with Peter Singer again, we'll get more into the details.
Peter Singer's lukewarm views on the support of students for Palestine and Palestine itself makes me wonder if that grneration is more committed to their idea of a two state solution than what is and has always been the most just solution: the dismantling of Zionism and the unification of Palestine from the river to the sea.
On anti-speciesism I think Peter Singer can't be argued against. He is a very smart and sensible man and one of the best minds out there. If I ever where to put one single person in charge of decisions, he would surely be among my first picks.
On Israel-Palestine, though, I think he cannot be entirely objective, understandably due to his nationality and ethnicity. When he says people on the Israeli side are not as extremist has Hamas, I think he fails to see how people like Ben Givr and Netanyahu himself with his Amalekh references have more or less openly called for ethnic cleansing and murder of civilians. How the IDF itself has been extensively reported to be executing civilians in cold blood. How a majority of the Israeli public is in favour of not letting humanitarian aid in Gaza. That, in my view, is no less extreme than what Hamas says. Hamas, though, at least has in part an excuse, namely being the breed born of a population living in oppression and captivity, with a low HDI, poor economic indicators. What excuse do the Israel zealots have, when they live in one of the most economically and technologically advanced countries on earth, with available education, travel, powerful passports and connection to thriving international communities? I think Israel govt is currently behaving even worse than Hamas.
I have to give Singer a lot of credit for the following, though:
-comparing the college protesters to civil rights movements like MLK
-comparing a diplomatic approach towards Palestinian militant groups to South Africa freeing Mandela (which is not a minor thing to do, considered the parallels that can be drawn with regards to the state of apartheid in place).
Surely a voice like his would do a lot of good on Israel-Palestine as well. But it is quite clear he is trying to stay away from expressing too persional on an opinion there. That's why your question "What would you do if Bibi resigned and put you in charge?" was a great one to ask.
Well done on this contribution, thank you.
Thank you, @HellPatrol92. These are great insights!
@jakenewfield Thank YOU!
It rare to see a thoughtful and respectful debate on these issues these days.
@@HellPatrol92
speciesism:
British psychologist, Richard Hood Jack Dudley 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”.
Consequently, ANTI-SPECIESISM seems to be an egalitarian position, similar to the ideology of anti-racism, which (at least in the minds of the vast majority of humans) advocates for the fundamental equality of all races and ethnicities.
In the animal rights movement, “speciesism” normally implies 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).
Opposition to speciesism is a truly INANE philosophical position, because, according to the principle of dharma (see that entry in this Glossary), it is normal, natural, and necessary for a member of any particular species of animal to have a preference for individuals of its own species. The negation or the suppression of in-group preference, especially in the case of humans’ preference for members of their own species in survival situations, is adharmic (i.e. unlawful), even if a higher species of life was to threaten our own species.
For example, if a pack of wolves was hunting a herd 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 was mentally deranged, I would posit, unless that human believed that the destruction of humanity would be TRULY beneficial to the planet (and even then, the typical human would seriously question the sanity of that individual, as it is seems to contradict common civility).
Therefore, to claim that it is immoral for a human being to be biased towards those of his own species in most every circumstance, is blatantly erroneous, just as it is fallacious to assert that one should not be partial towards one’s gender or race in specific cases.
If you happened upon a lion or a tiger mauling a fellow human being who was attacking the cat’s family, would you consider that big cat to be evil, immoral, or simply wrong in its behaviour towards the human? Most probably not, because if you were sufficiently wise and intelligent, you would realize that the lion or the tiger was merely acting on its natural in-group instinctual preferences. On the contrary, in fact - if any non-human animal was to assist a Homo sapiens to attack its own family members, one would be fully warranted in assuming that the animal was afflicted with some kind of psychological abnormality! Thus, speciesism is JUSTIFIED.
I have a particularly hilarious ANECDOTE in relation 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 wantonly 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. “veganism”; “sentience”.
In summary, speciesism (as defined by the Englishman who coined the term, as well as those fools who accede to his objectively-evil “philosophy”, such as my fellow countryman, The Devilish Doctor Peter Singer) is a legitimate, sane and rational position to hold. However, if Dr. Ryder had included the clause, “Speciesism is an UNJUSTIFIED prejudice or attitude of bias in favour of the interests of members of one’s own species...” in his definition of the word, it would hold a completely legitimate tenor.
You are either insane or dishonest if you claim that Israel is as extremist as Hamas.
@@TheWorldTeacherI don't think you report correctly what specism and antispeciesism are about in the general understanding of the word. Your definition it too literal.
Very few people would argue that a homo sapiens equals a dog equals a chimp equals a scrabble equals a parrot.
Speciesm is the baseless discrimination against certain species based on how they are useful (or not) to us, by drawing arbitrary and unscientific lines between said species. It is the belief system that draws a line between homo sapiens and all other animals, with no scientific basis, thus justifying any kind of abuse against other animals so long as it benefits homo sapiens in the slightest.
This irrational belief stretches to include animals we consider useful or that we appreciate: for example, everyone you ask opposes the Yulin Dog Meat festival in China, where animals are crammed in tiny cages, brutally slaughtered and killed. Yet, most of those people are OK with the exact same happening to pigs. Now, pigs are as smart and sentient as dogs, there is no scientific basis whatsoever to claim one is superior to the other. That's speciesm at work: dog = cute homo sapiens' friend, pig = food. That's not rooted in biology, only in our social conventions.
Science tells us that, while all animals vary in terms of different types of intelligence, every single mammal (and most likely every single hot-blooded animal, and possibly even fish) have the same nervous system: they elaborate basic emotions such as fear, distress, and pain alike. Breaking a pig's leg generates the same amout of suffering it does breaking a human's. And all mammals are individuals, with individual and peculiar characters; everyone who has ever had a companion animal ranging from dogs to cats to rats to goats and pigs knows that.
To put an imaginary wall between us two-legged apes and all others is limiting and rooted in what humanity has been doing with regards to other peoples and ethnicities: most humans have considered other ethnicities to be sub-humans or not humans at all. That's the same type of poison at work now.
Being anti-speciesist means being opposed to that. That does not prevent us from admitting humans have a privilege in certain areas that we can put to good use. I will spay my rescue rats and bring them to the vet in their best interest because i'm better equipped than them to make that call, but I'm never torturing a pig while petting a dog.
Nothing to say against antisemitism? Nothing about the call to Israel destruction (From the river to the sea)? Very disappointing, neutral and prudent intervention...
@lizaa6145, there's a lot that needs to be said. This conversation about Israel is a short one. Maybe if I speak with Peter Singer again, we'll get more into the details.
Outline:
00:00 - Introductions
01:00 - Israel vs Palestine
10:35 - Debate on Speciesism (human vs animal rights)
Very nice by Peter Singer
Peter Singer is great!
@@jakenewfield 👍 I only listened to the speciecism part though
@@MidzyID1 What did you think?
@@jakenewfield I was surprised how good his argument against speciecism is but sad that almost noone will act on it
@@MidzyID1 I agree!